What do you think?
Rate this book
We Are the Weather: Saving the Planet Begins at Breakfast
Goodreads Choice Award
Nominee for Readers' Favorite Science & Technology (2019)Some people reject the fact, overwhelmingly supported by scientists, that our planet is warming because of human activity. But do those of us who accept the reality of human-caused climate change truly believe it? If we did, surely we would be roused to act on what we know. Will future generations distinguish between those who didn’t believe in the science of global warming and those who said they accepted the science but failed to change their lives in response?
In We Are the Weather, Jonathan Safran Foer explores the central global dilemma of our time in a surprising, deeply personal, and urgent new way. The task of saving the planet will involve a great reckoning with ourselves—with our all-too-human reluctance to sacrifice immediate comfort for the sake of the future. We have, he reveals, turned our planet into a farm for growing animal products, and the consequences are catastrophic. Only collective action will save our home and way of life. And it all starts with what we eat—and don’t eat—for breakfast.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published August 26, 2019
1179 people are currently reading
35480 people want to read
About the author
Jonathan Safran Foer
76 books14.4k followersJonathan Safran Foer is the author of two bestselling, award-winning novels, Everything Is Illuminated and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, and a bestselling work of nonfiction, Eating Animals. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,552 reviews
August 14, 2019
This is one of those books the vast majority of the Western world should read, even though in many ways it really isn't a particularly good read. The first couple sections are fine: we're destroying life on our irreplaceable planet and it will take a massive and collective effort—not unprecedented, as he shows us—to overcome what we're doing. Okay, I'm in. The best first, necessary step is to move away from an animal products-based diet. Yes, I'm totally on board. Aaaaand that's really it. Foer makes these points early on, and at least the last third of the book is tedious and repetitive. So read We Are the Weather—please, please read it—but don't be ashamed if you bail at the section where he starts interviewing himself. From that point on it really isn't a very good book, and if you haven't gotten what you need from it by then, you aren't going to.
January 24, 2020
As important as this subject is, this is not a book which will bring you any form of enlightenment. Unless, of course, you want to discover what Jonathan Safran Foer thinks about ... well... pretty much everything.
Interspersed with the occasional relevant fact is a meandering, erratic piece of writing that leapt from mini story to anecdote to rant from one moment to the next. I'm not sure whether Foer was aiming for some kind of connection to the common man here, but it comes across as a self serving and exculpatory diatribe about his personal failures. He is so much in this book that there's practically no room for the issues. Even when he manages to stay on topic, it's full of tangentially linked stories that negate any flow or possibility of having a real discussion.
The whole premise of the book is about making better choices, ones that will benefit society now and in the future: 'we cannot go about our lives as if they were only ours'. Yet here we have a man who, after writing so convincingly about the horrors of the meat industry in Eating Animals, is admitting that he still ate animal products because he liked them. Way to set yourself up as someone a reader can trust. Yet he still feels like he can act the preacher throughout this book?? No thanks.
Even worse than that, the book reads like some kind of self-indulgent personal diary, full of apparently significant musings on whatever subject happened to come to mind, or one of those 'and I'll tell you another thing' conversations you have with drunk people who love to overshare. I'm not sure he's done the cause any favours here.
The message is essential, but he's not the one to tell it.
ARC via Netgalley
Interspersed with the occasional relevant fact is a meandering, erratic piece of writing that leapt from mini story to anecdote to rant from one moment to the next. I'm not sure whether Foer was aiming for some kind of connection to the common man here, but it comes across as a self serving and exculpatory diatribe about his personal failures. He is so much in this book that there's practically no room for the issues. Even when he manages to stay on topic, it's full of tangentially linked stories that negate any flow or possibility of having a real discussion.
The whole premise of the book is about making better choices, ones that will benefit society now and in the future: 'we cannot go about our lives as if they were only ours'. Yet here we have a man who, after writing so convincingly about the horrors of the meat industry in Eating Animals, is admitting that he still ate animal products because he liked them. Way to set yourself up as someone a reader can trust. Yet he still feels like he can act the preacher throughout this book?? No thanks.
Even worse than that, the book reads like some kind of self-indulgent personal diary, full of apparently significant musings on whatever subject happened to come to mind, or one of those 'and I'll tell you another thing' conversations you have with drunk people who love to overshare. I'm not sure he's done the cause any favours here.
