Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.72 AVERAGE
3.72 AVERAGE
The book is written in a way that not other books about this sort were written. I enjoyed reading and knowing those small facts in the beginning of the book which doesn’t directly relate to the topic but used in order to explain author’s intention of the book. I felt the author’s efforts and struggle the whole time I was reading the book. I can relate to some of it but it also makes it difficult to really relate to the climate change itself. I found it very difficult to understand what’s going on in the chapter “IV. Dispute with the soul”. I felt like I was reading one of his fictional novels even though this is non-fiction book. I wonder how great the effect this book could have to people like me. In the end, I think his other book, Eating Animals had much more impact on my thoughts about the environment and animal factory farming than this book. All I could say is that this is not an ordinary book about climate change.
This book wasn't perfect but it did encapsulate to me why I want to eat plant-based: as a means not only to keep myself healthy or protect animal rights, but in order to not be a hypocrite and practice what I preach about doing my part in our planet's crisis. Not giving into American consumer culture is essential to making a difference for the planet, and a HUGE part of that comes from meat and dairy industries that profit off of making some populations obese while others starve and struggle under the repercussions of animal agriculture. How could I want to eat a Thanksgiving turkey again when I know that our collective ignorance is what's killing us? I would rather be socially isolated in my food and meal choices than be a hypocrite and let big money win.
-the collective sacrifices of Americans in WWII showed solidarity and collective action... are we capable of this kind of solidarity today? As covid-19 has shown, likely not imo...
-Climate change is so underrated even in activist communities and in art because it bores the human mind. We were not meant to be alarmed by conceptual threats, such as the threat of climate change.
-the climate crisis is one of culture, belief, and the imagination...
-96% of American families gather for a Thanksgiving meal. It is there and it is what we do. The collective action occurs because structures and social norms encourage it, whereas structures exist to discourage other collective actions such as voting on election day. :( wtf
-We are capable of changing norms and behaviors, but we do so rather poorly. This is exemplified by smoking. The rate in the US has halved over the decades, but smokers are still 3x more likely to die of cancer than nonsmokers. Funnily enough, those with diets high in animal protein are 4x more likely to die of cancer than those with diets low in animals protein.
-For everyone to live like an American we would need at least 4 earths. FOUR.
-We have been in an ecological debt since the 1980s.
We cannot go about our lives as if they are only ours.
Our planet is an animal farm.
Geez 1 out of 5 meals in the US are is eaten in a car. Our eating is really messed up.
Animal agriculture drives deforestation and the argument that we should ditch Earth and find life on Mars... instead of, you know, giving up animal agriculture.
Changing how we eat will not be enough in itself to save the planet, but the planet cannot be saved without changing how we eat. There are only two reactions to climate change: resignation or resistance.
4 highest impact things an individual can do to tackle climate change:
-plant-based diet (eat animal products only one meal per day if you do)
-avoid air travel as much as possible
-live car-free as much as possible
-have fewer children
*the author does not go into the idea of smart consumption/buying less - but that could easily be one of these I think
The entire species threatens itself with mass suicide by choosing resignation on the issue of the climate crisis. Choosing death has become more convenient than choosing life. We have let short term pleasure trump long term survival and conditions.
-the collective sacrifices of Americans in WWII showed solidarity and collective action... are we capable of this kind of solidarity today? As covid-19 has shown, likely not imo...
-Climate change is so underrated even in activist communities and in art because it bores the human mind. We were not meant to be alarmed by conceptual threats, such as the threat of climate change.
-the climate crisis is one of culture, belief, and the imagination...
-96% of American families gather for a Thanksgiving meal. It is there and it is what we do. The collective action occurs because structures and social norms encourage it, whereas structures exist to discourage other collective actions such as voting on election day. :( wtf
-We are capable of changing norms and behaviors, but we do so rather poorly. This is exemplified by smoking. The rate in the US has halved over the decades, but smokers are still 3x more likely to die of cancer than nonsmokers. Funnily enough, those with diets high in animal protein are 4x more likely to die of cancer than those with diets low in animals protein.
-For everyone to live like an American we would need at least 4 earths. FOUR.
