- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Available on NOOK devices and apps
Want a NOOK? Explore Now
Want a NOOK? Explore Now
From the Trade Paperback edition.
Beginning with a tour of microbial ecosystems that demonstrates how few of the planet's species we have even named, much less understood, Wilson tracks the staggering toll taken on the world's ecosystems by a proliferating Homo sapiens. He touches on the planet's hotspots, from Madagascar to China: particularly rich zones of plant and animal diversity that are the most critically threatened. In Hawaii, for instance, thousands of unique species evolved in isolation over centuries, only to be rapidly decimated by human activities and the introduction of alien species with which they cannot compete.
It is a grim toll, and one that we have heard with depressing regularity in recent years. But Wilson follows this sobering litany with a chapter of concrete hopes for the planet's future, from debt-for-nature swaps to the proliferation of environmental groups. One of the book's most interesting sections resurrects the idea of biophilia, "the innate tendency to focus on life and lifelike forms," which Wilson introduced several years ago. We all have deep and abiding connections with nature, and if they can be nourished (education will play a large role) and channeled into moral decisions, we still have a chance to save the planet's biodiversity from our other, baser motives.
Ever the scientific optimist, Wilson places faith in the ability of technology to get us out of the fixes into which it has put us: For example, he advocates the highly controversial genetic engineering of crops. But, intriguingly, Wilson has yielded some of the ground claimed in Consilience, where he placed science at the pinnacle of human endeavor. Here, this great scientist argues that our ability to protect what's left of the planet's biodiversity ultimately depends, more than anything, on an ethical commitment. Unless we harness what's noblest about ourselves as a species, we risk being the only ones left on a silenced, emptied, and impoverished planet. (Jonathan Cook)
| List of Endangered and Extinct Species and Races | ix | |
| Prologue: A Letter to Thoreau | xi | |
| Chapter 1 | To the ends of Earth | 3 |
| Chapter 2 | The Bottleneck | 22 |
| Chapter 3 | Nature's Last Stand | 42 |
| Chapter 4 | The Planetary Killer | 79 |
| Chapter 5 | How Much Is the Biosphere Worth? | 103 |
| Chapter 6 | For the Love of Life | 129 |
| Chapter 7 | The Solution | 149 |
| Notes | 191 | |
| Glossary | 213 | |
| Acknowledgments | 219 | |
| Index | 221 |
Science & Nature Editor Laura Wood spoke with Edward O. Wilson on the telephone.
Barnes & Noble.com: Thank you very much for taking the time to speak with me.
Edward O. Wilson: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss my book.
B&N.com: What is the concern about the future of life?
EOW: My concern, and that of all biologists working on biological diversity, is the accelerating loss of natural ecosystems and the species they contain. If environmental trends of the present continue unabated -- and we prayerfully hope that will not be the case -- then as many as half the species of plants and animals will be gone by the end of the century. So if I can add something more, "So what?"
B&N.com: You mean, why do we care?
EOW: Yes, why do we care?
B&N.com: Right, don't people say extinctions happen all the time?
EOW: They do. That's a very good question. Don't extinctions happen all the time? They do, but before the coming of humanity they were at the rate of very roughly one species dying out per million per year. Human activity -- mainly through destruction of habitat, pollution, introduction of alien species, and overharvesting -- have driven the extinction rate up to approximately one thousand per million at times. So like a spendthrift householder eating into the capital, the world's biosphere is headed for bankruptcy. If I might go back to the question Why should we care? I will get slightly more long-winded.
B&N.com: Why should we care? deserves a long-winded response.
EOW: My answer would be three compelling reasons. First, the opportunity costs -- to use an economist's term -- of losing species: Each species is a masterpiece of evolution and has unique genetic information that fits it to particular niches in the environment -- anatomy, physiology, behavior -- and that information is scientifically priceless. Furthermore, the actual products yet to be discovered, especially pharmaceuticals, new crops, is also without price. The second reason for caring is that diversity of living forms increases the stability of the environment. It has been shown recently that with the increase in the number of plants, for example, the ecosystems they contain recycle more energy, produce more, and are more resistant to environmental catastrophes, such as floods. The third reason that I spell out in the book is aesthetic and spiritual. Almost everyone in the world would agree that destroying a large part of the rest of life -- creation, as theologians would call it -- is not a good thing. So where do we go from here?
