You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.98 AVERAGE
3.98 AVERAGE
challenging
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Es difícil ponerle nota a un ensayo, así que lo evalúo más por la construcción, la seriedad de las fuentes y la misma voz del autor.
Me gustó bastante, es cierto que la parte dos se hace pesada porque contiene mucha información y datos duros sobre los distintos temas que toca (aumento nivel del mar, sequía, incendios, etc). Sin embargo, se me hizo muy informativo aprender esas cosas y tener las fuentes para buscar más información si así lo quería.
La tercera parte funciona más como ensayo que la primera que parece casi un estado del arte de los doce temas tocados. Aquí vemos la opinión del autor mezclada con distintas fuentes sobre temas como la tecnología o la ética. No hay tanto en información, pero si en distintos análisis sobre las situaciones actuales y cómo se ven a futuro. Es bastante interesante y mucho más ágil y dinámico que la parte anterior.
Finalmente, termina con distintas perspectivas de nosotros en el cosmos que pueden resultar más o menos optimistas. Es curiosa la forma de verlo, porque mientras más antropocentrista es la mirada más poder tenemos sobre lo que ocurre y es justamente lo que necesitamos, no dejarnos morir y hacer algo al respecto.
Reitero que me gustó, es algo pesado en la segunda parte, pero fue donde más aprendí así que lo aprecio. Es un ensayo que no cae en ser fatalista, de hecho, a pesar de la preocupación del autor no es de los que dice que estamos perdidos, dentro de todo tiene fe en que podemos hacer algo (no evitarlo, porque ya comenzó, pero sí disminuir los daños) y eso es lo que necesitaba, porque soy bastante pesimista sobre el futuro y disfruté leer una visión optimista pero realista al respecto.
Me gustó bastante, es cierto que la parte dos se hace pesada porque contiene mucha información y datos duros sobre los distintos temas que toca (aumento nivel del mar, sequía, incendios, etc). Sin embargo, se me hizo muy informativo aprender esas cosas y tener las fuentes para buscar más información si así lo quería.
La tercera parte funciona más como ensayo que la primera que parece casi un estado del arte de los doce temas tocados. Aquí vemos la opinión del autor mezclada con distintas fuentes sobre temas como la tecnología o la ética. No hay tanto en información, pero si en distintos análisis sobre las situaciones actuales y cómo se ven a futuro. Es bastante interesante y mucho más ágil y dinámico que la parte anterior.
Finalmente, termina con distintas perspectivas de nosotros en el cosmos que pueden resultar más o menos optimistas. Es curiosa la forma de verlo, porque mientras más antropocentrista es la mirada más poder tenemos sobre lo que ocurre y es justamente lo que necesitamos, no dejarnos morir y hacer algo al respecto.
Reitero que me gustó, es algo pesado en la segunda parte, pero fue donde más aprendí así que lo aprecio. Es un ensayo que no cae en ser fatalista, de hecho, a pesar de la preocupación del autor no es de los que dice que estamos perdidos, dentro de todo tiene fe en que podemos hacer algo (no evitarlo, porque ya comenzó, pero sí disminuir los daños) y eso es lo que necesitaba, porque soy bastante pesimista sobre el futuro y disfruté leer una visión optimista pero realista al respecto.
challenging
informative
medium-paced
After picking this up once sometime in September before abandoning it for over a month, I've finally finished this book. The reason for that is simple: this was a depressing read. It highlights so many things that could go wrong with our planet if there's little to no action taken to mitigate climate change, and more often than not we find that most of the countries which are committed to minimizing their carbon footprint did not manage to achieve their target most of the time.
Furthermore, as the author emphasizes countless times throughout the book, the fight for climate change is a collective one and one that is more easily handled on a collective level, globally -- which means that for the solutions being undertaken to become effective, changes are required on the policy level. Given how hapless most of our governments are in the face of influence from wealthy corporations to hold off on these energy-saving policies, you can imagine why one would be depressed at the realization that humanity might be fighting a losing battle.
Personally, this is why I didn't find the book all that helpful by the end: After all the nightmare scenarios the author has put us through, there was really nothing in the book that offers some hint of optimism at how we all might contribute to fighting off the effects of global warming. Not only is the author an alarmist, he almost comes across as fatalistic, considering there are little to no insights as to what we can do to combat our current lethargy.
Anyway, if you're looking to read this, fair warning: while it's very effective in outlining the cause and effect and probable impact of global warming and climate change, it's not particularly useful in terms of providing guidelines on how to mitigate said changes. That would require further reading into the subject.
Rating: 3.75 (Informational, but too fatalistic for my taste)
Furthermore, as the author emphasizes countless times throughout the book, the fight for climate change is a collective one and one that is more easily handled on a collective level, globally -- which means that for the solutions being undertaken to become effective, changes are required on the policy level. Given how hapless most of our governments are in the face of influence from wealthy corporations to hold off on these energy-saving policies, you can imagine why one would be depressed at the realization that humanity might be fighting a losing battle.
