|
The truth is there is just not enough time and data to say whether these toxins will be absorbed or degraded or cause significant change. But mainly, Plato is old school where knowledge finds its value only in comparison to the ideal. citizens. His conclusions beg the argument that his life stands for a well meaning biologist who is fighting to save merely the butterflies and coral fish he studies at the expensive of the lives of 2 billion people. In fact, populations will not be contained as PE recommends. So, if you read this book even part of it -- here are some counter arguments. Yes, the hillside parks are restricted to the very rich who can afford to buy a home there, and where the average home costs $1,000,000 plus.
Aristotle freed himself from Athens and founded his own new school in a new city where he was given a free hand to think independently. The real moral disaster here is that PE is a Godless Platonist. But these facts are not the most egregious subterfuge here by PE in this book on evolution. Actually, if you see the dark side of the earth from space it is a terrifyingly volatile sight. Stanford, Oh, Stanford which regularly steals Berkeley professors with higher salaries and turns them into republicans. The toxins PE refers to are laboratory combinations of natural products processed to unnatural densities or purities.
Let's just hope his special brand of doom and gloom goes the way of Rehnquist and finally just fades away. But if you look up from Stanford campus on the hills above, just remember that you do not have the right to visit those hills, you do not have the right to walk in that city park -- unless you are a resident of Palo Alto and can prove it by sufficient papers. The free radicals chemicals from natural fires are thousands of times more toxic in their immediate intensity than man-made bio-toxins. But, when PE predicts wholesale destruction of such systems at the hands of man-made toxins; well, that is unfounded, and lacks the clarity of perspective of a scholar who studies the resilient chemistry of life. And why should this ivory tower elitist even care.
Every night there are several volcanoes erupting somewhere, and huge thunder storms lighting up the dark clouds in other places, and ground fires sweeping other spots. Constitution to give the presidency to Bush in 2000. It also produced William Rehnquist who erased (overruled) 170 human or civil rights of U.S. Is it any wonder that Paul Ehrlich wants to deny life to 2 billion people in population potential. Well, he talks on the radio about it, and with his Standford fellows -- but you just have to ask why doesn't he do science himself on these doom and gloom topics. This Stanford Prof, starting with his first book, the Population Bomb, has been seriously discredited.
And it is that this book on evolution is just a big bucket full of speculations like the ones that got him labeled an alarmist, a chicken little. He admittedly spends his time on coral reefs studying beautiful fish because they are beautiful -- that's his serious scientific work. I hate to think how immoral such choices would be. Whereas, a caring and enlightened scholar would argue for the earth to support as many humans as reasonably possible. The future of mankind will not fit into the neat predictions of an ivory towered alarmist.
Plato championed a coward, his teacher Socrates who drank hemlock instead of thinking his way out of a dire social conundrum. and who is denied the right to live here. Such is the state of Paul Ehrlich's part of America. Toxins will settle and change ecosystems, but such systems (billions of years old) thrive on change and exist because of mutation. The violent nature of earth's weather is now and will be in the future much more the author of biological change than the much slower processes of a few parts per billion toxins or of a few degrees of temperature change. That is, is the earth getting colder or warmer due to that cycle.
What is he doing about the future doom in his professorial studies. The bio-chemical changes from these natural events produce much more toxins which have a far greater immediate effect on the diversity of life. 100s of millions did not die as that book predicted. PE's admitted dependence on Plato's ideals shows the foundation of his every flaw. Oh, the sky is falling, the sky is falling. PE claims there are 100,000 toxins ranging from pole to pole which will damage the ecosystem beyond repair. Whereas, Aristotle -- the true father of science -- taught to value diversity for its own sake above any ideal, and where Plato's philosophy of the ideal could be negated in itself.
In his radio address, Ehrlich decries the U.S. But the alarmist issues he recites in the instant book he does not include in his serious scientific work. population of 300 million and argues that maintaining the 1945 number of 135 million would have been best. Aristotle argued to examine every leaf, not just in reference to the one perfect heavenly leaf. Remember, Stanford produced Sandra Day O'Connor who rewrote the U.S. The truth is -- we can do very little to change this cycle and, in fact, scientists debate just were we are in the current ice age cycle. The works of Socrates, Plato, Homer and the alike may well have been authored, not by single individuals, but by generations of teachers each one adding and subtracting ideas both before and after The Academy.
Socrates (the oral traditionalist) and Plato (the founder of a culturally constrained school) were never free to think without regard for the good of Athens. Something is rotten here. Such a scholar would want to celebrate the diversity of human culture and the complex individuals who issue therefrom.
One has to wonder who would be the one choosing who lives in the U.S. Why does he instead study butterflies and rainbow fish. Lastly, PE does not disclose the full importance of the ice age cycle, which by its very nature destroys and rebuilds 90 percent of the life on earth every thousand millennium.
Plato wrote about the efficacy of owning slaves, so he was badly flawed. But he doesn't remind you that there are 6 billion types of insects which became diverse because of mutation, much of which came from forest fires which produced millions of toxins. How so.