B&N.com: Your last statement leads into another issue that I've been thinking about and which you address in your book. Environmental issues are often couched in terms of a left-right political polarization, and you posit that we need to get away from that and also that the stereotype is not necessarily true. I'm from Oklahoma. Oklahoma is very Republican. My father is a Republican. We went to Colorado -- ever since I was tiny -- three or four times a year. My father loves nature and certainly shares the aesthetic experience you describe. I think that that's something we need to recognize more instead of devolving into an "us versus them" posture.
EOW: That's exactly right. I don't think there's any difference between Republicans and Democrats in the love of and need for nature. Recent research has even shown that our need is a deep psychological one, and hospitals are designing the postsurgical ward to allow patients to view natural and seminatural environments from their rooms. This has proved to increase the incidence and speed of recovery after surgery. There are a number of similar remarkable effects that have been discovered after exposure to nature and natural environments. But just to expand on the point you made, one of the purposes of writing this book was to try to help depoliticize environmental issues, especially in respect to conservation. It is a sad circumstance that somehow conservatives have come to be viewed -- and many of them view themselves -- as opposed to conservation action, while liberals are viewed as the champions of conservation action. This is a false dichotomy, because activists for the environment are just as prominent among conservatives, including many business leaders, for example, as among people who identify themselves as liberal. We have in common a desire and a need to preserve the natural environment in this country and the planet as a whole.
B&N.com: I couldn't agree with you more. What is important is getting people on board and accomplishing what we can right now. I wanted to highlight the points you made in the book about nongovernmental organizations, in particular the Nature Conservancy. In Oklahoma, the Nature Conservancy bought a cattle ranch and turned it into a tall-grass prairie reserve complete with buffalo. So this group uses capitalism and private property -- often bashed as institutions that are inherently antienvironmental -- in an environmentally constructive way. Since private property is private, there's no law to stop you from buying a ranch and putting buffalo on it and turning it into a nature preserve. And many of the other NGOs are working with world governments, and economic institutions are to be helpful to the environment.
EOW: The conservation scene, especially on a global basis, has changed completely in the last ten years. The reason that it's done so, as you've just indicated, is the advances made by some of the major conservation organizations. The Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, and the World Wildlife Fund are among the major institutions that are innovating in ways of measuring the problem worldwide and finding solutions on a large-scale basis to solve it. What I wanted to emphasize in the book is that though the picture is grim, it is now changed in terms of the number of environmental triumphs and new practices. One of the reasons it is changing is that now we have a grip on the problem. Ecologists and economists increasingly know where the worst damage is being done in the world, where the most species are being lost. They are finding ways to solve that problem. They are getting a price tag on it and a timeline. This changes the picture very substantially, because we have long since passed the time when doomsaying alone will accomplish very much. Now people in responsible positions understand there is a problem. They want to know: how big it is; where it is; what the consequences are; how it can be fixed; how much it is going to cost; how long it is going to take; and what are the consequences of not fixing it and what are the consequences of fixing it. In a nutshell that is what has begun. I think we're in the early stages of turning around the global conservation of biodiversity problem.
B&N.com: That's very important. It's easy to feel defeated and overwhelmed. It's true that people are well informed that there's a problem and then might start feeling overwhelmed because it seems so out of control. It's hopeful that there is already being developed a much more sophisticated, targeted, and doable effort.
EOW: Well, that's the American way -- not to be fatalistic and not to give in to a sense of hopelessness. America has led the world in part because it regards all problems as solvable. This is a solvable problem. The great challenge of the 21st century is getting the rest of the world up to a decent standard of living while carrying through as much of the rest of life on earth with us as possible. It's as simple as that. And we can do it. We know how to do it now. We have the first parts of the solution, anyway, and we should get on with it. It's not going to cost that much. In the book I show estimates in the range of $30 billion for the entire planet.
B&N.com: That's really not that much when you look at the scale of governmental budgets, and we are talking about the entire international community.
EOW: And we are talking about saving a large part of the diversity of life on earth. So it's doable -- that's the point. It can be done. I think we now should reconsider how we approach the whole issue of conservation, both in this country and abroad, and think of the practical and spiritual reasons we can all agree on. It then becomes a problem of how best to accomplish the goal. That we have not had before.
