2021/04/11

Ecomodernism - Wikipedia

Ecomodernism - Wikipedia

Ecomodernism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Greenhouse, Beeston, Leeds: a building professed by its developers to be 'eco-modernist'.[1][2][3]

Ecomodernism is an environmental philosophy which argues that humans should protect nature and improve human wellbeing by developing technologies that decouple human development from environmental impacts. It supports state action centered on technology development. It argues that intensification of human activities can reduce harmful human impacts on the natural world. Technologies commonly recommended by ecomodernists include 

Description[edit]

Ecomodernist thinking has primarily been developed by thinkers associated with the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental research center in Oakland, California. However, Ecomodernist organisations have been established in many countries, including Germany,[5] Finland,[6] and Sweden.[7] While the word 'ecomodernism' has only been used to describe modernist environmentalism since 2013,[8] the term has a longer history in academic design writing[9] and

 Ecomodernist ideas were developed within a number of earlier texts, including 

In their 2015 manifesto, 18 self-professed ecomodernists—including scholars from the Breakthrough Institute, Harvard University, Jadavpur University, and the Long Now Foundation—sought to clarify the movement's vision: 

  • "we affirm one long-standing environmental ideal, that humanity must shrink its impacts on the environment to make more room for nature, 
  • while we reject another, that human societies must harmonize with nature to avoid economic and ecological collapse."[4][12]

Ecomodernism explicitly embraces substituting natural ecological services with energy, technology, and synthetic solutions[13] as long as they help reduce impact on environment. 

Among other things, ecomodernists embrace agricultural intensification, genetically modified and synthetic foods (for their reduced usage of herbicides and pesticides), fish from aquaculture farms,[14] desalination and waste recycling, urbanization, and replacing low power-density energy sources (e.g. firewood in low-income countries, which leads to deforestation) with high power-density sources as long as their net impact on environment is lower (nuclear power plants, and advanced renewables). Key among the goals of an ecomodern environmental ethic is the use of technology to intensify human activity and make more room for wild nature.

Debates that form the foundation of ecomodernism were born from disappointment in anti-scientific policies of traditional organizations who categorically denied zero-emission energy sources such as nuclear power, thus leading to actual increase of reliance of fossil gas and increase of emissions instead of reduction (e.g. Energiewende).[15] 

An Ecomodernist Manifesto[edit]

In April 2015, a group of 18 self-described ecomodernists collectively published An Ecomodernist Manifesto.[16][17]

Reception and criticism[edit]

Some environmental journalists have praised An Ecomodernist Manifesto. 

At The New York Times, Eduardo Porter wrote approvingly of ecomodernism's alternative approach to sustainable development.[18] 

In an article titled "Manifesto Calls for an End to 'People Are Bad' Environmentalism," Slate's Eric Holthaus wrote "It's inclusive, it's exciting, and it gives environmentalists something to fight for for a change."[19] The science journal Nature editorialized the manifesto.[20]

Common criticisms of ecomodernism have included its relative lack of consideration for justice, ethics, and political power. In "A sympathetic diagnosis of the Ecomodernist Manifesto," Paul Robbins and Sarah A. Moore describe the similarities and points of departure between ecomodernism and political ecology.[21]

Another major strand of criticism towards ecomodernism comes from proponents of degrowth or the steady-state economy. Eighteen ecological economists published a long rejoinder titled "A Degrowth Response to an Ecomodernist Manifesto," writing "the ecomodernists provide neither a very inspiring blueprint for future development strategies nor much in the way of solutions to our environmental and energy woes."[22]

At the Breakthrough Institute's annual Dialogue in June 2015, several prominent environmental scholars offered a critique of ecomodernism. Bruno Latour argued that the modernity celebrated in An Ecomodernist Manifesto is a myth. Jenny Price argued that the manifesto offered a simplistic view of "humanity" and "nature," which she said are "made invisible" by talking about them in such broad terms.[23]

Open letters[edit]

Save Diablo Canyon campaign[edit]

In January 2016, several authors of An Ecomodernist Manifesto as well as Kerry Emanuel, James Hansen, Steven Pinker, Stephen Tindale, and Nobel laureate Burton Richter signed an open letter urging that the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant not be closed.[24] The letter was addressed to California Governor Jerry Brown, the CEO of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and California state officials.[25]

Save Illinois Nuclear[edit]

