Finished reading Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
book
"If you agree that we have exceeded the actual carrying capacity of our planet, each additional human on Earth is, by definition, doing ecological harm to the planet that cannot be avoided, due to the ecological debt that previous generations have already accumulated."<br><br>Starting off with this review, I'd like to say that I completely agree with the main premise of this book: We have a people problem. There is little doubt - in academia - that anthropocentric causes lie at the heart of the demise of the natural world. I suspect that most people who pick up this book will already be familiar with the challenges humanity faces in the 21th century regarding climate change, loss of biodiversity and the general pollution of our environment.<br><br>Having said that, I do not think this book adds much to the public discussion. It is basically a summary of the latest ecological scientific findings (which are quite gloomy), which the author uses to support his thesis. Contradictory to my expectations, this book does not cover the moral implications of the 3-billion target. The author does little to explain why he settled for 3 billion (which he admits is somewhat trivial). He also doesn't tell us what the optimal, so not simply the barely sustainable, global population would be. You could probably make a better case for 1 billion, 100 million or even less.<br><br>As for how to achieve a population of 3 billion people, the author repeatedly mentions emancipation of women - especially in developing nations with high fertility rates - as the main strategy of lowering the global population. I wholeheartedly agree this is part of the solution, but the way the author puts it, it feels incompletely. Surely other tactics are also needed to achieve such a lofty goal. The author could also have elaborated more on how to achieve this envisioned emancipation, especially in conservative, religious states where it might be harder to change culturally embedded beliefs about child-bearing. <br><br>All in all, I would only recommend this book if you have a basic understanding about what's currently happening to our natural environment and want to become more familiar with the exact scientific details. If your especially interested in the moral case for a smaller population and how it is to be achieved, you are probably better off somewhere else (and please feel free to post such suggestions in the comments!).
Edited 31d ago
Finished reading The Swords of Lankhmar: Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser Series Book Five
Abandoned Aan het einde van de oorlog
Edited 43d ago
Rated 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos 6/10
I would describe "12 Rules for Life" as a self-help book plus: The 'rules' Peterson shares with the reader are encapsulated in rich essays and (autobiographic) stories. Additionally, the book is a critique of nihilism ('Any idiot can choose a frame of time within which nothing matters'), an appeal to humility and - drawing to the end - a political disquisition. Then again, it is also a self-help book in the sense that there are a lot of useful lessons to be learned from the book, which can be implemented in your day-to-day life. <br><br>My favourite rule is no. 2 (Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping), which I find best caught with the following quote: "Furthermore, there is little difference between standing up and speaking for yourself, when you are being bullied or otherwise tormented and enslaved, and standing up and speaking for someone else." Which I have simply interpreted as: You are just as much obliged to help yourself, as you are to help others.<br><br>In the beginning of reading this book, having arrived at the 2nd chapter or so, I would have given this book a 5-star rating. A 2-star deduction is, however, inevitable, since the book does contain a lot of flaws.<br><br>First of all, Peterson argues against ideology - and compellingly so - but glances over his own hypocrisy. According to Peterson, there is a universal truth, and it is this: "Consider then that the alleviation of unnecessary pain and suffering is a good." However, as far as I know, by this, Peterson only refers to <i>human</i> suffering. No mention of the greatest suffering of our time, animal suffering, at all.<br><br>Later in the book, Peterson writes the following: "No one in the modern world may without objection express the opinion that existence would be bettered by the absence of Jews, blacks, Muslims, or Englishmen. Why, then, is it virtuous to propose that the planet might be better off, if there were fewer people on it?" Well, here I simply have to disagree, because these are completely different things! To say that a certain group should not be around, because they are regarded as inferior, is not the same as saying that the carrying capacity of the world has its limits, and that it might be best to voluntarily try to avoid reaching these limits. Here, Peterson seems to hint towards a somewhat negative attitude towards environmentalism, which doesn't seem to be grounded in much argumentation. <br><br>Furthermore, there are certain parts of the book that don't sit well with me. For example, the idea that the most viable family composition is one of a father and mother ("Parents should come in pairs so the father of a newborn can watch the new mother"), which hints against the concept of same-sex marriage and child-raising. Later in the book, Peterson mentions a few statistics on children raised in father-absent homes: "Children in father-absent homes are four times as likely to be poor. That means their mothers are poor too. Fatherless children are at much greater risk for drug and alcohol abuse. Children living with married biological parents are less anxious, depressed and delinquent ..." and he continues a bit. I haven't checked the sources myself, but I'm afraid this is a proper example of confusing <i>causation</i> with <i>correlation</i>, which is even more culpable for a university professor. <br><br>Finally, Peterson clearly has a theist perspective on life, which not only becomes clear from the tedious amount of Bible quotes thrown in here and there, but also from his idea that man is different from animal: "Sometimes, animals act as if they are working, but they are really only following the dictates of their nature. Beavers build dams. They do so because they are beavers, and beavers build dams." (Well, yeah. And humans do human stuff because they are humans?) Without this theist perspective, I would say it is more difficult to consolidate with the definition Peterson gives to a meaningful life. That is not to say, however, that the reader without this perspective cannot take anything away from the book in this regard. <br><br>Overall, it's a worthwhile read for sure, engaging and wittingly written.<br><br>"You are, on the one hand, the most complex thing in the entire universe, and on the other, someone who can’t even set the clock on your microwave. Don’t over-estimate your self-knowledge."
Rated Stasiland: Stories from Behind the Berlin Wall 8/10
<i>Stasiland</i> is a valuable documentation of East Germany and its lasting effects. We, as humans, are often not very good at learning from our own history, but I'm not one of those who thinks it's hopeless to try. The more opportunity we have to learn from, and therefore not repeat, the more deplorable things we have done, the better. Though <i>Stasiland</i>'s purpose is not a grand manifesto, it is an introduction. It is there to bear witness. By bearing witness, we begin.<br><br>(My full review appears on <a href="http://glorifiedloveletters.blogspot.com/2013/01/stasiland-by-anna-funder.html">Glorifed Love Letters</a>.)
Rated Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion 4/10
The author presents some interesting ideas, but nothing extraordinary, mind-blowing or perspective-changing. He needs a lot of words to make a simple point: often, empathy can lead to bad decision-making (in a utilitarian context) when compared to using rationality. There. Probably anyone who reads this book already agrees on this, because we all know why most NGO commercials chooses to show a sad-looking child in favor of a bar graph showing how funding is most effectively spend. <br><br>The author quotes a wide range of other philosophers, and adds very little to the epistemology himself. I'd recommend you to skip this book in favor of books like Peter Singer's 'The Life You Can Save' or 'Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Make a Difference' - especially if you are more interested in the practical side of the argument against empathy.
Finished reading A Clash of Kings
Edited 42d ago
Finished reading The Tainted Cup
Finished reading A Game of Thrones
Edited 42d ago
Wants to read Alle journalistiek is activisme