Thoughtful and informed, The Dominant Animal adds to the discussion and debate. The computer models the Ehrlichs refer to may do well with the past, but they have proven faulty in their predictions of the future. With few forecasts, this book informs more than preaches. use computer models of the global climate to predict what the affects will be. Well researched and well written, this book takes a careful look at humans and humanity, how we have changed and how we affect our environment. Or have the years mellowed Paul Ehrlich. Still, I'm picking at nits. Having read (and not liked) Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb many years ago, I thought The Dominant Animal would be much the same.
Hard to tell. These models are far from perfect, but they are well validated by their ability, when fed data from the past, to reconstruct trends that are now history." Not so. energy mobilization." That seems unlikely, and the Ehrlichs offer no support for their statement. Similarly, on page 308, the Ehrlichs say "industrial-scale wind farms and other renewable power sources, which can be built much more quickly and cheaply than nuclear plants, will soon surpass nuclear power in their share of U.S. Whatever the reason, in my mind, that's a welcome change. It's not. It's a different animal. On page 279, for example, having said that eating less meat helps reduce greenhouse gases and increase the overall food supply, the Ehrlichs note that "meat-eating human beings so far have shown precious little inclination to reduce their meat consumption and direct extra food towards the hungry." True indeed.
Hard to say how much credence the models merit. As in finance, so with computer models, past performance does not guarantee future results. Some of the opinion, in my mind, is questionable. So somewhat reluctantly, I liked the book, and recommend it to those interested in oil depletion, climate change and the like.
Many points impressed me. That's true whether or not you agree with the Ehrlich's opinions on these important problems. The points made in the bulk of the book make sense, and have support. The Dominant Animal is very different from, and much better than, The Population Bomb.
But it is not hard to say that the models have not been well validated. On page 267, the Ehrlichs say that "scientists. Could it be because Anne Ehrlich joins her husband Paul in writing this book, while The Population Bomb was his alone. Facts predominate, but opinion also permeates the book.
The book packs quite an overwhelming wallop. Like a beached whale, it risks being crushed by its own weight in places. In the end, if we want to remain earth's dominant animal we need to find balance. Though this, again paradoxically, has also led us to our predicament. Ehrlich sees possible salvation in uncovering the workings of culture. The recent housing crash provides a textbook case. But that doesn't detract from its overall intriguing readability and its main argument that we may be on a collision course with our own laudable attributes. He claims that we need a Darwin of cultural evolution to uncover the mechanisms that move cultural evolution.
For years people said "it won't happen" and dismissed pessimism with the wave of a mortgage statement. In fact, "The Self-Destructive Animal" may have served as a more accurate title. Many of these prophesies never materialized - a fact that did not go unnoticed. Compared to genetics, culture can move quickly. We're still here even though many claim that we should have done ourselves in by now. Three main problems sprout from this paradox: overpopulation, economic inequality, and environmental erosion.
But wrong predictions, even fantastically wrong ones, shouldn't necessarily invalidate the frameworks within which they're made. Let's hope we're not in for a repeat experience with the global environment.Along those lines, the tone of the Ehrlichs' latest book (Paul's wife, Anne, co-authored) may cause, for some critics, more eye-rolling skepticism. But just because we haven't doesn't preclude the possibility. Ehrlich's (and Ehrlich's) book provides a framework with which anyone can enter this vital, and often melancholy, topic. After all, who wants to believe we're destroying our own world.
But bad predictions alone shouldn't invalidate warnings or precautions. Lepidopterist Paul Ehrlich has fulfilled the role of doomsayer since at least 1968. Though the book contains voluminous fascinating facts and ideas around humanity's rise, our genetic makeup, our history, and our pending problems, the cultural evolution threads that ooze between them seem undeveloped. Let's hope he's wrong (again). A nagging question also lingers as to cultural evolution's effectiveness for solving society's problems.
Though some of the early crash predictions were premature, the catastrophe nonetheless occurred. In that year his famous (to some infamous) book "The Population Bomb" predicted catastrophic famines, death, and misery for the late twentieth century. And the fact that such methods, if discoverable, could also wreak unparalleled havoc isn't mentioned. Most of our predictions turn up wrong, even those supported by persuasive evidence. Timing plays a fundamental role. This argument implies that some means of influencing culture possibly exists, and can be used for positive ends. Doubtless much work needs to be done on this front."The Dominant Animal" fares better when adumbrating the human predicament. As such, some critics have referred to Ehrlich as a "reverse Cassandra," namely, he's often wrong but many people keep believing him.
The idea that we're not running out of energy, but we are running out of environment will surprise many readers. In any case, a main theme, and paradox, bundles the threads: Humanity possesses genetic and cultural endowments that have risen us to earthy dominance, but those same elements may ultimately destroy us. What Ehrlich wants to accomplish by unearthing the engines of culture remains nebulous. If anything it suffers from overambition.