In April 2016, An Ecomodernist Manifesto authors Shellenberger, Brand, and Lynas, alongside other scientists and conservationists such as Hansen, Richter, and Emanuel, signed an open letter urging against the closure of the six operating nuclear power plants in Illinois: Braidwood, Byron, Clinton, Dresden, LaSalle, and Quad Cities.[26] Together, they account for Illinois ranking first in the United States in 2010 in zero-emissions electricity,[26] nuclear capacity, nuclear generation,[27] and generation from its nuclear power plants accounted for 12 percent of the United States total.[28] In 2010, 48% of Illinois' electricity was generated using nuclear power.[29]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ 'Developer homes in on eco-scheme', The Express (28 September 2007), 72.
  2. ^ 'Housing plan's Greenhouse effect', Yorkshire Post (27 December 2007).
  3. ^ 'Leeds 'unique' green flats', Yorkshire Evening Post (23 September 2010).
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b John Asafu-Adjaye et al (April 2015). "An Ecomodernist Manifesto."
  5. ^ "Ecomodernist energy transition 4.0 – Investments in a modern future".
  6. ^ "In English – SUOMEN EKOMODERNISTIT" (in Finnish). Retrieved 2020-09-02.
  7. ^ "Svenska Ekomodernisterna". www.facebook.com. Retrieved 2020-09-02.
  8. ^ Symons, Jonathan (30 July 2019). Ecomodernism : technology, politics and the climate crisis. Cambridge, UK. p. 56. ISBN 978-1-5095-3119-6. OCLC 1061731179.
  9. ^ "Sustainable design education rethought: The case for Eco-Modernism". 2010.
  10. ^ Lewis, Martin W. (1992). Green delusions : an environmentalist critique of radical environmentalism. Durham: Duke University Press. ISBN 0-8223-1257-3. OCLC 25552831.
  11. ^ Marris, Emma. (2011). Rambunctious garden : saving nature in a post-wild world (1st U.S. ed.). New York: Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1-60819-032-4. OCLC 639161286.
  12. ^ Jump up to:a b Nisbet, Matthew (2018). "The Ecomodernists: A New Way of Thinking about Climate Change and Human Progress". Skeptical Inquirer. 42 (6): 20–24.
  13. ^ "The Breakthrough Institute". thebreakthrough.org.
  14. ^ "The Breakthrough Institute". thebreakthrough.org.
  15. ^ Brand, Stewart (2010). Whole Earth Discipline.
  16. ^ Nijhuis, Michelle (2 June 2015). "Is the "Ecomodernist Manifesto" the Future of Environmentalism?". The New Yorker. Retrieved 28 November 2020.
  17. ^ Monbiot, George (24 September 2015). "Meet the ecomodernists: ignorant of history and paradoxically old-fashioned". The Guardian. Retrieved 28 November 2020.
  18. ^ Eduardo Porter, The New York Times, April 14, 2015. / 'A Call to Look Past Sustainable Development."
  19. ^ Eric Holthaus (20 April 2015). "Manifesto Calls for an End to "People Are Bad" Environmentalism." Slate.
  20. ^ "Decoupled ideals: 'Ecomodernist Manifesto' reframes sustainable development, but the goal remains the same." (21 April 2015). Nature.
  21. ^ Paul Robbins and Sarah A. Moore (19 June 2015). "Love your symptoms: A sympathetic diagnosis of the Ecomodernist Manifesto." entitleblog.org.
  22. ^ Caradonna et al (May 2015). / "A Degrowth Response to An Ecomodernist Manifesto."
  23. ^ "What Is Modern In Ecomodernism?" (14 July 2015). / "Breakthrough Institute."
  24. ^ McDonnell, Tim (3 February 2016). "Closing This Nuclear Plant Could Cause an Environmental Disaster". Mother Jones. Foundation For National Progress. Retrieved 11 February 2016.
  25. ^ "Open letter: Do the right thing — stand-up for California's largest source of clean energy". Save Diablo Canyon. Retrieved 11 February 2016.
  26. ^ Jump up to:a b Conca, James. "Illinois' Nuclear Dilemma Embroils Famed Climate Scientist James Hansen". Forbes. Forbes Inc. Retrieved 7 April 2016.
  27. ^ "Nuclear State Profiles". Eia.gov. Retrieved April 29, 2012.
  28. ^ "Illinois – State Energy Profile Overview – U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)". Eia.gov. 2015-03-19. Retrieved 2016-02-27.
  29. ^ "State Nuclear Profiles: Illinois". U.S. Energy Information Administration. 26 April 2012. Retrieved 7 April 2016.
Posted by at
Labels:

Earthmasters: Playing God with the climate Hamilton, Clive 2013

Amazon.com: Earthmasters: Playing God with the climate eBook: Hamilton, Clive: Kindle Store


