A review by ahlexcz
The End of Nature by Bill McKibben

challenging dark emotional informative reflective slow-paced

4.25

 

The End of Nature – Bill McKibben Review

This is well-researched, interesting read which, in all honesty, is not a very hopeful outlook on the future, and rightfully so. Those born in the 90s and 00s may remember the ‘carbon footprint’ taught in school, the importance of recycling, and perhaps even keeping school gardens, planting vegetables and flowers. All of that may be attributed to greenwashing. An attempt to perhaps curb our environmentally unsound lifestyles which in the end is nothing but a gesture of mis-appropriated goodwill. One should note that this book was written in 1989, and thus it has been a bit over 30 years since it was published. McKibben speaks of policies and research which pointed to the destruction of the Ozone layer as well as a the increase of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere, and how while currently the planet is warming, and one would think that with this we will be faced with drought, McKibben points to the science which acknowledges that weather will become more extreme, more unpredictable (as confirmed in some recent studies, such as ‘Climate change and its impact on agriculture’ by A Mahato, as well as ‘Climate Change and Emerging Infectious Diseases’ by PR Epstein.). He states, as well, that climate change cannot be legislated away, in which it seems he is correct. One may only look to the policies of the EU, which for the most part have done little to curb greenhouse gases and pollution, or even to the UK, which is now removing former EU legislation on things such as air quality transparency. Effectively, McKibben’s book is not some ‘call to arms’ to protect ourselves against climate change – it is a statement, that we have already surpassed the point which we can do anything that truly matters, because we have killed the very idea of nature. We have turned nature into a hobby, a superfluous commodity. He aptly asks us as to why we would even celebrate a harvest, if we have a harvest every week with a shopping cart. He further notes that ‘conventional utopian ideas’ (such as the EU which watches the carbon output of every nation) are ones which are designed to make us as human beings, happier. Perhaps to lessen our guilt while we consume. At the end of the day, while a country may be fined, the impact is lesser compared to the profit of consumption. We have already decided that the pillars of our society are advancement and economic growth (as exemplified by the recent advent of intelligent AI, which is proving to be a problem in almost every facet, for everyone other than the creators themselves, who are raking in the money.) McKibben, who seems to align himself with ideals of deep ecology, is stricken with grief at the fact that nature for the sake of nature is not a concept that seems to cross many minds, and until it does, if it ever does, our attempts at ‘supporting’ ourselves through climate change mean nothing, as we simply are going to kill nature a second time, with artificial crops that can withstand drought or perhaps through insecticides, as pest numbers grow due the lack of a winter freeze, as our birds – which normally would act as nature’s pesticide – slowly wane. McKibben also premeditates the attack of ‘humanists’ on a hard ‘nature for nature’ approach, who state that a hard approach in which we curb our economic growth would harm the 3rd world, by stating that these arguments are rarely truly made in good faith, because yes, while limiting economic growth may harm the 3rd world, a re-distribution of resources would alleviate that. After all, it is us in the 1st world who hoard most of the wealth of the Earth. Nonetheless, the majority of us – McKibben included – would wish life to be the same as it was. Yet, this will kill nature twice through the superimposition of an artificial, genetically modified nature to fix the mistakes that should not have been made in the first place. Quite simply, the liberal policies that mark the 21st century are not enough, and we have already marked the world in such a way that the Earth will bear that scar regardless of what we do. 

I urge anyone who reads the book to truly engage with the ideas, and perhaps read a bit of Murray Bookchin as well.