Scan barcode
angelsrgorgeous's review against another edition
1.0
I picked up this book most interested in following the trail of bio-prospecting, hearing about some of the field's successes, some predictions for it’s future impact on medicine, pharmaceuticals, etc.
While I expected this book to be great, I was let down by the author's writing style and focus in some sections.
The entire first half of the book was disappointingly dedicated to convincing me that the preservation of bio-diversity is a noble cause. At the most, I expected a section focused on this to fill 10 pages at the most, but I feel that half the book is ridiculously excessive. I picked up the book because I already understand that bio-diversity is positive and absolutely necessary. I feel that people who generally agree with this will probably be the only people to pick up this book. Drilling these basic concepts into the ground actually caused me to put the book down several times, rolling my eyes.
About halfway through the book is where it starts to get good. I recommend reading the second half, while only skimming the first if you already hold the “biodiversity is necessary” opinion.
Overall, what bothered me most were the consistent conclusions the author stated - almost out of thin air, which he then left hanging. Unsupported, unexplored, and therefore irresponsible conclusions bother me. I find them insulting. This method of "indoctrination" was employed consistently through the book. It was so prevalent that while I agree with the author on almost all except the most liberal of his ideas, I still felt used and disrespected as a reader.
As an example, the writer consistently feels that one study can "prove" a particular conclusion. I personally feel that many of the conclusions supporting environmental preservation are adequately supported by responsible, peer-reviewed research that has held up under repeated studies. Why not reference these studies, and reference them responsibly? Somehow, the author chooses instead to sometimes rely on single studies, claiming their proof of "causal" relationships that, truly, do not show causal relationships at all. At best, many of the studies he cites show correlations, but I feel some studies are completely unrelated to the conclusions he draws from them.
Ex:
Author's Conclusion: Human beings came from / evolved in the Savanna.
Study that supposedly "proves" this: A well-known psychological study in which hospital patients require less painkillers when staying in a room with a window to view the outside. Drawing connections like this is irresponsible and insulting to the reader.
Even if I give him the benefit of the doubt, assuming that I read / understood this part of the book wrong, this study was, in the least, cited as support of this conclusion, which I still find absolutely ridiculous. The study sited shows exactly what is stated – that those in hospital rooms with windows generally tend to require less pain medication. Attaching this to some distant concept is exactly the sort of quasi-science reporting that is most often exhibited in shoddy journalism, not in books by Harvard-employed scientists. I expected more.
In closing, if you read this book, keep your eyes open. You may enjoy it, and some parts are quite good, just be aware of when he is trying to sell a personally drawn conclusion to you, and react accordingly.
While I expected this book to be great, I was let down by the author's writing style and focus in some sections.
The entire first half of the book was disappointingly dedicated to convincing me that the preservation of bio-diversity is a noble cause. At the most, I expected a section focused on this to fill 10 pages at the most, but I feel that half the book is ridiculously excessive. I picked up the book because I already understand that bio-diversity is positive and absolutely necessary. I feel that people who generally agree with this will probably be the only people to pick up this book. Drilling these basic concepts into the ground actually caused me to put the book down several times, rolling my eyes.
About halfway through the book is where it starts to get good. I recommend reading the second half, while only skimming the first if you already hold the “biodiversity is necessary” opinion.
Overall, what bothered me most were the consistent conclusions the author stated - almost out of thin air, which he then left hanging. Unsupported, unexplored, and therefore irresponsible conclusions bother me. I find them insulting. This method of "indoctrination" was employed consistently through the book. It was so prevalent that while I agree with the author on almost all except the most liberal of his ideas, I still felt used and disrespected as a reader.
As an example, the writer consistently feels that one study can "prove" a particular conclusion. I personally feel that many of the conclusions supporting environmental preservation are adequately supported by responsible, peer-reviewed research that has held up under repeated studies. Why not reference these studies, and reference them responsibly? Somehow, the author chooses instead to sometimes rely on single studies, claiming their proof of "causal" relationships that, truly, do not show causal relationships at all. At best, many of the studies he cites show correlations, but I feel some studies are completely unrelated to the conclusions he draws from them.
Ex:
Author's Conclusion: Human beings came from / evolved in the Savanna.
Study that supposedly "proves" this: A well-known psychological study in which hospital patients require less painkillers when staying in a room with a window to view the outside. Drawing connections like this is irresponsible and insulting to the reader.
Even if I give him the benefit of the doubt, assuming that I read / understood this part of the book wrong, this study was, in the least, cited as support of this conclusion, which I still find absolutely ridiculous. The study sited shows exactly what is stated – that those in hospital rooms with windows generally tend to require less pain medication. Attaching this to some distant concept is exactly the sort of quasi-science reporting that is most often exhibited in shoddy journalism, not in books by Harvard-employed scientists. I expected more.
In closing, if you read this book, keep your eyes open. You may enjoy it, and some parts are quite good, just be aware of when he is trying to sell a personally drawn conclusion to you, and react accordingly.
cosmicpool's review against another edition
5.0
Beautiful writing, an incisive portrait for its time. I think the sections that most struck me were about invasive species and bioprospecting.
I didn't have as concrete an appreciation for how much the natural landscape I have experienced in my lifetime has changed in the last century or so. To wit:
(1) The European starling was only introduced to the United States in 1890 by a guy who wanted to introduce all the birds mentioned in the plays of William Shakespeare to North America. (His attempts to introduce bullfinches, chaffinches, nightingales, and skylarks were not successful.)