Earthmasters: Playing God with the climate by [Clive Hamilton]
Earthmasters: Playing God with the climate Kindle Edition
by Clive Hamilton (Author)  Format: Kindle Edition
4.6 out of 5 stars    4 ratings
 See all formats and editions
Kindle
from AUD 15.93
Publisher : Allen & Unwin (March 1, 2013)
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Enabled
Print length : 172 pages
===

Customer Reviews: 4.6 out of 5 stars    4 ratings
Customer reviews
4.6 out of 5 stars
Top reviews from the United States
Robert J Thompson
5.0 out of 5 stars New, comprehensive and well written
Reviewed in the United States on March 22, 2013
Verified Purchase
Clive Hamilton is truly a thought leader. His earlier books such as Affluenza and Requiem for a Species I found to be very thought provoking and cutting edge in terms of analysis of social issues. He has a knack for getting out front on topics that need some light brought to the subject.

In Earthmasters he tackles the impending geo-engineering wave that is about to sweep over us as the global failure to act on climate change starts to bite, and as usual he is one of, if not the first, to examine geo-engineering. He tells us not only what it is and what the implications of geo-engineering are for the planet, but also the origins of the concept, the players who are driving it and most interestingly, their motivations and links with the climate change denialist crowd.
I liked the way he informs and challenges the reader to consider the points he makes. This is not a dry, acedemic treatment of this critical issue (although there are plenty of facts to educate the reader, backed up by excellent footnotes and references) but more a comprehensive "state of the nation" examination that spans the technology, the implementation risks, the ecological framework for being highly sceptical of the quick fix,the politics and financial considerations.

You can start this book with no understanding of geo-engineering, and by the end of the journey you will have a broad understanding of why you need to know about this stuff.
Read more
3 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
Victor Von Der Heyde
5.0 out of 5 stars good broad overview
Reviewed in the United States on April 22, 2013
Verified Purchase
A timely, readable and worrying overview of how the focus has been shifting to managing high C02(e) emissions rather than just trying mitigation. he first chapter gives a good current (2013) picture of where we are and I think the book is worth it for that chapter alone. Then it goes to the who and possible how of geoengineering in a very balanced way, rather than trying to frighten. This is a book to help keep up with where the thinking (and money) is. Recommended.
One person found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
Gary Naumann
5.0 out of 5 stars A sobering read
Reviewed in the United States on April 21, 2013
Verified Purchase
Clive Hamilton's new book should be read by anyone interested in the climate change debate. Moreover it should be required reading for our politicians and policy makers. Earthmasters is well written and asks important philosophical and moral questions regarding how we as a species will deal with potentially catastrophic changes in the earth's climate. Highly recommended!
One person found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
Robert Tulip
3.0 out of 5 stars Geoengineering is Necessary
Reviewed in the United States on June 16, 2013
Geoengineering is the plan to stabilise the planetary climate by using technology to capture CO2 and reflect sunlight. Geoengineering is receiving serious consideration as a way to slow or even reverse global warming, in response to the failure of emission reduction as an adequate strategy. If technological solutions such as large scale algae production can be deployed to mine more CO2 from the air than we emit, the risk of catastrophic climate change would be prevented. While such new technology is developed, the geoengineering debate has gained momentum from scientific evidence that the global climate emergency is real and urgent. Geoengineers say the melting of the polar ice cap requires immediate prevention by reducing the amount of sunlight falling on the Arctic, the region of the world where climate change is worst.

Stepping into this complex field, a new book by Professor Clive Hamilton of Australia's Charles Sturt University seeks to describe the political and technical issues at play. Well known in Australia over the last decades as founder of The Australia Institute, Dr Hamilton comes from an unabashed left wing moral perspective. He is perhaps best known for his previous book Affluenza, imaginatively linking affluence and influenza in order to describe wealth as morally evil. A similar moral agenda informs his latest book, Earth Masters - Playing God with the Climate.

Earth Masters provides a useful short overview of geoengineering science, set within an overt polemical effort to spread alarm about the potential of science to influence the climate through any channels other than United Nations agreements on CO2 emission reduction. Painting the debate as a titanic contest between `Prometheans' in the right corner, advocating technological progress, and what he terms `Soterians' in the left corner, promoting "safety, preservation and deliverance," Hamilton casts moral opprobrium against geoengineering. He derides what he calls "the technofix" represented by Promethean climate management technology. Readers will recall that Prometheus was the Titan who Greek myth says taught the use of fire to mankind, and who as a result suffered the eternal torment of having an eagle eat his liver every day, chained by Zeus to the top of Mount Kazbek in the Caucasus. Apparently, the Promethean technofix is "deeply conformable with existing structures of power and a society based on continued consumerism. The slippery slope to the technofix promises a substitute for the slippery slope to 'revolution'" (p175). And this is bad.