B&N.com: That gets us to the moral and spiritual issues. People can be motivated by practical issues, but I think that moral imperatives and spiritual feelings -- the aesthetic sense you mentioned before -- are incredibly powerful motivating forces. There is a plan that we can do and now we need the will to achieve it. So do you see an increase of this moral sense, spiritual sense related to the environment?
EOW: I do, and I'm encouraged. Religious leaders still have a long way to go, grappling with the problem themselves and formulating moral precepts about it, but the interest among religious thinkers and leaders in the last few years has grown rapidly enough to suggest that it is about to have a major effect. Evangelical, Orthodox, Catholic, and Jewish groups, among others, are beginning to pick up on conservation as a major ethical issue. Bartholomew I, the spiritual leader of the Eastern Orthodox Church with some 250 million members, has declared the destruction of natural environments and extinction of species by human activity a sin. I rather like that.
B&N.com: So it seems to me that one of the main things you want to leave readers with is a sense of optimism and hope. Is that true?
EOW: That is true. It's a dire problem that needs to be more widely understood. There are serious consequences for the future in every realm of life and the natural environment. It is, on the other hand, a problem that scientists, economists, and others are getting a grip on, getting to understand, and taking the measure of.
B&N.com: Human beings do want to be inspired. People love doing the "right" thing. And you can see that happening with the environment, and that's where we need to get -- a broad-based general consensus.
EOW: It's exactly that quality I'd like to see enter the mainstream of American life. It comes down, too, to the need for people to understand that we have to have a long-term and global view. Global welfare and security in the 21st century is local security writ large. We no longer can be insular in anything, and so we cannot be insular in respect to the environment.
1. In his prologue, Wilson addresses Henry David Thoreau, the nineteenth-century naturalist: “I came because of all your contemporaries you are the one I most need to understand” (pp. xi-xii). If you have read Thoreau’s Walden, what do you think Thoreau would make of the present state of the earth as described in Wilson's The Future of Life? Why is it important to Wilson to make personal connections between himself and Darwin, Huxley and Thoreau (see p. xii)? Why does Wilson begin his book with this homage to Thoreau? What specifically about Thoreau’s approach to life does Wilson wish people would begin to emulate?
2. Many organisms and ecosystems unfamiliar to nonscientists are described in these pages, particularly chapter 1, “To the Ends of Earth.” What is the effect of reading about extremophiles, radiation-resistant bacteria, the deeps of the Mariana Trench, the environment of the McMurdo Dry Valleys, the bacteria and fungi of Antarctica’s Lake Vostok? Why is it necessary for people to familiarize themselves with the complexity of the Earth’s organisms and its enormous variety of ecosystems? (See pp. 3-6, 9.)
3. What is the problem, as Wilson sees it, with the economic approach to environmental policy? What is lost if everything is translated into monetary value? What would be accomplished if governments adopted the GPI (genuine progress indicator) instead of the GNP (gross national product), which Wilson discusses on page 28? What is indicated, in terms of the American approach to environmental responsibility, by the fact that the United States refuses for economic reasons to adopt the Kyoto Climate Protocol to reduce greenhouse gases?
4. What is most troubling about the discovery that many frog and toad species are rapidly becoming extinct or are undergoing mutations and physical malformations? Why are amphibians such good indicators of environmental stresses? Is all of the damage to amphibian habitats ultimately due to human activity? (See pp. 54-56.)
5. In his projection of life on Earth in the year 2100, Wilson suggests that human beings will have become more and more homogenized, genetically speaking, through intermarriage, and that the biological differences between races will grow fainter with each generation (pp. 76-77). What might be the social advantages of greater racial homogeneity? Might the breakdown of racial difference promote greater harmony among peoples, or are issues of genetics not the most provocative sources of ethnic and class conflict? What are the biological disadvantages of the loss of geographically based diversity in the human gene pool?
6. Is Wilson correct in assuming that the human population is “aging and wiser” about the damage it has done to the Earth and to the future (p. 77)? What is the tone of the “testament” to our heirs that Wilson includes on pages 77 and 78? Is this a warning that in the future certain missing aspects of the natural world will have to be fabricated or synthesized in order to re-create what was destroyed? What does Wilson mean when he called the twenty-first century “the Age of Loneliness” for humanity?