(2) Kudzu was introduced to the United States from Japan in 1876 at the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia and was cultivated by Civilian Conservation Corps workers as a solution for the erosion during the Dust Bowl.
(3) The chestnut blight was accidentally introduced to North America around 1904 and wiped out most mature trees by 1940. Before that time, the species made up a large percentage of hardwood trees in the Appalachian Mountains, were extremely large for species in the eastern U.S., and were the primary timber used in the region.
The most salient nugget from the section on bioprospecting was the origin of the polymerase chain reaction method and the key role of an enzyme isolated from an extremophile bacterium found in hot springs in Yellowstone National Park.
I didn't have as concrete an appreciation for how much the natural landscape I have experienced in my lifetime has changed in the last century or so. To wit:
(1) The European starling was only introduced to the United States in 1890 by a guy who wanted to introduce all the birds mentioned in the plays of William Shakespeare to North America. (His attempts to introduce bullfinches, chaffinches, nightingales, and skylarks were not successful.)
(2) Kudzu was introduced to the United States from Japan in 1876 at the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia and was cultivated by Civilian Conservation Corps workers as a solution for the erosion during the Dust Bowl.
(3) The chestnut blight was accidentally introduced to North America around 1904 and wiped out most mature trees by 1940. Before that time, the species made up a large percentage of hardwood trees in the Appalachian Mountains, were extremely large for species in the eastern U.S., and were the primary timber used in the region.
The most salient nugget from the section on bioprospecting was the origin of the polymerase chain reaction method and the key role of an enzyme isolated from an extremophile bacterium found in hot springs in Yellowstone National Park.
uderecife's review against another edition
3.0
I didn’t want to pass the opportunity to review a book I have read and that gave me more food for thought in an increasing understanding of how important is the issue treated on this book.
If you are familiar with Edward O. Wilson’s work, you don’t need much to understand its subject matter, for the title says it all: The Future of Life. And if you are aware of the ongoing pressure we humans have been putting against life’s continuation on this planet, this book will just be another reminder of how big a blow ours have been.
Published in 2003, the book hasn’t aged too well. Not that it contains incorrect information, it’s just that the many let’s say less optimistic predictions haven’t fared well with the accelerating downward trend the world has followed. So it’s not E. O. Wilson’s fault that we haven’t taken heed of his advice and that we, as a whole, continued to act blindly to warnings such as these.
If you are acquainted with E. O. Wilson’s work and you are pondering about reading this book, maybe you can devote your time to more recent publications, for maybe your time will be better spent. If you are new to the author, don’t waste your time here, and choose some other of his best known works, for this is not his best. In any case, if you enjoy E. O. Wilson’s writing style and the clear way he presents his subject matter, this book won’t weigh you down.
If you are familiar with Edward O. Wilson’s work, you don’t need much to understand its subject matter, for the title says it all: The Future of Life. And if you are aware of the ongoing pressure we humans have been putting against life’s continuation on this planet, this book will just be another reminder of how big a blow ours have been.
Published in 2003, the book hasn’t aged too well. Not that it contains incorrect information, it’s just that the many let’s say less optimistic predictions haven’t fared well with the accelerating downward trend the world has followed. So it’s not E. O. Wilson’s fault that we haven’t taken heed of his advice and that we, as a whole, continued to act blindly to warnings such as these.
If you are acquainted with E. O. Wilson’s work and you are pondering about reading this book, maybe you can devote your time to more recent publications, for maybe your time will be better spent. If you are new to the author, don’t waste your time here, and choose some other of his best known works, for this is not his best. In any case, if you enjoy E. O. Wilson’s writing style and the clear way he presents his subject matter, this book won’t weigh you down.
laughellacci's review against another edition
4.0
A compelling look at the consequences of human development on ecological diversity. Wilson is an outstanding writer that catalogs the great benefits that our complex ecosystems provide to the world and how various conservation efforts have been working to save them. He is very pragmatic about what kinds of solutions will work and makes the book very approachable as a result. He believes that everyone cares for the environment but proposes we all need to take action more cohesively if we want our future generations to experience anything close to what we have today.
jacq03's review against another edition
4.0
Outdated info 20 years later but the keys are relevant and important enough for this to be a necessary read to understand why conservation is crucial, where we are with it and where we can go.
forkdogforkfruit's review against another edition
5.0
This is the first book I have read by Edward O Wilson despite knowing of him and seeing many of his documentaries and being a fan of the E-textbooks that his foundation helped create for iBooks.
This is a very well written book which reads like seven essays each covering different aspects of conservationism. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading and gaining insights into such a sensitive subject and feel that most of the lessons in this book are still very poignant today even though this book was written and published around 12 years ago. I recommend this book for anyone who has a passing interest in conservation and feels that they wish to have their ideas challenged.
A wonderful thing that a learned from this book is that it is important to see both sides of a situation and to be careful when considering potential outcomes for the future.
This is a very well written book which reads like seven essays each covering different aspects of conservationism. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading and gaining insights into such a sensitive subject and feel that most of the lessons in this book are still very poignant today even though this book was written and published around 12 years ago. I recommend this book for anyone who has a passing interest in conservation and feels that they wish to have their ideas challenged.
A wonderful thing that a learned from this book is that it is important to see both sides of a situation and to be careful when considering potential outcomes for the future.