This positive mention of revolution helps us to understand Hamilton's motives, which he explains as the critique of "the grand narrative of the Enlightenment" (p207) of progress through ingenuity. It therefore comes as no surprise that he devotes critical attention to the strategic vision of American national security advocates who see climate management as a viable option, or that he assumes the reader will share his conspiratorial assumption that such interests cannot make a worthwhile contribution. But then his analysis betrays some confusion, as he cites conservative Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe as providing a religious critique of the idea that we can play God with the climate (p206), which is just what Clive's book aims to do. Do we see here in practice what Clive cites (p209) as a Chinese proverb, that things revert to their opposite when taken to extremes?

One illustration of Hamilton's core goal of politicising the issue of geoengineering is his comparison between methods to reduce incoming solar radiation and the introduction of the cane toad pest into Australia. Such colourful images are designed to encourage the reader to be very suspicious of any claims that ingenuity could engineer climate stability in a way to preserve economic growth. But then perhaps such suspicion is to be expected, given that Clive had argued in Affluenza that consumer wealth is a source of psychological disorder that can only be remedied by an alternative political philosophy.

His political commitments become more apparent in his surprising expression of wistful regret at the demise of the Soviet Union (p127). In a rather unusual moral inversion that does not quite do the work he asks of it, Hamilton compares emissions reduction to the failed perestroika restructuring policy of Communist Party General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev in the USSR, while comparing geoengineering to the argument that the West won the Cold War.

Perhaps this strategic analysis of the Cold War shows the most valuable contribution of Earth Masters, in the window it provides into the thinking of prominent political activists regarding climate change. It seems climate policy is seen as the great opportunity for the left to repudiate the victory of the right in the Cold War. Through centralised UN regulation, a proto-world government can use climate as a stalking horse for its social engineering goals of social equality. It really is no wonder that normal people react to this `neo-communist' agenda with such mistrust. Hamilton invites us into the frame of his moral universe, where spraying particles into the stratosphere to protect the climate is like nuclear weapon testing, where practical strategies for economic growth in partnership between the public and private sectors are demonised, and where the benevolent on-the-spot guidance of the great leaders of the United Nations provides a shining path to a utopia of emissions reduction.

His case boils down to the view that potential unforseen effects mean the world should severely restrict (if not ban) all research into practical methods for global climate management, because such research threatens to derail UN leadership on emission reduction, and because "even talking about geoengineering will further delay mitigation." (p147) He says "there is no sense of urgency about the need to put in place regulatory mechanisms" (p145), presumably because he thinks the melting of the Arctic is not an urgent problem. The reader is left wondering if Clive's main agenda is climate safety or social revolution. If the latter, we can more easily understand his negative comments about the desire of conservative people to sustain existing the social system.

What I found perplexing in Earth Masters was Hamilton's failure to analyse the alternatives in any evidence-based quantitative way. Emissions now stand at about 32 gigatonnes per year and rising. Reducing emissions would mean the CO2 concentration would continue to increase. As Bjorn Lomborg argues, emission reduction can only produce a relatively short delay of a few years in the arrival of catastrophic CO2 level. Climate stability therefore requires large scale cost effective methods to remove CO2 from the air. That means geoengineering. The logic is simple, except to people who insist on seeing the debate in terms of `playing God'.

Hamilton does not engage with the evidence that emission reduction is insufficient to manage climate change. Nor does he address the suggestion that finding ways to reflect sunlight is a genuine emergency. Melting of the Arctic will cause bad feedback loops, and has already done so with Hurricane Sandy. It is prudent and precautionary to research and implement short term strategies to prevent such disasters while longer term methods to achieve climate security are developed. But Hamilton's attitude to evidence is summed up by his assertion that cost-benefit analysis is morally corrupt according to his intuitive metaphysical order (pp 117, 178, 185). His subtitle, Playing God with the climate, means that Clive accuses geoengineers of prioritising logic and evidence over his pious "feeling for the role of the Sun as a symbol of powers beyond the reach of mortals." (p179) While many will have sympathy for this reverential religious wonder at the power of the sun, its place in scientific analysis is not clear.

Just to correct one small error, Hamilton calls it a "paramount fact that few ...have yet grasped - the carbon dioxide we are putting into the atmosphere will persist for thousands of years." (p184) This `fact' is not true. Technology can mine the atmosphere as a resource to convert carbon into useful products such as fuel, food, fertilizer and fabric. Algae farms on one per cent of the world ocean surface would be more than enough to rapidly pushing the CO2 level back down to the safe value of 280 ppm. Clive's dismal funk of doomsday eco-pessimism is unjustified, blinding him to the great optimistic potential for growth, peace, stability and progress provided by industrial technology.