The message is essential, but he's not the one to tell it.
ARC via Netgalley
December 17, 2019
A Cascade effect: excessive meat consumption, vast pasturages, monocultures, oil to keep the machine running, environmental degradation, climate change.
It's not just eating the meat. Only the health disadvantages and ethical aspects. That heavily processed red meat is now being compared to asbestos by the WHO. The unfortunate chain ends in the stomach of a carnivore, but it begins elsewhere.
It is beyond question, how despicable factory farming is. Just the topics relating to huge stables, antibiotic resistance, environmental contamination, spillovers,... are worrying. Concerning climate change, cow farts are the smaller problem. Rather, the amount of CO2 that is released during the entire meat processing process. From breeding, farms to slaughterhouses, the food industry, distribution, logistics and electricity for the refrigerated counters.
To fatten all the tormented souls, one needs the largest monocultures of all time. No matter where, be it in increasingly compressed, over-fertilized, for desertification and desertification predestined areas or in the rainforest. And the food has to be transported by fleets of huge ships.
These ships must be built and maintained, which consumes raw materials. And they drink oil, much of it. From politically unstable regions, which are instrumentalized and even more destabilized. Or from oil and tar sands depletion, maybe soon from the drilling of the untapped spouters at the poles.
It is virtually impossible to eat meat without potentiating this process. Even if one reduces meat consumption and practices self-deceit with the schizophrenic argument of killing only very few animals to calm one's conscience. It is unrealistic that people exercise such self-control. Much worse, the West has no legitimacy to criticize the coming explosion of meat consumption in other countries. That would be the same bigotry as with emissions. And as more and more people consume more and more dead animals globally through cheaper and cheaper meat, it will be no longer hundreds of millions of people consuming meat. But billions with corresponding CO2 footprint.
A silver lining is the progress made in the production of artificial meat. Be it by breeding it in the laboratory or making life-like replicas with the same consistency so that one feels no difference while chewing it. There is also immense potential in insects. And if one has the moral issue between consuming intelligent mammals and critters, the answer should not be, "Yuck, I'm not eating mealworms!". That would be too infantile to stay stubborn with a mentality of just eating what one knows. Not to forget the irony of all the chemicals and food ingredients that are consumed without any protest. And a few little, friendly grasshoppers won´t be such a big deal for model adults. "Eat your maggots kids, or you won´t get dessert." If it would be that drastic, ok, but one even doesn´t recognize the difference, cause it´s in the food.
Foer's emotional and stirring style portrays the subject on a personal level. This methodology already made his novel "Eating Animals" a memorable experience.
PS: It's just about the influence of food. And alone this footprint is so immense. Things like consumerism, energy waste, and generally unsustainable economic models are even worse by dimensions. The masses of literature showing alternatives make hope and motivate to get active.
A wiki walk can be as refreshing to the mind as a walk through nature in this, yuck, ugh, boo, completely overrated real-life outside books:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_i...
It's not just eating the meat. Only the health disadvantages and ethical aspects. That heavily processed red meat is now being compared to asbestos by the WHO. The unfortunate chain ends in the stomach of a carnivore, but it begins elsewhere.
It is beyond question, how despicable factory farming is. Just the topics relating to huge stables, antibiotic resistance, environmental contamination, spillovers,... are worrying. Concerning climate change, cow farts are the smaller problem. Rather, the amount of CO2 that is released during the entire meat processing process. From breeding, farms to slaughterhouses, the food industry, distribution, logistics and electricity for the refrigerated counters.
To fatten all the tormented souls, one needs the largest monocultures of all time. No matter where, be it in increasingly compressed, over-fertilized, for desertification and desertification predestined areas or in the rainforest. And the food has to be transported by fleets of huge ships.
These ships must be built and maintained, which consumes raw materials. And they drink oil, much of it. From politically unstable regions, which are instrumentalized and even more destabilized. Or from oil and tar sands depletion, maybe soon from the drilling of the untapped spouters at the poles.
It is virtually impossible to eat meat without potentiating this process. Even if one reduces meat consumption and practices self-deceit with the schizophrenic argument of killing only very few animals to calm one's conscience. It is unrealistic that people exercise such self-control. Much worse, the West has no legitimacy to criticize the coming explosion of meat consumption in other countries. That would be the same bigotry as with emissions. And as more and more people consume more and more dead animals globally through cheaper and cheaper meat, it will be no longer hundreds of millions of people consuming meat. But billions with corresponding CO2 footprint.
