Scan barcode
carlyalynnsia's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
informative
inspiring
sad
medium-paced
5.0
opal360's review against another edition
3.0
I came to this after reading Sarah Hall's novel [b:The Wolf Border|23315782|The Wolf Border|Sarah Hall|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1421714098s/23315782.jpg|24163404] and was hoping to learn more about real-life examples of rewilding, such as the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park. Monbiot devotes only two pages to this example, however, and has an awful lot more to say about sheep farming in Wales. His explanations of the ecology are clear and compelling throughout, but - like other reviewers - I could have done with less of the sheep theme and definitely less of the sea-kayaking passages.
nitroglycerin's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
medium-paced
4.25
trowellingbadger's review against another edition
3.0
This was fairly interesting and formed a partially persuasive argument for rewilding in the UK. Monbiot examines looks at means of reversing damage caused to the landscape through human influence, mainly focusing on returning biodiversity to earlier levels. The question of what earlier stage this means is a main question of the book, although I'm not overly sure it's resolved. The argument is illustrated with examples from other countries where reintroduction of animal species or different management strategies of domesticated species. He demonstrates that in some cases these strategies work and suggests how similar ones might be run in the UK.
The main failing of the book is how egocentric Monbiot can be at times. Although he talks about how biodiversity can be increased, he does not properly establish why this is a good thing. I agree that nature for its own sake is worth preserving, and that minimising and reversing the human impact upon it is a worthwhile (and really quite necessary) aim. That's even before you get into considering climate change and the like. Frustratingly, much of Monbiot's arguments about why it is beneficial are based in a seeming desire to act out a man-as-hunter fantasy.
The first few chapters are particularly egregious examples of this, where he details his jaunts fishing along the Welsh coast and bemoans the impact of urban development on the traditional hunting strategies of the Massai (the latter in itself is not necessarily objectionable, but conflicts with some of his other points, as I'll touch on below). Rather than suggesting that nature should be protected for its own benefit, it seems that animals should be maintained so that he can wander around a Neolithic utopia, taking in his surroundings and hunting when he feels like it. While, inarguably, wildlife and the landscape have a benefit on humans, Monbiot's seeming desire for a subservient nature that he can 'tame' is self-serving.
This links with the indecision regarding to which earlier phase nature should revert. Monbiot discusses this several times, and it is an interesting question - people have different baselines for what they consider truly 'natural', and often it doesn't extend far past when they were born. This is certainly intriguing, and the book doesn't come to a clear decision. However, again, Monbiot's man-as-hunter idea necessitates a reversion to the Neolithic (although it verges more on Mesolithic). This is simply an impossibility. The world's population is too large and there would not be enough resources to sustain everybody. It's also not realistic to imagine that everyone can learn the skills required to hunt or live off the land. Nor would it be a cheap endeavour, as hunting equipment is pretty expensive. Monbiot also has the advantage of being able to retreat to a comfortable home with plenty of other amenities, and plenty of supermarkets to make up for any shortfall. Living far closer to the line would be nowhere near as comfortable as he makes out.
Returning to the example of the Massai, being concerned about the erosion of their traditional ways of life is entirely valid. However, Monbiot is reluctant to extend similar concern towards farmers and others who rely on the land for income in the UK. A large focus of his argument is on the impact sheep farming has on the landscape, and he argues for its reduction to enable the return of both flora and fauna to a more natural state. If sheep farming or other industries were to be reduced, the people who rely on it would need to learn new skills and completely change not only their careers but their entire lifestyles. Monbiot rather flippantly dismisses such concerns, saying that they could all become gamekeepers or help in environmental management. Again, this is pretty unrealistic and he doesn't seem to imagine that looking after animals in a farm could possibly be different to managing wildlife as a conservationist. A lot of these people will also have been on the land for generations, and so what you are considering at this point is sweeping away people's cultures simply so Monbiot can walk through his idyllic landscapes and take a few fish. Even when he meets a Welsh farmer who is incredibly knowledgeable about rewilding and conservation, Monbiot seems to brush aside the man's concerns pretty lightly.
What results from this all is a book that is highly pertinent and informative, but that is derailed by Monbiot's ego. Perhaps I am being slightly uncharitable in this case (and writing this review at a bit of a remove has certainly made me a bit grumpier than I was when I finished the book). I think I would give it 2.5 stars, but Goodreads won't let me. I'll certainly be looking for something else on the same topic but with perhaps a less Neolithic utopian dreaming in it.
The main failing of the book is how egocentric Monbiot can be at times. Although he talks about how biodiversity can be increased, he does not properly establish why this is a good thing. I agree that nature for its own sake is worth preserving, and that minimising and reversing the human impact upon it is a worthwhile (and really quite necessary) aim. That's even before you get into considering climate change and the like. Frustratingly, much of Monbiot's arguments about why it is beneficial are based in a seeming desire to act out a man-as-hunter fantasy.
The first few chapters are particularly egregious examples of this, where he details his jaunts fishing along the Welsh coast and bemoans the impact of urban development on the traditional hunting strategies of the Massai (the latter in itself is not necessarily objectionable, but conflicts with some of his other points, as I'll touch on below). Rather than suggesting that nature should be protected for its own benefit, it seems that animals should be maintained so that he can wander around a Neolithic utopia, taking in his surroundings and hunting when he feels like it. While, inarguably, wildlife and the landscape have a benefit on humans, Monbiot's seeming desire for a subservient nature that he can 'tame' is self-serving.