-We have been in an ecological debt since the 1980s.
We cannot go about our lives as if they are only ours.
Our planet is an animal farm.
Geez 1 out of 5 meals in the US are is eaten in a car. Our eating is really messed up.
Animal agriculture drives deforestation and the argument that we should ditch Earth and find life on Mars... instead of, you know, giving up animal agriculture.
Changing how we eat will not be enough in itself to save the planet, but the planet cannot be saved without changing how we eat. There are only two reactions to climate change: resignation or resistance.
4 highest impact things an individual can do to tackle climate change:
-plant-based diet (eat animal products only one meal per day if you do)
-avoid air travel as much as possible
-live car-free as much as possible
-have fewer children
*the author does not go into the idea of smart consumption/buying less - but that could easily be one of these I think
The entire species threatens itself with mass suicide by choosing resignation on the issue of the climate crisis. Choosing death has become more convenient than choosing life. We have let short term pleasure trump long term survival and conditions.
I liked the concept and thoughts behind this book. Goer offers a lot of insightful information and a starting place that I think a lot of people could get on board with. However, the book as a whole is a bit strange. Somewhere in the midst of reading, the author seems to unravel and the reader is entreated to the the authors debated thought process of presenting their premises for the book and how it will be received. Unfortunately, it takes away from the rest of the book and puts a damper on it.
I got a lot out of this book, and many concepts had me nodding my head and saying ‘yes, that makes a lot of sense’ or ‘yes, that’s tangible’ and I think had the book been better written, it would have a more profound effect on its readers. After many years from initially reading, I continue to think about this book and the things I’ve learnt about individual to collective change. It’s possible, but there also needs to be the right spark.
I got a lot out of this book, and many concepts had me nodding my head and saying ‘yes, that makes a lot of sense’ or ‘yes, that’s tangible’ and I think had the book been better written, it would have a more profound effect on its readers. After many years from initially reading, I continue to think about this book and the things I’ve learnt about individual to collective change. It’s possible, but there also needs to be the right spark.
La narrazione di Oldani secondo me aggiunge molto alla stesura del libro (una stella va di diritto a lui).
Published at such a good time!
#globalclimatestrike
#globalclimatestrike
This is a sometimes beautiful, mostly interesting mess of a book that says some important things about our complicity in climate change and our ability to make different, difficult choices in the face of that change.
«L'unica dicotomia che conta è quella tra chi agisce e chi non agisce». Il primo insegnamento che colgo da questo importante libro è che abbiamo passato già troppo tempo a stare dietro ai negazionisti del cambiamento climatico. Tanto per capirci, come dice Safran Foer, «solo il 14 percento degli americani nega il cambiamento climatico, vale a dire una percentuale nettamente inferiore a quella di chi nega l'evoluzionismo o che la Terra orbiti intorno al Sole. Il 69 percento degli elettori americani - compresa la maggioranza dei repubblicani - ritiene che gli Stati Uniti sarebbero dovuti rimanere nell'Accordo di Parigi sul clima».
Quindi il problema non sta nell'essere convinti o meno dell'esistenza del problema. Sta nelle cose da fare. Jonathan Safran Foer, come si capisce dal titolo, ha una proposta piuttosto convincente. Intervenire su ciò che mangiamo.
Sull'impatto che il nostro sistema di alimentazione ha sul clima ci sono due posizioni molto lontane. Secondo uno studio commissionato dalla FAO, l'industria alimentare produce circa il 15% dei gas serra totali. Secondo un altro redatto per conto della WorldWatch, questa percentuale è addirittura del 51%. Safran Foer è incline a prendere per buona questa seconda stima e nella parte finale del libro spiega bene perché. Ma anche il dato FAO, chiamiamolo così, ci dice quanto l'ìmpatto di ciò che mangiamo sia devastante, sul nostro clima.
Quindi certo, prendiamocela con Trump che boicotta ogni sforzo per abbattere le emissioni di gas serra e che rilancia l'anacronistica industria del carbone. Malediciamo pure Bolsonaro che non protegge l'Amazzonia (anzi). Ma teniamo presente che le piante dell'Amazzonia vengono quasi sempre rase al suolo per far spazio ad animali che poi, alla fine, mangiamo noi.
