Scan barcode
ivorgeoghegan's review against another edition
3.0
7/10
The start of this book felt very disjointed, with the first 50 pages very tough to read. Thankfully, it picked and I found the rest of it very interesting and informative. At times, the author's writing style annoyed me, with some passages being overly descriptive and lacking substance (but that's more of a minor point). Overall, I'd highly recommend reading it.
The start of this book felt very disjointed, with the first 50 pages very tough to read. Thankfully, it picked and I found the rest of it very interesting and informative. At times, the author's writing style annoyed me, with some passages being overly descriptive and lacking substance (but that's more of a minor point). Overall, I'd highly recommend reading it.
rozydozy's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
5.0
lucy_p's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
2.0
An extremely well-researched, occasionally enlightening read but rather slow-paced and rambling.
alienor_kerjan's review against another edition
informative
inspiring
slow-paced
5.0
What a wake up call!
lauralindahl's review against another edition
adventurous
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
5.0
maddie_bookmad's review against another edition
5.0
The beginning of this book almost made me give up as well as several oassages in between which are filled with Monbiot´s (sometimes misguided) attempts at adventures in the wilderness. However, he parts where the correlations between different parts of the ecosystems are explained and the examples he uses were fascinating. I enjoyed his writing style and although I would have enjoyed more indepth analysis, this is still a good book to start with if you are new to the topic of rewilding or rather want to know what all is going wrong in todays society´s treatment of natural habitats and their inhabitants.
twigdip's review against another edition
5.0
Powerful, and beautiful. Historical, personal and poetic, important.
enantiomorph's review against another edition
Written like a child’s breathless, incoherent recounting of their day. I’m George! First I went to the jungle and there were people shooting each other! Then I went fishing and caught a scary fish! Then I saw an osprey! Then I went hunting with my special trident! You want to say “that’s nice, dear” after every paragraph.
Conservation and rewilding as seen from a completely self-absorbed perspective where we should rewild because George Monbiot is bored and likes seeing cool dangerous animals.
Conservation and rewilding as seen from a completely self-absorbed perspective where we should rewild because George Monbiot is bored and likes seeing cool dangerous animals.
drewbutler's review against another edition
5.0
What does it mean to be wild?
There are no real wild places left on earth. Humans have proliferated to every part of the globe, and our impacts are felt even in places where large groups of us do not live. The places that remain “wild” (nature preserves, national parks, designated wilderness areas) are only “wild” because someone has decided it to be that way. And as we all know, protected areas are still hotly contested by those who wish to take advantage of the resources they contain. However, our human conception of wild may not be how nature developed it, and George Monbiot makes a compelling argument that our efforts at “re-wilding” and preserving are more to do with our own preferences and aesthetic beliefs than the reality of a truly wild area. As a species, humans have created the circumstances that necessitate a devoted space for the natural world to go about its own way or else perish, but we still view it through this lens of control and an idea that we know what’s best. Some species are left to roam free without predators, creating an environment which seems wild but in reality is a grotesque imbalance of the original way of things, prior to human interference. To me, this is the constant theme throughout - humans look at the wild through a human-centric lens, and in all our efforts to compose and control, we cause immense damage and unseat the natural order of wild spaces.
It is imperative that wild places continue to expand and be allowed to go on in their own way - billions of years of evolution have led to a symbiotic relationship where everything balances each other out through complex, vastly interconnected processes. Humans have demonstrably and irrefutably thrown the world out of balance in regards to biomes and ecosystems, and we cannot get out of our own way even in attempts to bring back the wild into our thoroughly modern world. Monbiot delivers example after example of counterintuitive and counterproductive ways of approaching wilderness management and re-wilding efforts, concluding that the best thing humans can do to these wilderness areas is...nothing. We can continue to protect, and continue to defend against encroachment from various parties who care nothing for the beauty and necessity of undeveloped and uninhabited parts of the world, but we cannot continue to cull and control the way we currently do.
A particularly resonant example that I feel many Americans can relate to is the story of wolves in Yosemite. They were removed by wildlife management, and plunged the entire ecosystem of the park into disarray. Without the wolves to predate them, deer expanded exponentially and destroyed plant life across the whole park. The reintroduction of wolves has begun to restore that balance, and can serve as an example of how human interference disrupted an already efficient system. Rather than continually micromanage an ecosystem, it seems that it is better left to nature to manage, who already knows the optimal order and structure.
Human arrogance has led to some of our greatest successes, but might yet prove to be our downfall. However, if we can begin to think of ourselves as a part of nature rather than removed entirely from it, we can perhaps begin to treat the wild as if it is truly wild, and free from our interference. Everything was once feral and untamed...and in perfect balance - why should we challenge several billion years of proof?
There are no real wild places left on earth. Humans have proliferated to every part of the globe, and our impacts are felt even in places where large groups of us do not live. The places that remain “wild” (nature preserves, national parks, designated wilderness areas) are only “wild” because someone has decided it to be that way. And as we all know, protected areas are still hotly contested by those who wish to take advantage of the resources they contain. However, our human conception of wild may not be how nature developed it, and George Monbiot makes a compelling argument that our efforts at “re-wilding” and preserving are more to do with our own preferences and aesthetic beliefs than the reality of a truly wild area. As a species, humans have created the circumstances that necessitate a devoted space for the natural world to go about its own way or else perish, but we still view it through this lens of control and an idea that we know what’s best. Some species are left to roam free without predators, creating an environment which seems wild but in reality is a grotesque imbalance of the original way of things, prior to human interference. To me, this is the constant theme throughout - humans look at the wild through a human-centric lens, and in all our efforts to compose and control, we cause immense damage and unseat the natural order of wild spaces.
It is imperative that wild places continue to expand and be allowed to go on in their own way - billions of years of evolution have led to a symbiotic relationship where everything balances each other out through complex, vastly interconnected processes. Humans have demonstrably and irrefutably thrown the world out of balance in regards to biomes and ecosystems, and we cannot get out of our own way even in attempts to bring back the wild into our thoroughly modern world. Monbiot delivers example after example of counterintuitive and counterproductive ways of approaching wilderness management and re-wilding efforts, concluding that the best thing humans can do to these wilderness areas is...nothing. We can continue to protect, and continue to defend against encroachment from various parties who care nothing for the beauty and necessity of undeveloped and uninhabited parts of the world, but we cannot continue to cull and control the way we currently do.
A particularly resonant example that I feel many Americans can relate to is the story of wolves in Yosemite. They were removed by wildlife management, and plunged the entire ecosystem of the park into disarray. Without the wolves to predate them, deer expanded exponentially and destroyed plant life across the whole park. The reintroduction of wolves has begun to restore that balance, and can serve as an example of how human interference disrupted an already efficient system. Rather than continually micromanage an ecosystem, it seems that it is better left to nature to manage, who already knows the optimal order and structure.
Human arrogance has led to some of our greatest successes, but might yet prove to be our downfall. However, if we can begin to think of ourselves as a part of nature rather than removed entirely from it, we can perhaps begin to treat the wild as if it is truly wild, and free from our interference. Everything was once feral and untamed...and in perfect balance - why should we challenge several billion years of proof?