Personally, this is why I didn't find the book all that helpful by the end: After all the nightmare scenarios the author has put us through, there was really nothing in the book that offers some hint of optimism at how we all might contribute to fighting off the effects of global warming. Not only is the author an alarmist, he almost comes across as fatalistic, considering there are little to no insights as to what we can do to combat our current lethargy.
Anyway, if you're looking to read this, fair warning: while it's very effective in outlining the cause and effect and probable impact of global warming and climate change, it's not particularly useful in terms of providing guidelines on how to mitigate said changes. That would require further reading into the subject.
Rating: 3.75 (Informational, but too fatalistic for my taste)
This book is way negative. Okay, there will be massive floods and devastating droughts, but what about the beautiful sunsets?
The book is a thriller for which I think I'm the intended audience.
I hate politics so much, and with all the emotional uproar I completely forgot about global warming. I needed a reminder. Wallace-Wells pointed out that we basically can't continue our current emission habits and expect the world to remain the same. Even if we stop all pollution right now, conditions would probably still worsen. That makes sense, he's most likely correct about that.
What I have a problem with is his fine New York Magazine journalism.
Fun fact, I was enrolled in a journalism class for one week and in that time I already managed to slip a couple of half truths into my news story. It might be a Stanford prison experiment-type phenomenon. People posing as prison guards take on the role and become mean, and people posing as journalists lie.
So I only fact checked one particular interesting claim that Wallace-Wells made so far, but that one claim turned out to be false. This is the quote: "Five years ago, hardly anyone outside the darkest corners of the internet had even heard of Bitcoin; today mining it consumes more electricity than is generated by all the world’s solar panels combined , which means that in just a few years we’ve assembled, out of distrust of one another and the nations behind “fiat currencies,” a program to wipe out the gains of several long, hard generations of green energy innovation."
The claim is totally off. Bitcoin mining uses only 10% of all solar energy produced. That's still a lot of energy, but I don't even know if I should keep reading reporting that can be so inaccurate. He also contradicts himself when he talks about the accuracy of climate models. No good.
Since people pointed out the Bitcoin issue to Wallace-Wells, he has told interviewers that the claim will be corrected in future editions of his book, so maybe I'll have to read those instead.
I hate criticizing authors, especially authors who write about this important issue, but this is so bad. He uses secondary sources. He doesn't go to the actual studies or talk to the researchers to help clarify some details, he just looks at the pop science site that summarizes the study. HOW ARE THESE PEOPLE GETTING BOOK DEALS? HOW? Don't you know that if people are already skeptical, you're just going to make it worse if you do poor reporting???
Global Warming should be feared, and actions must be taken by everyone to slow it down. However, I'd prefer it if my fears were at least based on primary sources.
The book is a thriller for which I think I'm the intended audience.
I hate politics so much, and with all the emotional uproar I completely forgot about global warming. I needed a reminder. Wallace-Wells pointed out that we basically can't continue our current emission habits and expect the world to remain the same. Even if we stop all pollution right now, conditions would probably still worsen. That makes sense, he's most likely correct about that.
What I have a problem with is his fine New York Magazine journalism.
Fun fact, I was enrolled in a journalism class for one week and in that time I already managed to slip a couple of half truths into my news story. It might be a Stanford prison experiment-type phenomenon. People posing as prison guards take on the role and become mean, and people posing as journalists lie.
So I only fact checked one particular interesting claim that Wallace-Wells made so far, but that one claim turned out to be false. This is the quote: "Five years ago, hardly anyone outside the darkest corners of the internet had even heard of Bitcoin; today mining it consumes more electricity than is generated by all the world’s solar panels combined , which means that in just a few years we’ve assembled, out of distrust of one another and the nations behind “fiat currencies,” a program to wipe out the gains of several long, hard generations of green energy innovation."
The claim is totally off. Bitcoin mining uses only 10% of all solar energy produced. That's still a lot of energy, but I don't even know if I should keep reading reporting that can be so inaccurate. He also contradicts himself when he talks about the accuracy of climate models. No good.
Since people pointed out the Bitcoin issue to Wallace-Wells, he has told interviewers that the claim will be corrected in future editions of his book, so maybe I'll have to read those instead.
I hate criticizing authors, especially authors who write about this important issue, but this is so bad. He uses secondary sources. He doesn't go to the actual studies or talk to the researchers to help clarify some details, he just looks at the pop science site that summarizes the study. HOW ARE THESE PEOPLE GETTING BOOK DEALS? HOW? Don't you know that if people are already skeptical, you're just going to make it worse if you do poor reporting???
Global Warming should be feared, and actions must be taken by everyone to slow it down. However, I'd prefer it if my fears were at least based on primary sources.
Labiausiai patiko antroji knygos dalis apie chaoso elementus, trečioji mažiau patiko. Pirmojoje apie kaskadas buvo labai daug faktų, skaičių, kuriuos perskaičius iškart juos pamiršti, bet palieka tokį baisų jausmą + parodo, kaip viskas yra tarpusavyje susiję.
