free counter with statistics The World Without Us by Alan Weisman | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

the_world_without_us.jpg
100 Books in One Year #19: The World Without Us by Alan Weisman

Cannonball Read / Brian Prisco

Book Reviews | October 28, 2008 | Comments (12)


I don’t often read non-fiction, which is a shame, because when I do, I really enjoy it. I adore Erik Larsen’s books, especially anything that manages to take facts and couch them in an intriguing historical or cultural aspect. However, I find most non-fiction, even biographies, have an agenda. It’s like documentary filmmaking, in that no matter how objective you think you are about your subject, you’re going to end up editing your opinion into the layout.

Alam Weisman makes no bones about it in his fascinating study of the effects of humanity on the world around us. He hates mankind. He considers humanity to be a scourge that is ravaging the planet, and destroying everything around us like the most virulent plague. He cites studies back thousands of years, blaming humanity for extinction, pollution, and the fact that the world is decaying because we got our sticky paws on it. And he’s right. But it’s still not pleasant to hear it.

Essentially, Weisman’s book is a big old green thumb in the bum of Homo Sapiens. We are ruining the world faster and faster each day. And there’s little we can do to stop it. So he focuses the book on what would happen if some sort of mythical plague/rapture occurred and mankind was gone from the earth. A practice he admits is a bit of an improbability, but nonetheless really interesting.

When Weisman is focusing on what would happen to the world without us, the book is at its most riveting. How everything from nuclear power plants to basic building would decay or fall apart. He describes to the minutest particle how a typical suburban sprawl would disintegrate into a forest again. Or how the decomposition of a human works out in relation to burial practices and the like. How integration of species would effect the return of certain species and how it would mete out. Domesticated animals and livestock versus wilderness. It the kind of thing you wish they’d make an IMAX movie about.

The rest of the book is peppered with biological and anthropologic slaps to the face with the white glove of environmental conservation. While it’s still neat to read about how garbage is collecting in giant cesspools the size of New Jersey in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and the breakdown of plastics in water, I don’t need all the extra information about the red cranes in the DMZ of Korea, or the detailed and frequent descriptions of nuclear fallout. I know what bad things we did, I would rather hear the effects of it.

Plus, he blames the extinction of most species on hunters migrating and then being gluttonous. Frankly, while I would be willing to skeptically accept this as true, I still find it to be a little annoyingly finger-pointy. So what if we were successful hunters? Species deteriorate, and die out. We won out. Suck it, woolly mammoth.

It’s not so much preaching to the choir as yelling at the kids who aren’t the problem. We’re reading your book, and you’re wandering all over the fucking place, describing the way scientists look. Just talk about how New York will fall into the sea because of the subway system. That’s what we wants!

I would recommend this book, with the caveat that it does get a little preachy and militant — it’s advocating population control and vaguely admiring the societies like the Church of Euthanasia, which preaches the four pillars of abortion, sodomy, suicide, and cannibalism. Anyone who’s seen Idiocracy knows how this argument’ll end up.

This review is part of the Cannonball Read series. Details are here and the growing number of participants and their blogs are here.


Gran Torino Trailer | DVD Releases 10/28/08



Comments

Mr. Weisman is welcome to be first in line at the mouth of a volcano tomorrow. He may hand me his last royalty check before he takes one for Team Earth.

After you, sir. No, after YOU.

Posted by: bucdaddy at October 28, 2008 9:39 AM

Any excuse to hear this again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOEIRI5HSuQ


Still, George Carlin was probably right. The planet can eventually save itself, there just wouldn't be any humans left on it.

Not that I've given up on Popular Science and The Federation.

Posted by: Jay at October 28, 2008 9:57 AM

I really liked this book. I did happen to be reading it on a plane ride to Bermuda so that may have worked to its advantage mood-wise, but I found it extremely interesting and I enjoyed the perspective that we are basically a plague on the poor planet earth.

It just didn't come off as preachy as the way you're describing it to me. Perhaps I have a higher tolerance for preaching. Maybe that's why I love your gospels so much Mr. Prisco.