We are living paradoxes. Though the title suggests a narrative of humanity's glorious rise to prominence, the book really focuses on our self-destructive side. Humans are bad prophets. Ehrlich's "The Dominant Animal" delineates the mounting evidence that something nasty may be on the horizon if we don't act. In addition, most of the big, and now familiar, hot button issues also appear: water supply, weather, climate change, global heating, biodiversity, corrupt governments, ecosystem complexity (manifest in the disastrous "Biosphere 2" project), pollution, alternative energy, resource wars, the toxification of the environment, the dilemma of economic growth, and countless others.
After all, many have wrongly predicted, often embarrassingly so, the return of Jesus Christ, but this hasn't caused the downfall of Christianity (though it may possibly inspire increased skepticism). Many would argue that the tools of mass communication already influence culture, but also in negative ways. Or, better yet, let's hope we act.The book weaves a few topical threads together in a slight hodge-podge manner. Some predictions have longer gestation periods than others. Remember the housing crash.
Save a tree, do not buy this book. Unreadable. Tedious and convoluted. Supposed scientific objectivity transmogrified into subjective opinion and political bias.
Natural Selection, in the Ehrlichs' hands seems obvious, as does much else in the story of life and the human domination of it. Humans, instead of dams, built cities and roads and global networks of communication and commerce. In that parade one will see, more clearly presented than you will find anywhere else, the intertwined stories of human culture, evolution, and human actions toward and in the environment and how those have changed through time. The book, in walking carefully through those basics all framed around the story of humans, would be very useful for an undergraduate biology course. The Ehrlichs are perhaps less optimistic about humans ability to make the right decisions about their societies and the environments of which they are a part.
They are rules about communication and division of labor. Let's hope that we can choose to determine our fate rather than, like the ant colonies that didn't make it, letting selection decide. The Ehrlich's have looked further into the future than most scientists are willing to. Most of the book is actually about the basics of ecology and evolution. In reading this book I was reminded of another new book, The Superorganism by Burt Holldobler and Ed Wilson (I recently reviewed the book for Natural History Magazine). Instead of making our environment better for ourselves we have, in many ways, made it worse, less conducive to our own survival. Natural selection favored beavers who built damns that improved their environments and improved their odds of surviving. Every time I read the book, I find myself forgetting what is coming and then there it is, in front of me, the other train.It is clear early in the book that much is wrong in the world and that those problems have tremendous consequences.
There are chapters on evolution, culture, cultural evolution, the interactions between genes and the environment, and even how we perceive the world and how that perception influences our decisions. Yet this not a doomsday book. Dammed ponds are, to beavers, a better environment than the one they found when they arrived. I read this book several times. In The Superorganism, Holldobler and Wilson consider the simple rules that ultimately hold insect societies together. Rob DunnAssistant ProfessorDepartment of Biology, North Carolina State University The book then parades through the delightful minds of Paul and Anne Ehrlich. The surprise is what the clearly explained facts lead to; the train wreck of our current situation.
Each time I was surprised. They are rules that are reinforced because those colonies that do not work efficiently and effectively to produce new generations, fail to pass on their genes. The Ehrlichs' tone in the Dominant Animal is both friendly and approachable. Again and again the reader feels as though she has had something logical and intuitive revealed to her. Beavers dam ponds, but we've, in our way, damned ourselves. Dysfunctional societies of ants are rare because those that were did not pass along their genes.
The Dominant Animal begins by considering the ways in which humans influence the environment and the environment, modified by humans, shapes everything else. In both there are chapters about the evolution of societies, about the rise and fall of populations, and about how societies shape the environment around them. After laying a clear foundation for understanding built on insights drawn from ecology, evolution, anthropology, economics and lifetimes spent talking with others of the ecological intelligentsia, the Ehrlichs turn to what remains before us. If human societies really are more self-aware and self-determined than those of ants then the ideas laid out in the Ehrlichs' chapters "Saving our Natural Capital" and "Governance: Tackling Unanticipated Consequences" are what we should be paying attention to. Reading this book will make clear the complex causes of this situation, why we've arrived at this point in history and where, if we are wise, we might go from here. The organization of The Dominant Animal is similar to The Superorganism. To read this book is to see what they are thinking now and, if history serves, to see what, for all of us, lays ahead.
Yet the last chapter of The Dominant Animal is, in part, a foundation for the kinds of rules and governance necessary to sustain human societies. The book binds these essays into a broader thesis about who we are and can be as humans. The difference between the stories of humans and those of insect societies is pointed out by Holldobler and Wilson who indicate that unlike ants, humans are conscious of what they are doing and make decisions about their fate. In the parade one will find Darwin, Wallace, and the early history of evolution alongside traditional peoples living as hunter- gatherers in villages, sequoia trees and tangled banks. This book is full of nuance and joy but also the ecological and evolutionary realities of our situation. They have at times been proven wrong, but more often they have just proven ahead of schedule. It is easy to find oneself nodding again and again with what this book has to say.
Each chapter is, in and of itself, a kind of essay or perhaps more so a kind of Ehrlichian lecture; wide ranging, thought provoking and ultimately wound together into a strong thesis.
|
