Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by darkenergy
Urban Jungle: The History and Future of Nature in the City by Ben Wilson
4.0
On the whole this was an interesting perspective on the relationship of nature and cities, and how the Industrial Revolution and colonialism in particular broke a lot of systems that were working (although I do think, and this wasn't directly addressed, given extant technology that if we'd stuck with these more sustainable approaches, this would've put a much stricter upper limit on the growth of cities until very recently. Of course if we had, we probably would've developed better and more relevant technology).
I did have one big problem with this book, which is that the author does not at any point acknowledge the difference between *introduced* and *invasive* species. (Credit where it's due: [b:The Aliens Among Us: How Invasive Species Are Transforming the Planet—and Ourselves|34746497|The Aliens Among Us How Invasive Species Are Transforming the Planet—and Ourselves|Leslie Anthony|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1501898256l/34746497._SY75_.jpg|55938204][b:The Aliens Among Us: How Invasive Species Are Transforming the Planet—and Ourselves|34746497|The Aliens Among Us How Invasive Species Are Transforming the Planet—and Ourselves|Leslie Anthony|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1501898256l/34746497._SY75_.jpg|55938204] is where I properly learned those terms.)
Like yeah, it's great to talk about how we have to work with what's around us rather than trying to recreate pre-Columbian landscapes--a process which itself is very fraught and causes all kinds of arguments in conservation spheres--but there's some particularly devastating invasive species where I live which are allelopathic, meaning they kill other plants in the area (and harm amphibians because their skin is so delicate), and on top of this, their berries are actually less nutritious than those of native plants', which then harms birds and such. (Buckthorn. I'm talking about buckthorn.)
On the opposite end there's species that, in this zone, aren't invasive because they aren't well-adapted to this particular climate (at least where it is right now); while these are technically safe to have around, non-prairie plants tend to have shallower roots which are not protective against flooding, so an introduced species needs to have a lot of the same qualities as a native one in order to be truly useful. Additionally, too much monoculture spreads disease--the emerald ash borer has been devastating in part because Chicago decided that ash should be *all* the shade trees--so the argument for biodiversity through natives, rather than whatever biodiversity you can get, isn't just a matter of snobbery or whatever.
So anyway, I did really like the history of cities, but I did find the discussion of the plant life/city biodiversity missing some crucial ingredients. He does mention that it's often constructed and not strictly "natural," but I didn't find enough of an exploration of the pros and cons there.
I did have one big problem with this book, which is that the author does not at any point acknowledge the difference between *introduced* and *invasive* species. (Credit where it's due: [b:The Aliens Among Us: How Invasive Species Are Transforming the Planet—and Ourselves|34746497|The Aliens Among Us How Invasive Species Are Transforming the Planet—and Ourselves|Leslie Anthony|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1501898256l/34746497._SY75_.jpg|55938204][b:The Aliens Among Us: How Invasive Species Are Transforming the Planet—and Ourselves|34746497|The Aliens Among Us How Invasive Species Are Transforming the Planet—and Ourselves|Leslie Anthony|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1501898256l/34746497._SY75_.jpg|55938204] is where I properly learned those terms.)
Like yeah, it's great to talk about how we have to work with what's around us rather than trying to recreate pre-Columbian landscapes--a process which itself is very fraught and causes all kinds of arguments in conservation spheres--but there's some particularly devastating invasive species where I live which are allelopathic, meaning they kill other plants in the area (and harm amphibians because their skin is so delicate), and on top of this, their berries are actually less nutritious than those of native plants', which then harms birds and such. (Buckthorn. I'm talking about buckthorn.)
On the opposite end there's species that, in this zone, aren't invasive because they aren't well-adapted to this particular climate (at least where it is right now); while these are technically safe to have around, non-prairie plants tend to have shallower roots which are not protective against flooding, so an introduced species needs to have a lot of the same qualities as a native one in order to be truly useful. Additionally, too much monoculture spreads disease--the emerald ash borer has been devastating in part because Chicago decided that ash should be *all* the shade trees--so the argument for biodiversity through natives, rather than whatever biodiversity you can get, isn't just a matter of snobbery or whatever.
So anyway, I did really like the history of cities, but I did find the discussion of the plant life/city biodiversity missing some crucial ingredients. He does mention that it's often constructed and not strictly "natural," but I didn't find enough of an exploration of the pros and cons there.