Posted by: becks at October 28, 2008 11:18 AM

I'll put it on my ever-growing TBR pile, because most of the premise interests me. Also, I want to see if my beloved Jersey Shore floats off into the Atlantic.

Posted by: Nicole at October 28, 2008 11:32 AM

This book sounds like a documentary on, I think, The History Channel a few months ago. It was a 2 hour special that focussed on what would happen chronologically if all humans just up and vanished one day. Pretty fascinating stuff. Not sure if it was based on thist book but it sure sounds similar. I think it was called "Earth: After Humans".

Posted by: TylerDFC at October 28, 2008 11:46 AM

I want to preface what I'm about to say with this: I plan on both reading and enjoying this book. I look at it as a more realistic version of the first half of "The Stand" because I can't help but be fascinated by the idea of what would happen if we weren't around to keep up shop. Maybe it's morbid, I dunno.

At any rate, I really don't understand or appreciate the idea of people being a plague to the earth. Don't get me wrong, I know that people damage the environment, I get that. However, it isn't as if human kind picked out a planet based on it's resources simply to deplete them and systematically destroy the place. We are just another kind of animal trying to survive. We just happen to have the ability to do it on a grand scale and with air conditioning. He might as well get pissed off at a beaver for cutting down a tree to make a dam. Granted, a beaver doesn't use harmful chemicals or nuclear power (not yet anyways, but evolution is an unpredictable bitch) but you know what I mean.

Preachy environmentalists don't make me want to be better to the earth, they make me want to have an endangered species barbeque.

Posted by: Tae at October 28, 2008 12:15 PM

What tends to bother me about this "Earth without us" discussion is that it paints a ridiculously beautiful picture of the Earth and includes all this Romantic 'nature is beautiful' rhetoric. Sure, it's nice, but the ideas are kind of silly. We're the only species on the planet that (to our knowledge) really conceives of a concept of 'beauty.' Thus, if we were all gone, it wouldn't really matter how wonderful and back in balance nature would be, because we wouldn't be there to appreciate it.

Not to make that an argument as to why we should start fucking up the environment further. On the contrary, it is this aesthetic and perhaps sentimental appreciation of nature that makes us - well, at least ME - want to see the environment preserved. I just feels books and other films like these come off to people as needlessly misanthropic more than informative about how harmful to the environment we are.

/$.02

Posted by: vic at October 28, 2008 12:45 PM

For the record, I don't think the book really set out to condemn us for being a plague on the planet earth, it just noted our comparable nature.

May I also say to anyone thinking of reading the book, it is not 'romantic' or 'silly' in any of its descriptions or contentions and is actually a pretty scientifically factual account of what would literally happen if we were suddenly stricken from the planet.

I just wanted to point out the difference between the subject and the actual book.

Posted by: becks at October 28, 2008 1:17 PM

becks: I wasn't accusing the book of being 'Romantic' or 'silly' at all, I was talking about those environmentalists who talk about a world without us as being so beautiful as to be favorable, which is, well, silly. And Romantic.

Posted by: vic at October 28, 2008 1:28 PM

I know. I actually got that, but I was afraid that the discussion of the subject of 'the world without us' would get mixed up with the discussion of the book 'The World Without Us' so I just wanted to make sure that all of these Pajibites and Pajibettes were discerning between the two.

I actually enjoyed your comment vic and think its something interesting to think about as well. A very cool perspective on the subject. Just making sure people didn't tie it in with the book in any way.

Posted by: becks at October 28, 2008 1:55 PM

Look, it's all about survival of the fittest. And were also getting better at taking care of the planet, and clearing up misconceptions about how the planet works and what is good and bad for it. But the guy who wrote this book sounds like a high level asshole, my god, people will take anything too far.

Posted by: George at October 28, 2008 4:15 PM

Exactly, George, exactly. It IS about survival of the fittest. Part of Weisman's point is that humans aren't too far off being in the unique position of having engineered an environment that they're not fit for. See?

Posted by: Ed at October 28, 2008 6:24 PM