7. What are the dangers and possible benefits of genetically engineered food crops? Why are people in the United States far less resistant to this idea than people in Europe, where environmental activism is more widespread? What is Wilson's position regarding genetic engineering (see pp. 116-120)?
8. Wilson points out that most of the planet’s “hotspots”--places in which the environment is most severely threatened--are in the developing world, where populations are often extremely poor. Rich nations are more likely than poor ones to take active steps to preserve their environment. Of the conservationist strategies and political initiatives he discusses, which seem most likely to succeed in poor nations? How important is the role played by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in conservation (see chapter 7)?
9. The most important concern of Wilson and other environmentalists is what he calls “the wreckage of the planet by an exuberantly plentiful and ingenious humanity” (xxiii); elsewhere he calls Homo sapiens the “serial killer of the biosphere” (p. 94). But he suggests that humanity may be ready to begin to be more thoughtful about its impact on the Earth. On page 22 he asks, “How best can we shift to a culture of permanence, both for ourselves and for the biosphere that sustains us?” What are some of the ways that this might happen? What are some of the major forces of resistance to such a change?
10. In the developed world, where the majority of people live in urban and suburban environments, a sense of alienation from wild nature is quite common. Given that this is the case, how difficult is it for people to feel alarmed about the perilous state of the Earth and its disappearing species, encroaching oceans, and melting ice caps? What sort of leap of the imagination do people have to make to become committed environmentalists? Do most people in America think about how their consumer behaviors, for instance, affect people, animals, and nature in biologically threatened areas of the developing world?
11. In his prologue Wilson writes, “The race is now on between the technoscientific and scientific forces that are destroying the living environment and those that can be harnessed to save it. . . . If the race is won, humanity can emerge in far better condition than when it entered, and with most of the diversity of life still intact” (xxiii). How does Wilson reach the mood of cautious optimism in his final chapter? Among his specific suggestions for “the solution” (chapter 7) to the impending environmental catastrophe, which seem most likely to succeed? Which solutions will be most difficult to implement, and why? Is Wilson, as he says, “an extremist” in suggesting that 50 percent of the world’s land surface should be protected from overpopulation and development?
12. Biophilia is the title of one of Wilson’s previous books; he defines the word as “the innate tendency to affiliate with, and draw deep satisfaction from, other organisms.” He has also said, “There’s no doubt anymore, from psychological tests, that people do prefer a natural environment in which to live. . . . Clearly this is something very deep and very mysterious in the human psyche, and very important for human welfare.” * What is the relationship, as Wilson sees it, between human spirituality and the natural world? Why should the human spiritual impulse play a central role in environmental thinking and policy-making?
* Both quotes from “Living in Shimmering Equilibrium,” an interview with E. O. Wilson by Fred Branfman on Salon.com.
Anonymous
Posted April 19, 2008
Edward Wilson's book 'The Future of Life' is a lucid, superbly crafted book from one of America's most famous scientists. The scope that this novel takes is excellent, moving in from the state of the global to as small a microcosm as a single branch of a tree in the rain forest. He never talks down to his audience, and the writing flows along a steady clip. In short, while it may be a bit outdated when it comes to some data concerning things such as global warming (it was written a few years ago), 'The Future of Life' is a book of the highest order, one that shines with a great love for humanity and to be read and reread for years with one's family.
