Karen
I had high hopes for this book, but it really didn't meet them. Dougald Hine's central idea in this book is that we have come to the end of the time where we can innocently continue manufacturing, developing, and consuming as a way of life. We're moving into a new era, as we see that the planet can't sustain the old way of life and that we are going to be facing climate related disasters for which we created the conditions. We need to see what, if anything, is salvageable from the old era, that will help us as we face what comes next.
So far, that seems good, but he gets bogged down in a chapters long digression about Sweden's response to the Covid-19 pandemic vs. the US, UK, and most of Western Europe. He uses anti-vaxxer talking points, claims that Covid-19 is a disease that only kills old people, and gripes about having to put on a mask on a train as it crossed the border out of Sweden.
I *think* the reason for this anti-cautious-Covid-policy rant is that he is using it as an example of people relying only on science for answers about how to behave in the face of disaster and having it turn out badly. He wants to make the point that looking only to science for answers to our climate problems will at best only give us partial solutions, because part of the problem is the attitude we have toward our planet: we see it as an inanimate thing to be exploited or managed, not a living entity of which we are a part. Unfortunately for his book, I don't agree that requiring masks while we figured out how to respond to Covid, or requiring vaccination as soon as vaccines were available, were patently ridiculous or oppressive. Covid was not a convincing example for me, and that part of the argument took up too much of the book for me to shrug it off. Disappointing.
I had high hopes for this book, but it really didn't meet them. Dougald Hine's central idea in this book is that we have come to the end of the time where we can innocently continue manufacturing, developing, and consuming as a way of life. We're moving into a new era, as we see that the planet can't sustain the old way of life and that we are going to be facing climate related disasters for which we created the conditions. We need to see what, if anything, is salvageable from the old era, that will help us as we face what comes next.
So far, that seems good, but he gets bogged down in a chapters long digression about Sweden's response to the Covid-19 pandemic vs. the US, UK, and most of Western Europe. He uses anti-vaxxer talking points, claims that Covid-19 is a disease that only kills old people, and gripes about having to put on a mask on a train as it crossed the border out of Sweden.
I *think* the reason for this anti-cautious-Covid-policy rant is that he is using it as an example of people relying only on science for answers about how to behave in the face of disaster and having it turn out badly. He wants to make the point that looking only to science for answers to our climate problems will at best only give us partial solutions, because part of the problem is the attitude we have toward our planet: we see it as an inanimate thing to be exploited or managed, not a living entity of which we are a part. Unfortunately for his book, I don't agree that requiring masks while we figured out how to respond to Covid, or requiring vaccination as soon as vaccines were available, were patently ridiculous or oppressive. Covid was not a convincing example for me, and that part of the argument took up too much of the book for me to shrug it off. Disappointing.