Scan barcode
Reviews
How the World Really Works: A Scientist's Guide to Our Past, Present and Future by Vaclav Smil
bookreviews1's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
slow-paced
3.75
bupdaddy's review against another edition
5.0
Smil uses real numbers and objective analysis to see where we're going.
It's pretty bad.
It's not extinction (for us), but we're not getting away from fossil fuels anytime soon. There's just no way. And even if there were a way, the countries of the world couldn't cooperate to get it done.
We're causing a mass extinction, but the only realistic way to avoid going over the climate cliff is for each human to use a lot less energy.
A depressing but important read.
It's pretty bad.
It's not extinction (for us), but we're not getting away from fossil fuels anytime soon. There's just no way. And even if there were a way, the countries of the world couldn't cooperate to get it done.
We're causing a mass extinction, but the only realistic way to avoid going over the climate cliff is for each human to use a lot less energy.
A depressing but important read.
josh_paul's review against another edition
4.0
Smil comes off a bit grumpy, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.
blairconrad's review against another edition
2.0
The numbers given in the book may be fine, but the writing is so bad as to be actively hostile. Impossible to parse sentences, rambling, etc. Nearly DNF several times.
thejdizzler's review against another edition
2.0
This was an extremely frustrating book. For someone who claims that we need to have humility when thinking about the future, Vaclav Smil comes across as arrogant and surprisingly poorly informed. Where do I even start...
1). Decarbonization. While Smil is correct that we can't decarbonize as fast as green pundits claim, he also makes predictions for increasing carbonization across the global south. This will prove to be impossible, because of the realities of peak oil (which happened in 2018) and the economics of increasingly expensive energy extraction. Smil mentions this but somehow doesn't put two and two together? In the early days of 2022, these predictions have not aged well.
2). Nuclear. Nuclear is no more a solution to our energy issues than fossil fuels. It will be depleted in the next 100 years, and if we scale up usage, significantly faster. There are also significant issues with waste, and the general problem of electrification. Smil acknowledges all of these facts, but advocates for nuclear anyway?
3). Veganism. This one was the most annoying to me. Smil claims plant-based diets are not necessarily more healthy by looking at life expectancy in Spain and Japan and contrasting their diets, claiming that meat consumption tracks lifespan increases. He fails to take into account time lag (people eating meat rich diets now will only become sick later in life), and throws out a ton of great studies (7th day adventists, china study) because he doesn't like nutrition research. Talk about arrogance. Oh and get this: calls for more milk consumption in Africa. Despite the fact that most of the continent is lactose intolerant. And adult milk consumption is unnatural and unhealthy. What bullshit.
4). Organic Agriculture: Smil claims that we can't get enough nitrogen from organic sources to grow adequate food to support our population. This is not true. Ecology action ( John Jevons How to Grow more vegetables) has shown that we can support one person on 4,000 square feet on a vegan diet, which is about 30 people per hectare. Current global needs are 5 people per hectare. And this is without humane (specifically urine) recycling. Again: ignorance.
5). Dismissal of catastrophists: While Smil is again correct that catastrophists have been repeatedly wrong, he fails to adequately dismiss their actual arguments (rather just relying on dismissing their claimed end dates). How will we deal with key mineral (metals and fossil fuel) shortages, as well as degradation of farmland and natural waste sinks like forests and wetlands? While I agree the doomers are incorrect, Smil's emphasis on business as usual fails to take into account the very real shortages in material goods and energy that we are facing, and will face.
1). Decarbonization. While Smil is correct that we can't decarbonize as fast as green pundits claim, he also makes predictions for increasing carbonization across the global south. This will prove to be impossible, because of the realities of peak oil (which happened in 2018) and the economics of increasingly expensive energy extraction. Smil mentions this but somehow doesn't put two and two together? In the early days of 2022, these predictions have not aged well.
2). Nuclear. Nuclear is no more a solution to our energy issues than fossil fuels. It will be depleted in the next 100 years, and if we scale up usage, significantly faster. There are also significant issues with waste, and the general problem of electrification. Smil acknowledges all of these facts, but advocates for nuclear anyway?