3 out of 3 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Anonymous
Posted October 10, 2005
The Future of Life by Edward Wilson is an informative and well-balanced novel with a powerful message about the impact human beings have had and are continuing to have upon Earth. The book is great for those with a love of the environment, and even better for people who do not understand the value of, or place any importance on the natural world. Wilson describes the bottleneck the human race is facing as caused by an ever-expanding population and ever-dwindling natural resources. He maintains that corrective action must be taken to curb the mass extinctions currently taking place as a direct result of humanity passing through this bottleneck. However, Wilson does not stop are merely stating the problem. He spends the last chapter of the book, appropriately titled `The Solution¿ describing the path and policies that humans must adopt to reverse the trend of destructive exploitation of the natural world. Wilson takes care to explain both sides of the issue, and doesn¿t use the book as a platform for blaming capitalism for destroying the environment. In the first chapter, `The Bottleneck¿, he writes about the stereotypical `Economist¿ and ¿Environmentalist¿ viewpoints and states that both are overly dramatized. Throughout the book, he presents arguments that balance the need of aiding the economy and the environment, as seen by the statement: ¿No one can be expected to leave a reserve inviolate if it is his source of food and fuel. A patch of forest fenced off and patrolled is a cruel insult to hungry people shut out, and unworkable in the long run¿ (168). He then explains methods for making conservation profitable for those who must practice it directly. The chapter ¿How Much is the Biosphere Worth¿ addresses this issue well. Wilson makes it clear that a forest is worth far more than the lumber it is harvested for, as with the example of the Catskill Watershed that provides water purification for New York City, a service worth billions of dollars. The final chapter, ¿The Solution¿, contains a thorough description of past, present, and future methods for conserving the biodiversity of the planet. Wilson discusses the growing influence of nongovernmental organizations like Conservation International and their efforts to protect greater stretches of wilderness. He then lists eleven key elements that humanity needs to implement to save the biosphere, from ¿complete the mapping of the world¿s biological diversity¿ to ¿use biodiversity more effectively to benefit the world economy as a whole¿(162-3). Taken together, these elements are certainly a tall order, but they do a thorough job of addressing the key issues raised by Wilson. On a technical note, the novel is not always easy to read. Many passages are written in the passive voice, making comprehension of some of Wilson¿s ideas more difficult than they might be otherwise. Also, some of his claims on global warming and extinction are stated as known fact without a mention of a source: ¿ More frequent heat waves, violent storms, forest fires, droughts, and flooding damage are the spawn of the historically unprecedented pace of climate change¿ (68). It is hard to determine the source of other data that is pulled from studies and academic papers but not directly cited in the text because the facts are not footnoted, and are simply listed by page number in a notes appendix in the back of the book. Aside from these few weak points, the book is strong, and the majority of his arguments are backed up and illustrated well. A good example is the discussion of deforestation as taken from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The data cited says that the ¿worldwide rate of clear cutting [of tropical rainforests] has been close to 1% per year. Where all tropical rainforests occupy approximately equal to the lower forty-eight United States, they are being removed at the rate of half the state of Florida every year¿ (59-60). Wilson¿s
2 out of 3 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Anonymous
Posted October 8, 2005
Edward O. Wilson is no doubt a scientist before a writer. The first sentence of The Future of Life reads, ¿The totality of life, known as the biosphere to scientist and creation to theologians, is a membrane of organisms wrapped around Earth so thin it cannot be seen edgewise from a space shuttle, yet internally complex that most species composing it remain undiscovered.¿ I believe that Eddy uses such intelligent and complex diction because he wants to come across as intelligent and complex. Sadly, his goal is reached but the use of this elevated diction only acts to create a barrier between the reader and himself. Even though Wilson is an educated scientist, he could have restated this opening sentence in a much simpler manner that would have been received much easier by the reader. ¿Life is so complex and full of beings that many species still remained undiscovered.¿ If Wilson were to write in this way, perhaps I would have taking a better liking to him and consequently have listened with more receptivity. Looking beyond his diction however, Eddy does a fairly good job in the first chapter of filling the reader¿s mind with all sorts of unthinkable species and forms of life. He even explains a little about extremophiles, species adapted to live at the edge of biological tolerance. At the end of chapter one, Wilson uses the technique of ethos, an appeal to our emotions. He goes on to explain how the majority of cells in our body belong to bacterial and other microorganismic species, and how this is the ¿biospheric membrane that covers Earth, and you and me.