Įsimintini dalykai iš knygos: klimato atšilimas lemia padidėjusią temperatūrą, tai reiškia, jog kai kuriose pasaulio vietose karštis bus toks didelis, kad ten nebebus galima gyventi. Taip pat daugėja gaisrų - ir jie trunka ilgiau ir būna stipresni, kol galiausiai gali būti taip, jog gaisrai tęstis be pertraukų (o žmonės Kalifornijoje turi baseinus, kad galėtų juose slėptis, kol jų namą siaubia gaisras). Taip pat kylanti temperatūra lemia ledynų tirpsmą - gali ištirpti visa Arktis bei net Europos Alpės bus be sniego kaip kad kokie Atlaso kalnai Afrikoje. Taip pat daugėja stichinių nelaimių, kurias tuoj vadinsime įprastomis, - uraganų ir pan., kurie taip pat būna stipresni. Tirpstantys ledynai lemia ir aukštesnį vandenynų lygį, taip pat ir potvynius. Uragano, potvynio ar kitos stichijos nusiaubtoms vietoms atsigauti bent dešimtmečio ar daugiau - taigi iš dalies stichijai nuniokojus tam tikrą regioną, verčiau jį palikti ir gyventi kitur. Klimato krizė taip pat lemia ir daugiau karinių konfliktų, dažniausiai būtent dėl išteklių (pvz, vandens), taip pat daugės ligų, pandemijų (labas, korona). Kokia prasmė imti visokias būsto paskolas, turėti asmeninius vaikus, kai Žemė bus vis tik blogesnė vieta gyventi. Knygoje daugiausiai siūloma, kad reikia surinkti anglies dvideginį ir siūlo statyti daug anglies dvideginio surinkimo gamyklų (?).
Įsimintini dalykai iš knygos: klimato atšilimas lemia padidėjusią temperatūrą, tai reiškia, jog kai kuriose pasaulio vietose karštis bus toks didelis, kad ten nebebus galima gyventi. Taip pat daugėja gaisrų - ir jie trunka ilgiau ir būna stipresni, kol galiausiai gali būti taip, jog gaisrai tęstis be pertraukų (o žmonės Kalifornijoje turi baseinus, kad galėtų juose slėptis, kol jų namą siaubia gaisras). Taip pat kylanti temperatūra lemia ledynų tirpsmą - gali ištirpti visa Arktis bei net Europos Alpės bus be sniego kaip kad kokie Atlaso kalnai Afrikoje. Taip pat daugėja stichinių nelaimių, kurias tuoj vadinsime įprastomis, - uraganų ir pan., kurie taip pat būna stipresni. Tirpstantys ledynai lemia ir aukštesnį vandenynų lygį, taip pat ir potvynius. Uragano, potvynio ar kitos stichijos nusiaubtoms vietoms atsigauti bent dešimtmečio ar daugiau - taigi iš dalies stichijai nuniokojus tam tikrą regioną, verčiau jį palikti ir gyventi kitur. Klimato krizė taip pat lemia ir daugiau karinių konfliktų, dažniausiai būtent dėl išteklių (pvz, vandens), taip pat daugės ligų, pandemijų (labas, korona). Kokia prasmė imti visokias būsto paskolas, turėti asmeninius vaikus, kai Žemė bus vis tik blogesnė vieta gyventi. Knygoje daugiausiai siūloma, kad reikia surinkti anglies dvideginį ir siūlo statyti daug anglies dvideginio surinkimo gamyklų (?).
A little repetitive. I also listened to the audiobook, and the narrators voice is a little monotone. I do think that this could have been better as an article vs a novel.
It's pretty simple. Every increase in the earth's temperature is followed by a catastrophe. Eventually the catastrophes, in their cumulative effect, will make the earth uninhabitable for human beings. David Wallace-Wells lays it out centigrade by catastrophic centigrade. He also makes it abundantly clear that if global emissions of greenhouse gasses were to cease as of today, we'd still be fucked at, yes, catastrophic levels. We have no one to thank but ourselves, at more or less egregious levels, and there are no innocent bystanders.
If you follow this volume with Storming the Wall by Todd Miller you'll find out just what the global economic elite are doing about the problems we've created. To make a long story short - not much but investing in "guns, gates, and guards," to keep those dispossessed by climate change from crossing borders in search of better lives.
As we used to say in the army, "screwed, blued, and tattooed," and although I still don't know what it means to be "blued," I'm sure it's not good.
If you follow this volume with Storming the Wall by Todd Miller you'll find out just what the global economic elite are doing about the problems we've created. To make a long story short - not much but investing in "guns, gates, and guards," to keep those dispossessed by climate change from crossing borders in search of better lives.
As we used to say in the army, "screwed, blued, and tattooed," and although I still don't know what it means to be "blued," I'm sure it's not good.