This links with the indecision regarding to which earlier phase nature should revert. Monbiot discusses this several times, and it is an interesting question - people have different baselines for what they consider truly 'natural', and often it doesn't extend far past when they were born. This is certainly intriguing, and the book doesn't come to a clear decision. However, again, Monbiot's man-as-hunter idea necessitates a reversion to the Neolithic (although it verges more on Mesolithic). This is simply an impossibility. The world's population is too large and there would not be enough resources to sustain everybody. It's also not realistic to imagine that everyone can learn the skills required to hunt or live off the land. Nor would it be a cheap endeavour, as hunting equipment is pretty expensive. Monbiot also has the advantage of being able to retreat to a comfortable home with plenty of other amenities, and plenty of supermarkets to make up for any shortfall. Living far closer to the line would be nowhere near as comfortable as he makes out.
Returning to the example of the Massai, being concerned about the erosion of their traditional ways of life is entirely valid. However, Monbiot is reluctant to extend similar concern towards farmers and others who rely on the land for income in the UK. A large focus of his argument is on the impact sheep farming has on the landscape, and he argues for its reduction to enable the return of both flora and fauna to a more natural state. If sheep farming or other industries were to be reduced, the people who rely on it would need to learn new skills and completely change not only their careers but their entire lifestyles. Monbiot rather flippantly dismisses such concerns, saying that they could all become gamekeepers or help in environmental management. Again, this is pretty unrealistic and he doesn't seem to imagine that looking after animals in a farm could possibly be different to managing wildlife as a conservationist. A lot of these people will also have been on the land for generations, and so what you are considering at this point is sweeping away people's cultures simply so Monbiot can walk through his idyllic landscapes and take a few fish. Even when he meets a Welsh farmer who is incredibly knowledgeable about rewilding and conservation, Monbiot seems to brush aside the man's concerns pretty lightly.
What results from this all is a book that is highly pertinent and informative, but that is derailed by Monbiot's ego. Perhaps I am being slightly uncharitable in this case (and writing this review at a bit of a remove has certainly made me a bit grumpier than I was when I finished the book). I think I would give it 2.5 stars, but Goodreads won't let me. I'll certainly be looking for something else on the same topic but with perhaps a less Neolithic utopian dreaming in it.
saipradhanreads's review against another edition
3.0
What an interesting life Monbiot has had. Had to finally read this after years of reading his environmental columns and reading of his activism. This book showcases his humility in being open to understanding flaws in environmental/wilding/conservation theories, and the hard won positive attitude despite the clear understanding of the nasty realities that face global ecology today.
candyfm's review against another edition
5.0
Fantastic book. A must read for anybody wanting to understand more about the workings of our ecosystems, the ways we are failing the earth and the many ways forward we could and should rewild our planet back to health. It will have you dreaming of wilder landscapes and an exciting new world ❤️
arwenauthor's review against another edition
3.0
George Monbiot's 'Feral' tells the story of his relationship with nature and rewilding, as well as offering the reader a real insight into the practicalities of the process. It is much more political than I had realised, and the contentious nature is not a simple one to puzzle through, even for Monbiot himself. I was particularly struck by the chapter 'How Not to Rewild', which talks about nature reclaiming the land after mass human genocide and other human tragedies. The role of natural preservation sites also shocked me; it is so easy to think of them as 'positive' things that the reality is a hard pill to swallow. There is no easy answer.
I have to admit that I struggled through this book. It was, for me, not an easy read. I am not a prolific reader of non-fiction, even of semi-autobiographical books such as this. I have tried in the past to read a number of Robert Mcfarlane's books but have never made it to the end of the first chapter. I was more determined with this, as it was lean to me by a wonderful cousin who is very involved with wildlife movements. Although it has taken me two months, reading on and off, I am glad that I persevered. Nature books are not for me, but it was fascinating. The final few chapters about rewilding the sea were actively enjoyable, and not difficult to read at all: maybe I had finally got used to th style? It is a really fascinating book for anyone interested in the idea of what is 'natural' or not, and the role of politics behind it.
One issue I had was the horrible damning of sheep!! I understand totally what was being said (in fact I remember learning similar things in history after enclosures came in in the medieval period) but I didn't have the same relationship with sheep as in now do. Despite the very real things he says about them, I feel a natural urge to defend them. I love my sheep, even though they destroy ecosystems. It's a difficult thing to reconcile: the truth is far from the one that I would like to believe.
Overall, a really interesting and eye opening read. Despite my struggles with it, I am glad to have read it, and would probably recommend it. Nature memoirs are not my genre, and I'm not sure I will read any more, but this one was thoroughly worthwhile. I may come back to mature memoirs in the future, who knows?
I have to admit that I struggled through this book. It was, for me, not an easy read. I am not a prolific reader of non-fiction, even of semi-autobiographical books such as this. I have tried in the past to read a number of Robert Mcfarlane's books but have never made it to the end of the first chapter. I was more determined with this, as it was lean to me by a wonderful cousin who is very involved with wildlife movements. Although it has taken me two months, reading on and off, I am glad that I persevered. Nature books are not for me, but it was fascinating. The final few chapters about rewilding the sea were actively enjoyable, and not difficult to read at all: maybe I had finally got used to th style? It is a really fascinating book for anyone interested in the idea of what is 'natural' or not, and the role of politics behind it.
One issue I had was the horrible damning of sheep!! I understand totally what was being said (in fact I remember learning similar things in history after enclosures came in in the medieval period) but I didn't have the same relationship with sheep as in now do. Despite the very real things he says about them, I feel a natural urge to defend them. I love my sheep, even though they destroy ecosystems. It's a difficult thing to reconcile: the truth is far from the one that I would like to believe.
Overall, a really interesting and eye opening read. Despite my struggles with it, I am glad to have read it, and would probably recommend it. Nature memoirs are not my genre, and I'm not sure I will read any more, but this one was thoroughly worthwhile. I may come back to mature memoirs in the future, who knows?
sber8121's review against another edition
5.0
This book is the only thing that’s made me feel hopeful for the future of the planet for a very long time.