3). Veganism. This one was the most annoying to me. Smil claims plant-based diets are not necessarily more healthy by looking at life expectancy in Spain and Japan and contrasting their diets, claiming that meat consumption tracks lifespan increases. He fails to take into account time lag (people eating meat rich diets now will only become sick later in life), and throws out a ton of great studies (7th day adventists, china study) because he doesn't like nutrition research. Talk about arrogance. Oh and get this: calls for more milk consumption in Africa. Despite the fact that most of the continent is lactose intolerant. And adult milk consumption is unnatural and unhealthy. What bullshit.
4). Organic Agriculture: Smil claims that we can't get enough nitrogen from organic sources to grow adequate food to support our population. This is not true. Ecology action ( John Jevons How to Grow more vegetables) has shown that we can support one person on 4,000 square feet on a vegan diet, which is about 30 people per hectare. Current global needs are 5 people per hectare. And this is without humane (specifically urine) recycling. Again: ignorance.
5). Dismissal of catastrophists: While Smil is again correct that catastrophists have been repeatedly wrong, he fails to adequately dismiss their actual arguments (rather just relying on dismissing their claimed end dates). How will we deal with key mineral (metals and fossil fuel) shortages, as well as degradation of farmland and natural waste sinks like forests and wetlands? While I agree the doomers are incorrect, Smil's emphasis on business as usual fails to take into account the very real shortages in material goods and energy that we are facing, and will face.
davidpomerenke's review against another edition
3.0
A mindblowing introduction to how important fossil fuels have been and still are, especially as fertilizers in agriculture (ammonium), and also for the production of plastics, cement, and steel.
I would only recommend chapters 1 & 2, which focus on these fossil energy issues, and where the author is actually an expert; and perhaps chapter 3 on the other materials. The other chapters on the biosphere, globalization, risk, and our longterm outlook are superficial and uninteresting. (The remarks on nutrition seem overly arrogant and anti-scientific, the author's focus on blue zones does not make methodical sense to me, and recent research has thoroughly debunked that approach [1].)
Due to the dependence on ammonium and the other materials (and their expected growth in Asia and especially Africa), the author argues that it will be impossible for decades to become carbon-neutral. This is actually in line with the IPCC, whose carbon neutrality scenarios are based on negative emissions technologies, many of which do not (yet) exist.
While the book is really informative about ammonium, it leaves open many questions about the other materials: Are there alternative ways for producing plastics? Does steel production chemically rely on fossils, or only energy-wise? How realistic is it to capture and store the emissions from cement production? And: Could nuclear power still play a significant role in the otherwise very difficult energiewende?
[1]: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/704080v2.full
I would only recommend chapters 1 & 2, which focus on these fossil energy issues, and where the author is actually an expert; and perhaps chapter 3 on the other materials. The other chapters on the biosphere, globalization, risk, and our longterm outlook are superficial and uninteresting. (The remarks on nutrition seem overly arrogant and anti-scientific, the author's focus on blue zones does not make methodical sense to me, and recent research has thoroughly debunked that approach [1].)
Due to the dependence on ammonium and the other materials (and their expected growth in Asia and especially Africa), the author argues that it will be impossible for decades to become carbon-neutral. This is actually in line with the IPCC, whose carbon neutrality scenarios are based on negative emissions technologies, many of which do not (yet) exist.
While the book is really informative about ammonium, it leaves open many questions about the other materials: Are there alternative ways for producing plastics? Does steel production chemically rely on fossils, or only energy-wise? How realistic is it to capture and store the emissions from cement production? And: Could nuclear power still play a significant role in the otherwise very difficult energiewende?
[1]: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/704080v2.full
lportx's review against another edition
5.0
I found the whole book fascinating, but it's worth picking up just to read he chapters on the environment and prognosticating the future. Amazing and worth reading!
sailorthemoon's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
1.0
This one was not for me. I guess some of it was the fault of translation as some sentences were really hard to read. But even then, there was a lot of repetition throughout the book.