Science and technology have created the abundant wealth and freedom enjoyed by modern civilization. Science also shares the responsibility to enable us to manage the complex global ecological impacts of humanity. Clive Hamilton speaks to technophobes who wish for a simpler world and are attracted more by emotion than analysis.
Dr Hamilton has actually provided a gift for geoengineers, and for their conservative capitalist backers, by illustrating the thinking of left wing political opponents in a way that will enable constructive dialogue and progress. Earth Masters provides useful insight into the incoherence of arguments against geoengineering. This debate illustrates the need for geoengineering to move into serious public discussion, in full awareness of the risks and the need for quick and transparent implementation with clear and simple public explanation.

Corporate investment from energy and extractive industries should be mobilised to research and develop geoengineering technology. The planetary emergency of rising CO2 levels requires a global climate security project modelled on the USA's successful Manhattan and Apollo projects. Immediate steps to use solar radiation management to protect the Arctic from melting are required, together with longer term research and development of profitable commercial methods to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
Read less
2 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
Posted by at

Should We Eat Meat?: Evolution and Consequences of Modern Carnivory: Smil, Vaclav 2014

Should We Eat Meat?: Evolution and Consequences of Modern Carnivory: Smil, Vaclav: 9781118278727: Amazon.com: Books


Should We Eat Meat?: Evolution and Consequences of Modern Carnivory 1st Edition
by Vaclav Smil (Author)
4.2 out of 5 stars 66 ratings



Kindle
from AUD 49.94

Paperback
AUD 43.69

Other Sellers
See all 2 versions


Editorial Reviews

Review


Vaclav Smil receives 2015 OPEC Award for Research

“Summing Up: Recommended. Upper-division undergraduates and above.” (Choice, 1 January 2014)
From the Inside Flap


Should We Eat Meat?

EVOLUTION AND CONSEQUENCES OF MODERN CARNIVORY

Meat eating is often a contentious subject, whether considering the technical, ethical,environmental, political, or health-related aspects of production and consumption.

This book is a wide-ranging and interdisciplinary examination and critique of meat consumption by humans, throughout their evolution and around the world. Setting the scene with a chapter on meat's role in human evolution and its growing influence during the development of agricultural practices, the book goes on to examine modern production systems, their efficiencies, outputs, and impacts. The major global trends of meat consumption are described in order to find out what part its consumption plays in changing modern diets in countries around the world. The heart of the book addresses the consequences of the "massive carnivory" of western diets, looking at the inefficiencies of production and at the huge impacts on land, water, and the atmosphere. Health impacts are also covered, both positive and negative. In conclusion, the author looks forward at his vision of "rational meat eating", where environmental and health impacts are reduced, animals are treated more humanely, and alternative sources of protein make a higher contribution.

Should We Eat Meat? is not an ideological tract for or against carnivorousness but rather a careful evaluation of meat's roles in human diets and the environmental and health consequences of its production and consumption. It will be of interest to a wide readership including professionals and academics in food and agricultural production, human health and nutrition, environmental science, and regulatory and policy making bodies around the world.

From the Back Cover


Should We Eat Meat?

EVOLUTION AND CONSEQUENCES OF MODERN CARNIVORY

Meat eating is often a contentious subject, whether considering the technical, ethical,environmental, political, or health-related aspects of production and consumption.

This book is a wide-ranging and interdisciplinary examination and critique of meat consumption by humans, throughout their evolution and around the world. Setting the scene with a chapter on meat's role in human evolution and its growing influence during the development of agricultural practices, the book goes on to examine modern production systems, their efficiencies, outputs, and impacts. The major global trends of meat consumption are described in order to find out what part its consumption plays in changing modern diets in countries around the world. The heart of the book addresses the consequences of the "massive carnivory" of western diets, looking at the inefficiencies of production and at the huge impacts on land, water, and the atmosphere. Health impacts are also covered, both positive and negative. In conclusion, the author looks forward at his vision of "rational meat eating", where environmental and health impacts are reduced, animals are treated more humanely, and alternative sources of protein make a higher contribution.

