Too little substance.
The world's economic base of non-renewable resources has already been exceeded. The Earth's ecology is collapsing. Climate change will soon (or has already) begun to deal humanity of series of devastating and humiliating defeats. Bad news? Not at all. Humanity must and will respond with a new world economic order (haven't we heard that somewhere else recently?). The crooked path of consumer-driven economics will be straightened, prosperity and equality will reign and we will all be 10 to 20% happier. Or so Paul Gilding claims in The Great Disruption. Gilding, former head of Greenpeace International, presents himself as a born-again green corporate insider. His vision of the future is pleasant enough, but what he fails to do in this book is explain why that vision will unfold. The author spends more than 100 of the opening pages in very broad generalizations about climate change, ecologic destruction, etc. before finally getting down to some concrete points which he summarily condenses into bullets, referring the reader to full explanations that supposedly reside in a non-open-source on-line journal article. Given the ascendency of the denier media in controlling the bully pulpit, the author's approach is misguided. Gilding takes pointed aim at the absurdity of consumerism (aka, shopping) and its purported link to economic growth. But, perhaps the weakest link in his analysis comes with the assumption that economic growth equates with the continuous growth of physical, non-renewable resources. The author rightly claims that physical resources are finite, that consumerism is founded on those non-renewable resources and hence must eventually collapse. But that is not the same as proving that economic growth itself is doomed. It all depends on your definition of growth. The service sector of the global economy, for example, such as health services, could conceivably grow irrespective of the limits of physical resources. Consumerism (at least the shop-till-you-drop aspect of consumerism) is a symptom of an underlying malady of our media-driven world, it is not the fundamental cause of humanity's impact on the global ecosystem. Even if media-driven shopping mania were to stop entirely, the disproportionate impact of the rest of western lifestyles would remain unsustainable. Economic growth is a consequence of the specialization that is essential for maintaining the global population of over 7 billion people. If we could survive and provide for all our needs without interacting (money and economy) with others, then growth would stop. So would several billion people. Is that what Gilding proposes? With at least a third of the world currently aspiring to ride the coattails of economic growth and at least another third too busy trying to survive to be in any way concerned about the decline in biodiversity or the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, it is highly unlikely that humanity will suddenly see the error of Western civilization's ways and spontaneously transform into some brave new sustainable world. The only possible global solutions to impending crises are market forces or war. Social pressures won't operate across the full range of human diversity. Richard R. Pardi Environmental Science William Paterson University
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.