A silver lining is the progress made in the production of artificial meat. Be it by breeding it in the laboratory or making life-like replicas with the same consistency so that one feels no difference while chewing it. There is also immense potential in insects. And if one has the moral issue between consuming intelligent mammals and critters, the answer should not be, "Yuck, I'm not eating mealworms!". That would be too infantile to stay stubborn with a mentality of just eating what one knows. Not to forget the irony of all the chemicals and food ingredients that are consumed without any protest. And a few little, friendly grasshoppers won´t be such a big deal for model adults. "Eat your maggots kids, or you won´t get dessert." If it would be that drastic, ok, but one even doesn´t recognize the difference, cause it´s in the food.
Foer's emotional and stirring style portrays the subject on a personal level. This methodology already made his novel "Eating Animals" a memorable experience.
PS: It's just about the influence of food. And alone this footprint is so immense. Things like consumerism, energy waste, and generally unsustainable economic models are even worse by dimensions. The masses of literature showing alternatives make hope and motivate to get active.
A wiki walk can be as refreshing to the mind as a walk through nature in this, yuck, ugh, boo, completely overrated real-life outside books:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_i...
November 13, 2019
A thought-provoking, personal and humane meditation on climate change and what we as individuals can do right now.
Too often, the feeling of making a difference doesn't correspond to the difference made - worse, an inflated sense of accomplishment can relieve the burden of doing what actually needs to be done.
General
We Are the Weather: Saving the Planet Begins at Breakfast is a book on climate change and why we as humans, who on a conceptual level know what we could do to reduce our impact on the climate, don’t seem to be able to really change. Already very early in the book Foer notes: Intellectually accepting the truth isn't virtuous in and of itself.
Despite 45 pages of notes and links to articles, the main message of the book is that we should move from striving for perfection, beating ourselves up, and in some aspects the book feels more self help like than anything else. Most of all it's about how important it is that we move past emotions and hoping governments will save us and that we as individuals have power and options to curve emissions.
Acts speak louder than words and no one will change if we ourselves on an individual level don’t change and start a "wave". Most people have been into one during a concert or a football match, but still we know very little people who started a wave. It's like a hopeful version of: "No one motorist can cause a traffic jam. But no traffic jam can exist without individual motorists. We are stuck in traffic because we are the traffic."
Jonathan Safran Foer (again) makes a compelling case that eating less animal products is fundamental to achieve less greenhouse gas emissions and one of the most impactful things we can do as individuals. Also he weaves into the book a powerful personal perspective related to the passing of his grandmother, as in Eating Animals that was coupled to the birth of his son, which made the impact of the book in my view greater.
Themes and interconnections
Foer contrast the efforts required to win the Second World War with our current inaction against climate change. As an example he lists the following:
During the war, industrial productivity rose by 96 percent. Liberty ships that took eight months to construct at the start of the war were completed in weeks. The SS Robert E. Perry - a liberty ship composed of 250,000 parts weighing fourteen million pounds - was assembled in four and a half days.
Also the following speech of Roosevelt felt highly connected to our current world issues:
As I told Congress yesterday , "sacrifice" is not exactly the proper word with which to describe this program of self-denial. When, at the end of this great struggle, we shall have saved our free way of life, we shall have made no "sacrifice"
Foer reflects on what sets people in action, both looking at the flight of his grandmother from a sjetl that's on the brink of being invaded by the Nazi's and how Jan Karski, a Polish resistance fighter, was received by a supreme court judge Felix Frankfurter when he told the story of the holocaust. Morality plays a large part in this, is it better to flee and take action than to stay and try to convince as many people as possible? What is the difference between people who fled and those that, having the same set of facts, could not act on the future marching in? Can we believe something truly when our feelings don't want to accept something that is deeply uncomfortable?
Also he looks at what allegedly is the oldest suicide note, a dispute of the soul, wherein a Egyptian is arguing whether it is worth to live on. And how our interpretation of the text might be faulty, because we don't know the outcome of the dispute, and if live or death prevailed.
Hopeful or not?
Finally he reflects on hypocrisy, how he still craves and eats meat, but how any action is still a step that can compounded by the power of habit. Basically: there is a difference between progress and perfection, and perfection should not paralyze us to to at least try to do something.