Quindi il problema non sta nell'essere convinti o meno dell'esistenza del problema. Sta nelle cose da fare. Jonathan Safran Foer, come si capisce dal titolo, ha una proposta piuttosto convincente. Intervenire su ciò che mangiamo.
Sull'impatto che il nostro sistema di alimentazione ha sul clima ci sono due posizioni molto lontane. Secondo uno studio commissionato dalla FAO, l'industria alimentare produce circa il 15% dei gas serra totali. Secondo un altro redatto per conto della WorldWatch, questa percentuale è addirittura del 51%. Safran Foer è incline a prendere per buona questa seconda stima e nella parte finale del libro spiega bene perché. Ma anche il dato FAO, chiamiamolo così, ci dice quanto l'ìmpatto di ciò che mangiamo sia devastante, sul nostro clima.
Quindi certo, prendiamocela con Trump che boicotta ogni sforzo per abbattere le emissioni di gas serra e che rilancia l'anacronistica industria del carbone. Malediciamo pure Bolsonaro che non protegge l'Amazzonia (anzi). Ma teniamo presente che le piante dell'Amazzonia vengono quasi sempre rase al suolo per far spazio ad animali che poi, alla fine, mangiamo noi.
I love this man's mind, and everything his mind creates. It is not a likable book, but I loved it. Essential reading and essential lifestyle changing.
To get the negatives out of the way first: We Are The Weather lacks direction. There is way too much of Jonathan Safran Foer requesting absolution, and there are way too many strange metaphors that are teased over multiple chapters without ever being fully examined or developed. I felt at times like he was sharing a secret joke with me, knowing that I didn't get it, but magnanimous enough to pretend that I did so that my pride would be saved.
Also there's very little about breakfast. Or dinner. Overall.
But the book is compulsively readable, especially for non-fiction (and I generally enjoy non-fiction).
It's interesting that the author focuses so heavily on his inability to truly believe, be motivated, and be called to action. It's interesting (to me) because I picked up his first book on the subject, Eating Animals, a handful of years ago because of that same inability. I rationally understood and was well-informed (thanks to a phase of obsession with documentaries about the food industry) about factory farming, animal treatment and the effect of animal products on the environment. I understood, but didn't feel moved to DO anything, and I wanted Eating Animals to shock and horrify me until I was truly ready to give up my mom's bulgogi for the rest of my life. It did not. Yet I bought this book just yesterday for basically the same reason. I eat way more plant-based than before these days after a slow and steady process of change whose centerpiece was allowing me to have mom's bulgogi when I go home. But I wondered if this book would convince me to take a more radical step. And it wasn't until Part IV, where Safran Foer has a long and somewhat whiny conversation with (presumably) his rational soul, that I started wondering why motivation is necessary or important in the first place. For my own changes, it wasn't a sudden flood of inspiration but a long exposure to information. I'm still thinking about this and that made the read worth it to me.
Also there's very little about breakfast. Or dinner. Overall.
But the book is compulsively readable, especially for non-fiction (and I generally enjoy non-fiction).
It's interesting that the author focuses so heavily on his inability to truly believe, be motivated, and be called to action. It's interesting (to me) because I picked up his first book on the subject, Eating Animals, a handful of years ago because of that same inability. I rationally understood and was well-informed (thanks to a phase of obsession with documentaries about the food industry) about factory farming, animal treatment and the effect of animal products on the environment. I understood, but didn't feel moved to DO anything, and I wanted Eating Animals to shock and horrify me until I was truly ready to give up my mom's bulgogi for the rest of my life. It did not. Yet I bought this book just yesterday for basically the same reason. I eat way more plant-based than before these days after a slow and steady process of change whose centerpiece was allowing me to have mom's bulgogi when I go home. But I wondered if this book would convince me to take a more radical step. And it wasn't until Part IV, where Safran Foer has a long and somewhat whiny conversation with (presumably) his rational soul, that I started wondering why motivation is necessary or important in the first place. For my own changes, it wasn't a sudden flood of inspiration but a long exposure to information. I'm still thinking about this and that made the read worth it to me.