Should We Eat Meat? is not an ideological tract for or against carnivorousness but rather a careful evaluation of meat's roles in human diets and the environmental and health consequences of its production and consumption. It will be of interest to a wide readership including professionals and academics in food and agricultural production, human health and nutrition, environmental science, and regulatory and policy making bodies around the world.
About the Author


Dr Vaclav Smil is Distinguished Professor Emeritus in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Manitoba. His interdisciplinary research interests encompass a broad area of energy, environmental, food, population, economic, historical, and public policy studies. Dr. Smil has published in more than 30 books, over 400 papers, and contributed to more than 30 edited volumes.
Read less

Product details

ASIN : 1118278720
Publisher : Wiley-Blackwell; 1st edition (May 28, 2013)
Language : English
Paperback : 276 pages
Customer Reviews:
4.2 out of 5 stars 66 ratings


Top reviews from the United States


Karthik Sekar
4.0 out of 5 stars Comprehensive and exhaustive but not without flawsReviewed in the United States on November 9, 2018
Verified Purchase
Smil's book was exactly what I was looking for - a potted history of how meat became industrialized and the numbers surrounding the phenomena. He breaks down numbers such as feed, productivity, yield, carbon dioxide emissions, and water usage with incredible nuance. I particularly appreciated the way he approached the water usage numbers, highlighting that we can't consider all water going into meat as the same (e.g. water from aquifers versus rainfall used to grow the feedcrops). I also think he explained well the major determinants in engendering industrial animal agriculture (e.g. advances in refrigeration and the Haber process).

As with any Smil book, it can be a bit dry and a slog at times. I think numbers are a good start, but numbers ultimately should be culminating to some sort of wisdom. I didn't always find such in this book. Also, I think he makes numerous fallacies: For example, he contends that malnutrition in India is due to not eating enough meat. Couldn't this also be explained by a general lack of calories? Secondly, he often qualifies meat eating due to evolutionary reasons. Often, his arguments rest on the fact that because humans are evolutionarily optimized to eat meat, we should. This is a fallacy. Modern society routinely dispenses evolutionary goals (e.g. monogamy, having fewer children). We have adopted other values to take its place (such as moral considerations).

26 people found this helpful

HelpfulReport abuse

Gypsykin
3.0 out of 5 stars Well researched and fact basedReviewed in the United States on December 21, 2017
Verified Purchase
This is a difficult read thanks to the plethora of facts and figures shared by the author. To his credit he has analyzed and critiqued a number of myths and misconceptions using hard data. This is probably the most well researched book I have read about meat eating and the planetary impact of the meat industry. However the writing style and excessive listing of facts and data makes it a difficult read. Not a book for the casual reader or layman.

5 people found this helpful

HelpfulReport abuse

AlchemystAZ
5.0 out of 5 stars Consider the W.H.O. recommendation and then read this Science.Reviewed in the United States on December 15, 2015
Verified Purchase
Very thorough science, but gives beef a passing grade as opposite to the latest World Health Organization recommendation. Beef made us who we are. He suggests how to handle the overwhelming task of getting people at least to cut down before the Earth is finally destroyed. A heavy read. Not for the weak of spirit or the scientifically ignorant. Few politicians are up to the task, unfortunately.

10 people found this helpful

HelpfulReport abuse

Philippides
4.0 out of 5 stars Yes, we should eat meatReviewed in the United States on December 15, 2015
Verified Purchase
I liked this book. It is pretty well informed and well documented. The answer I get from the question that titles the book is a big YES, we should eat meat, and the reason resides in the fact that a lot, really a lot of what humans cannot process from our food -cereal stalks for example- is recycled by livestok that produce rich, wholesom proteins.
If interested in this topic, I highly recommend this reading.

7 people found this helpful

HelpfulReport abuse

ahall
4.0 out of 5 stars GreatReviewed in the United States on January 28, 2014
Verified Purchase
I really liked the factual perspective of the argument "Should we eat meat?" The author makes really good points about what it takes to produce meat, many things that I never thought about. The environmental impact is vastly significant. The only thing I didn't like is that the author gets too much into the nitty gritty of nutritional facts and the history of meat eating.

4 people found this helpful

HelpfulReport abuse

Sean T.
5.0 out of 5 stars Five StarsReviewed in the United States on January 5, 2015
Verified Purchase
Excellent book, filled with very in-depth analysis.

3 people found this helpful

HelpfulReport abuse

Frankly BT
4.0 out of 5 stars It'll make you think....Reviewed in the United States on December 31, 2013
Verified Purchase
If you're looking for some light reading to pass the time....don't read this book. BUT....if you're looking for some serious insight into all aspects of carnivory and its relation to humans.....then this is the book for you. Brought to light much that I was unaware of.

9 people found this helpful

HelpfulReport abuse

Ron Guillot
5.0 out of 5 stars Five StarsReviewed in the United States on June 13, 2016
Verified Purchase
Unbiased and incredible approach to a very controversial topic with various positives and negatives

2 people found this helpful

HelpfulReport abuse

See all reviews


Top reviews from other countries
Translate all reviews to English

Mohammad Noroozi
5.0 out of 5 stars A deep dive into meat and its impact on our health, on society, and the environmentReviewed in Canada on March 12, 2019
Verified Purchase

The below is copied from my Goodreads review about the book.