¿ The last sentence of this chapter attempts to play our emotions by writing how tragic it is to lose a major part of this biospheric membrane before we can learn what it is and how it can be savored and used. If I didn¿t know better, I¿d say that poor old Eddy is attempting to get us to do something about our lively biosphere before it¿s too late. Now why wouldn¿t he just come out and tell us this instead of using a cheap trick to win us over? In chapter two, Wilson strikes gold when he writes about the economist and environmentalist. He writes, ¿Perhaps the time has come to cease calling it `the environmentalist¿ view, as thought it were a lobbying effort outside the mainstream of human activity, and to start calling it the real-world view.¿ When I read this sentence, I immediately thought to myself: this guy is good. Maybe we should stop categorizing things as ¿environmentalist¿ because all it does is make the idea of environmentalism seem like a radical, out-there kind of view instead of the logical, popular view that it should be. Even though Wilson hits some good points in chapter two, at the end of the chapter his ships crashes into a couple of rocks before safely landing. He writes, ¿It [environmentalism] is the guiding principle of those devoted to the health of the planet. But it is not yet a general worldview, evidently not compelling enough to distract many people away from the primal diversions of sport, politics, religion, and private wealth.¿ Here Wilson is trying to get across to the reader the importance that environmentalism does not but should play in our world. The error in this sentence however comes when he chooses to use the word ¿distract¿. I¿m not sure if he knew what he was implying when he used this word, but I do know that if he did not specifically choose this word, then he made a major mistake. If Wilson was trying to emphasize the importance of environmentalism, why would he write that it ¿distracts¿ us? Granted he does write that it is ¿evidently not compelling enough to distract many people¿, but why would he choose the word distract? It would have been much more effective and logical for him to write, ¿¿not compelling enough to interest people instead of their usual interests of¿¿ The other rock that Wilson¿s ship scrapes is found in two unnecessary words that he chose to include: I believe. It¿s quite
2 out of 3 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Anonymous
Posted May 8, 2010
I had the option of reading this book for extra credit at school. Most of the other books were uninteresting and they dragged on and on. However, this book was a great read and everyone should invest their time to read this!
1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Anonymous
Posted December 11, 2003
I teach college environmental science courses & I have my students read The Future of Life. The response I get from them is truly amazing - they actually liked having to read this book! For those not familiar with Wilson's other works (Biophilia, The Diversity of Life, etc.), his writing style is unlike anything I've encountered in scientific literature. It is actually pleasurable to read. This is often surprising to my students and keeps them reading. On top of that, his writing is relatively balanced - this is another reason my students like it so much. They expect to get a sermon, but instead are provided with perspectives from both sides of this issue. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in gaining a better understanding of biodiversity issues in our world today.
1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.the whole time i was reading this book i could picture the author/biologist talking to be about his life's studies. I read a good portion of this book while sitting on the back patio and couldn't put it down. I woke up early a couple days just to read this book.
0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Anonymous
Posted October 9, 2005
I was bewildered at the fact that it was mandatory to read The Future of Life as an Oakland University rhetoric student. The first thing that came to my mind was, ¿This is an English class, why do I have to read a science book? The concepts George O. Wilson was trying to express were biodiversity, the negative effects humans have on the environment, and endangered species. After considering those concepts one might think I would be thrilled to read it, yet that is not the case. The current focus of my rhetoric class is the environment I am ashamed that they recommended this book for the basis of that focus. I believe that the scientist Edward O. Wilson would make a great textbook-writer. Being a critical reader, I try to utilize what I am reading to draw my own conclusions. While reading this book, I could not even remember the point of the previous line I just read, let alone make any conclusions. I remember actually falling asleep at least five times while reading this book. Am I ashamed to admit that? No. I received some of the best sleep in my life turning the pages of this ¿textbook¿. The reason why I consider it a textbook instead of a novel is because it is the type of book that everyone should read, but doesn¿t necessarily want to. For example, Wilson was very informative on his information of how the world is considered to be a ¿bottleneck¿. In that chapter, he emphasizes how big a factor population is. I appreciate the information however, the format in which he delivered it reminded me of a textbook. Not to mention the novel had a glossary, notes, and an index. All it needed were critical thinking questions, and bolded vocabulary words, and I would have really been convinced that it was a textbook. Giving the book the benefit of the doubt, I believe that you should be a scientist in order to appreciate this book. This book would probably hit close to home for scientist since they probably