All in all, this made me still feel We Are the Weather is a hopeful book.
However, much of the final chapters linger and presses in the face of the reader how we have already changed the world. And how there is 95% change based on current scenario's that we go over 2 celsius global warming in 2100. How coral reefs will almost certainly die even if the 2 degrees would be met. Some say that battling climate change would cost three times as much GDP as World War II.
However Foer also remind us in this book how humanity moved from first flying to getting on the moon in less than 70 years and what achievements in productiovity occured during World War II. If we transform awareness to action, and just start the change through simple habits, everyday, I believe we can make a change and a better world.
Kudos to Jonathan Safran Foer for instilling this feeling in me, and I hope the book manage to touch and change a lot of readers!
Too often, the feeling of making a difference doesn't correspond to the difference made - worse, an inflated sense of accomplishment can relieve the burden of doing what actually needs to be done.
General
We Are the Weather: Saving the Planet Begins at Breakfast is a book on climate change and why we as humans, who on a conceptual level know what we could do to reduce our impact on the climate, don’t seem to be able to really change. Already very early in the book Foer notes: Intellectually accepting the truth isn't virtuous in and of itself.
Despite 45 pages of notes and links to articles, the main message of the book is that we should move from striving for perfection, beating ourselves up, and in some aspects the book feels more self help like than anything else. Most of all it's about how important it is that we move past emotions and hoping governments will save us and that we as individuals have power and options to curve emissions.
Acts speak louder than words and no one will change if we ourselves on an individual level don’t change and start a "wave". Most people have been into one during a concert or a football match, but still we know very little people who started a wave. It's like a hopeful version of: "No one motorist can cause a traffic jam. But no traffic jam can exist without individual motorists. We are stuck in traffic because we are the traffic."
Jonathan Safran Foer (again) makes a compelling case that eating less animal products is fundamental to achieve less greenhouse gas emissions and one of the most impactful things we can do as individuals. Also he weaves into the book a powerful personal perspective related to the passing of his grandmother, as in Eating Animals that was coupled to the birth of his son, which made the impact of the book in my view greater.
Themes and interconnections
Foer contrast the efforts required to win the Second World War with our current inaction against climate change. As an example he lists the following:
During the war, industrial productivity rose by 96 percent. Liberty ships that took eight months to construct at the start of the war were completed in weeks. The SS Robert E. Perry - a liberty ship composed of 250,000 parts weighing fourteen million pounds - was assembled in four and a half days.
Also the following speech of Roosevelt felt highly connected to our current world issues:
As I told Congress yesterday , "sacrifice" is not exactly the proper word with which to describe this program of self-denial. When, at the end of this great struggle, we shall have saved our free way of life, we shall have made no "sacrifice"
Foer reflects on what sets people in action, both looking at the flight of his grandmother from a sjetl that's on the brink of being invaded by the Nazi's and how Jan Karski, a Polish resistance fighter, was received by a supreme court judge Felix Frankfurter when he told the story of the holocaust. Morality plays a large part in this, is it better to flee and take action than to stay and try to convince as many people as possible? What is the difference between people who fled and those that, having the same set of facts, could not act on the future marching in? Can we believe something truly when our feelings don't want to accept something that is deeply uncomfortable?
Also he looks at what allegedly is the oldest suicide note, a dispute of the soul, wherein a Egyptian is arguing whether it is worth to live on. And how our interpretation of the text might be faulty, because we don't know the outcome of the dispute, and if live or death prevailed.
Hopeful or not?
Finally he reflects on hypocrisy, how he still craves and eats meat, but how any action is still a step that can compounded by the power of habit. Basically: there is a difference between progress and perfection, and perfection should not paralyze us to to at least try to do something.
All in all, this made me still feel We Are the Weather is a hopeful book.
However, much of the final chapters linger and presses in the face of the reader how we have already changed the world. And how there is 95% change based on current scenario's that we go over 2 celsius global warming in 2100. How coral reefs will almost certainly die even if the 2 degrees would be met. Some say that battling climate change would cost three times as much GDP as World War II.
However Foer also remind us in this book how humanity moved from first flying to getting on the moon in less than 70 years and what achievements in productiovity occured during World War II. If we transform awareness to action, and just start the change through simple habits, everyday, I believe we can make a change and a better world.
Kudos to Jonathan Safran Foer for instilling this feeling in me, and I hope the book manage to touch and change a lot of readers!