As a person who eats a mostly vegetarian diet, I have been looking for a book which dedicated itself to look at the actual facts known about meat and its consequences on our health, on society, and on our environment. This was that book for me.

The other readers have commented/complained about the density of numbers and references in Vaclav Smil's book. I admit, the reading will be slow, and it will probably be hard going at times. That said, personally, I appreciated that this was written like a graduate thesis. It was important for me that I could dig deeper into the references on any topic of interest and I could keep the figures he quoted in mind for when it came time to make my own conclusions.

Another point I could also make in defense of Vaclav Smil's style is that, for me personally anyways, a little sober number peddling is a welcome alternative to the polarized debate between meat lovers and vegetarians. I wanted someone who would take a researchers accounting of the facts when I picked up this book. I wasn't disappointed.

Apart from that, a little about what's actually in the book:

1. The Ancient History of People and Eating Meat

If you have an unquestioning ideological bend against the idea that meat has ever been a part of the healthy human diet then, thankfully, the first part of the book will turn you off and you won't have to waste any more time. Vaclav Smil says the simple truth. At our basic biology (e.g. our intestinal tract, our teeth, the essential amino acids our body does not produce itself) we are fine tuned to include meat as a substantial part of our diet.

Also, despite what other readers say, Vaclav Smil doesn't suggest that we can't live with a meatless diet, he just notes what is obvious for any serious anthropologist - us and our ancestors have been eating meat for a long time. You can live a healthy life while meatless but the consensus about our evolution as a species stays the same.

2. Livestock's Historical Role in Human Civilization

Vaclav Smil touches on what type of animals human beings picked as their ideal livestock. The topic is facinating. For instance, a bear would make a terrible livestock. A bear needs meat as part of its healthy diet. Similarly, anything but a herd animal would be too unruly and more dangerous to its handlers.

Then he discusses the historical advantages that ancient farmers took use of to make their subsistence living just a little easier. Large livestock could do work in the field. Also, horses and cows were able to eat the parts of crops that humans can't digest (the cellulose in plants is undigestible in humans and a lot of other animals). Cows were able to turn this inedible roughage into nutritious milk for human beings.

Separately, pigs and chickens could be relied on to either eat the garbage left over from human cooking or forage for themselves for their feed. I particularly liked the example of chickens or geese being flocked over a recently harvested field to eat any left over seeds.

3. The Manufacturing of Food - Feed Crops, CAFOs, Balanced Feed

This part of the book is the section that most surprised me. Like most other people, I'd seen the images of chickens in small cages, cows shoulder to shoulder at a feeding trough in giant facilities. Those images are the tip of an iceberg. The whole operation is much more industrial, more globalized, and enormously sophisticated.

Smil quickly does away with the terms "industrial farming" or "factory farming" and introduces the term Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). This is the term that describes the terrible living conditions of cows, pigs, and chickens who will live in the minimum space mandated by law in large feeding facilities. For chickens, that space is slightly larger than a legal sheet of paper per chicken. For pigs, and cows, often they are close enough that they are almost just rubbing against the animal next to them. Some of these facilities have only as much light in the animal areas as you would find on a moonlight night outside. Often the feces is not removed until the animals have been cleared. Smil documents all of this in extraordinary detail. Meat in modern society is for the first time cheaply and readily available to almost anyone. The tragedy, as Smil notes, is that it is born on the suffering of these animals.

The other, and as Smil points out, more environmentally significant aspect of modern meat production is feed crops and compound feeds. I ended up visualizing compound feeds as the Clif bars of animal feed. It is a food substance, often pelleted (I assume for easy portioning) of a balanced portion of macro and micro nutrients from various whole food sources and additives. Making this requires high yield crops such as corn and soybean to be sourced, often across national borders, to facilities for the large scale mixing. The net effect of this work - the farming, the transport, the industrial processing, and the feeding to animals rather than feeding directly to humans - results in a high energy cost for each pound of meat eaten by a person. This translates to a large contribution to the global warming of our environment.

The couple of chapters that deal with that in depth are worth reading twice to learn about the fascinating globalized web that brings meat to our tables.

4. The Potential Role for Meat in a Future with Many More Mouths to Feed

Smil takes his time to make his case but I'll be up front about it, he sees meat as a necessary part of any future solutions that make better use of current farm lands to feed even more people. Unlike what I saw some other readers claim, Smil doesn't say that the world can't be well nourished on a vegetarian diet with the current farm lands we have. What he says, which is obvious, is that most people are not willing to stop eating meat. If anything, the more money that individuals in developing countries have, the more likely they are to regularly buy meat. Smil is being pragmatic in his predictions.