know all of the information already. Unfortunately, it is entitled The Future of Life, so that means that everyone ¿living life¿ should see it as being necessary. This means that it should not just be written for the scientist and science-lovers, but by every human being. I believe that it is important for any book to be well-organized and cover the basics in writing. I took more time red-marking the book than really getting into the information. There were so many logical fallacies and grammatical errors. The first I can point out is on page 25, where the author started the sentence out with ¿But¿, and on page 122, he starts his sentence out with ¿And¿. You might think that jumping from page 25 to 122 means that I can¿t effectively substantiate his errors. However, that just shows that he had 97 pages to correct his mistakes, only he didn¿t do it. Included with all of the ¿buts¿ and ¿ands¿ were a plethora of run-on sentences. It is difficult to appreciate literature, no matter the text, when it doesn¿t follow basic grammatical rules. There were also many logical fallacies. Instead of pulling out my hair, and spotting them throughout the book, I just sampled from one chapter. In the chapter How Much is the Biosphere Worth, I found plenty. The first is false dilemma. On page 106 it read, ¿To supplant natural ecosystems entirely, even mostly, is an economic and even physical impossibility, and we would eventually die if we tried.¿ Wow, are we really going to die? There was also one on that same page where he starts his sentence out with ¿Most environmental scientist believe that¿ This is misrepresenting a group. Who exactly are these scientists, and am I suppose to believe you just because you refer to them? It is very hard to be convinced of an argument when logical fallacies are present, and this book didn¿t do a great job at leaving them out. The book also lacked organization and effective style. It was hard for me to follow a lot of the information because of the way that is was organized. In one chapter he jumped to
0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Anonymous
Posted October 13, 2002
My name is Hugo and I enjoyed this title for many reasons. In fact, I enjoyed so much that I am now an intern for BOS-USA. Now, I was wondering if the publisher would be interested in donating some copies for a silent auction where the main guest will be Willie Smitts. This auction will be held in Los Angeles this month. I believe that people would find the book very appealing, and at the same time we can all provide more knowledge to the public and encourage a sense for awareness. Please contact me at hugoperez26@hotmail.com if there is any way the publisher would be willing to donate some copies. Thank You
0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Anonymous
Posted January 27, 2002
This story will tell the pain and courage of boat people under Communist control after April 30, 1975. It relates horrible incidents that happened to a million families, including my own when the Communist took over the South Viet-Nam. terrible, but the true,tragedies,suffering, worrying and carrying of a million boat people in the high seas who escaped with no hope, no sense of direction, and not knowing how long their dangerous trip would last.
0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Anonymous
Posted January 31, 2002
I've been a close observer of mankind's relentless destruction of our ONLY HOME for over 40 years. Mother Nature has been pretty forgiving up until now, but we're pushing many areas beyond their survival point. That's not very wise of us, is it? If you want to know how the rest of your life, your children's lives, and their children's lives will be effected in the near future, read this book. It's not a plesant picture, but it's about time someone collected and printed the truth for all to see. 'Environmental Concern' seems to come and go like a fad, but the real problems are only made worse by our continuing refusal to work WITH nature. Are our children willing OR able to pay the bills we're running up for them? We can begin by paying attention to the daily environmental news. Those scattered 'facts' are not free-standing events, they are all part of the interwoven moasic of life, and we MUST begin to Understand, Care, and Act before it's too late.
0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.Anonymous
Posted February 4, 2011
No text was provided for this review.
Anonymous
Posted April 25, 2011
No text was provided for this review.
Anonymous
Posted January 1, 2010
No text was provided for this review.
Anonymous
Posted June 23, 2011
No text was provided for this review.
Anonymous
Posted January 22, 2010
No text was provided for this review.
Anonymous
Posted January 24, 2010
No text was provided for this review.
Anonymous
Posted June 3, 2010
No text was provided for this review.
Anonymous
Posted December 13, 2009
No text was provided for this review.
Anonymous
Posted January 30, 2011
No text was provided for this review.
Anonymous
Posted September 25, 2009
No text was provided for this review.
Overview
One of the world’s most important scientists, Edward O. Wilson is also an abundantly talented writer who has twice won the Pulitzer Prize. In this, his most personal and timely book to date, he assesses the precarious state of our environment, examining the mass extinctions occurring in our time and the natural treasures we are about to lose forever. Yet, rather than eschewing doomsday prophesies, he spells out a specific plan to save our world while there is still time. His vision is a hopeful one, as economically sound as it is environmentally necessary. Eloquent, practical and wise, this book should be read and studied by anyone concerned with the fate of the natural world.From the ...