What he does make a case for, is being more rational with our meat production. For instance, cows eating plant matter that is inedible to humans anyways could be a larger part of their diet with no detriment to farmland dedicated for producing crops directly for human consumption. Those cows could also produce milk, which is much more energy efficient per pound of feed for a cow.

He also talks about the benefits of growing fish aquafarms and the relatively much more efficient feeding of such. He talks about ways to extend ground meat with portions of soy. He also, and I appreciated this, talked about all of us eating a little less meat. There is already a trend to that in developed countries. He makes a lot of sensible suggestions for the reader to consider.

TL;DR This is a great book. There is much to learn about how meat gets from a farm to the grocery store, the treatment of animals, the role of animals in mankind's history. I think any vegetarian or would be vegetarians should pick this up, if only to hear the perspective of an academic who has seriously researched the topic of humanity's relationship to meat.
Read less

7 people found this helpfulReport abuse

Benjamin Parry
4.0 out of 5 stars A comprehensive overview but lacking a holistic approachReviewed in Canada on February 27, 2021
Verified Purchase

This is the first book I’ve read by famed Manitoban researcher Vaclav Smil, much beloved by Bill Gates. The book’s intent is to provide the data needed to answer its stated question. It is a compendium of facts and figures and each page is loaded with references, yet it lacks the holistic view needed for a satisfying answer.

Smil’s method is reductive: nutrition becomes the composition of protein, fat & carbohydrate with some micronutrients; environmental impact becomes land use, greenhouse gas emissions, and some observations on heavy metals. This approach is dangerous. The systems in question are too complex for closed models to accurately describe their operation. If we focus only on the ways these systems can have engineering resilience around specific components we will miss their ecological resilience. That said, knowing this, and duly discounting certain recommendations, the book is useful for covering what we have been able to glean from this approach. As an overview of the scientific literature for meat production it appears comprehensive.
Report abuse


Manu dJ
5.0 out of 5 stars Gran trabajo de investigación y exposiciónReviewed in Spain on October 13, 2016
Verified Purchase

El libro de Smil presenta un análisis exhaustivo del consumo de carne desde diversas perspectivas. Trata desde su función en la evolución del hombre actual hasta su papel como elemento de las diferentes culturas. Hace un gran análisis del coste de la producción de carne, especialmente centrado en su impacto ambiental, valorando diversas medidas de este impacto y discutiendo las que no son adecuadas. Finaliza presentando diversos escenarios de adaptación para reducir el impacto del consumo de carne sobre el medio ambiente.

Es un trabajo académico de gran valor que incluye estudios hechos desde distintas perspectivas. Es un libro para leer con la mente abierta y sin una idea preconcebida al respecto. Si así se hace, se aprende mucho y permite formarse una opinión propia al respecto del tema tratado. MUY RECOMENDABLE.

2 people found this helpfulReport abuse
Translate review to English


Tanguy P
4.0 out of 5 stars Make an informed decision about whether to eat meatReviewed in France on January 10, 2018
Verified Purchase

After watching the 2014 documentary Cowspiracy, whose rather depressing conclusion was that anyone concerned about the environment should become a vegan, I set out to search for a book which would provide me with a more detailed analysis of the matter, and would allow me to make an informed decision about my consumption of animal products.
And that is exactly what I have found in this book. The scope of Vaclav Smil's analysis is mind-boggling: how much meat is produced in the world today? How much meat do people consume in different countries, and how are those statistics built? How are animals raised and slaughtered? What are the impacts of animal husbandry in terms of water consumption, land use, GHG emissions, etc.? What are the positive and negative effects of meat consumption on our health?
In just over 200 pages, the author successfully deals with all these questions, and many more, answering pretty much every question I might have had about meat consumption, in a very documented, scientific manner. And he debunks many hasty arguments that are often made against meat consumption, the kind that you can see in Cowspiracy.
And he's not just throwing numbers around and describing a situation: he provides a very concrete conclusion that we should draw from all those facts.
The book explores so many different fields, it's a tough read, unless you're well versed in biology, agriculture, etc. But if you have a basic scientific culture, and are willing to look up from time to time a concept that you're not familiar with, then you should definitely not be daunted!
Taking off one-star half-heartedly because the presentation of the book could have been better (e.g. it would have been nice to have annexes that recap commonly used figures, such as the average live weights of cows/pigs/poultry, or feed conversion ratio) and because some factual errors have slipped through.
Read less

One person found this helpfulReport abuse
Translate review to English

Puao
Posted by at
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)