May 25, 2020
ETA: [Dieses Buch haben wir auch im Papierstau Podcast besprochen (Folge 84: #TeamGreta)] /ETA
Watch my high hopes, expectations and anticipation regarding this book crumble with every chapter...
The book's general idea is so important and needs to be adressed more often and louder. It is, in a nutshell, the idea of everybody going vegan (or at least 2/3 vegan - no animal products before dinner) in order to gain a collectively large change for the better on all things climate. Yes sure, there's emmissions from cars and industry and flights and politicians who refuse to act or even believe and what not, but these things aren't the topic of this book.
This book adresses people who say "But what does it matter what I, the singular person, can do? Does it matter at all? It's only me!" And maybe you're already recycling. Maybe you've cut your car drives by half or switched to public transport completely. Maybe you're only buying wooden toys for your child. And while all this is well and filled with good intentions, it only helps so much. Plus: Not everybody can ditch their car completely. Changing the diet as suggested, on the other hand, would make a great impact*. Plus, everybody can theoretically do it. That's basically what this book is about. Only, it fails to fully show why. It scratches on the surface, but it doesn't bring its intended message across.
And I love Foer's general argument. I longed for it. I was even ready to embrace this book with open arms because I also often miss the ecological factors when veganism is discussed. Don't get me wrong, ethical reasons for going vegan are all fair and legit and also important, no doubt. And yet, the economical side gets overlooked way too often, and given the way this planet is headed, we can't afford neglecting it. So here I was ready for Foer to preach to the choir aka me. And it started out great only to end in... something akin to insignificance. Here's what happened:
Part 1: Foer takes his time with presenting his general idea to his readers. The first part is long, very essay-like, and serves as a very excessive opening statement. I loved it. Foer uses all kinds of different examples of individuals working together for a greater good and overcoming serious situations thanks to (not only, but also) these "community efforts". He also gives examples on his spin of "knowing" vs. "believing" and that, in the end, it doesn't (only) matter if you know something or not - it's believing in things that put you to action. The examples range from historical to very personal, from overview to introspective, he switches back and forth and builds up his argument slowly. Like a painter putting several seemingly unconnected dots onto a blank canvas, you watch him work, see things coming together and, in the end, have a full picture. Only shortly before the end, Foer brings all his strands together to present his real intention of this book. I liked how he did that and enjoyed that first part very much.
Part 2: A few pages with hard facts. 3-5 facts per page, thematically grouped, dealing with climate change and livestock and/or how one infuences the other. Not much new in here for me personally, but I liked the stark contrast between the rather philosphical, long part 1 and the "in your face"-presentation in part 2. I was ready to get moving! Bring it on!
Part 3: This is where things went off track for me. Part 3 was very much like part 1, style-wise, many of the examples recurred. Only, this part had a different angle, it was more a "call to action"-sort of text. Only, it was too tame for that. Also, repeating the style from part 1 lessened the effect and made part 1 look less special in retrospect.
Part 4: Is a long interview of Foer with himself/his soul. He's playing Devil's Advocate with himself. This is where he lost me. See, Foer's big trouble is that he's having a hard time going vegan completely, which, obviously, would be the best solution. But he can't do that, his creavings for meat and dairy every now and then are too big. So he indulges in burgers and such. Not often, but he does. And every so often in his book, he writes about his own troubles with this, well, sort of hypocrisy, tries to explain it, to justify it. Part 4 is mostly about this inner conflict. And while this is all very honest and open, it also weakens his own part as author and gives room for critics such as: who is he to teach me if he's having such a hard time living by his own doctrine? I missed motivation. I missed optimism, at least in that regard, seeing as the general outlooks are pessimistic enough. Instead I felt like the author confessing his sins and lust to me, but who am I to give him absolution and why? I was really at a loss here.
Part 5: Final part, but instead of wrapping things up, I got another chapter like a mix of parts 1 and 3, same style, same examples, more family matters including a personal letter to Foer's children (asking them for absolution, too?) and then the book just ended. No closing stament. No conclusion.
There's a huge appendix with sources and bibliography, but it isn't easy to navigate since the text itself offers no footnotes. Readers have to find the source for themselves in the appendix. It's manageable but rather uncomfortable and I'd wished for better reader service here. Before the actual sources, there's another longer appendix dealing with facts on climate change and diet/livestock, and that's where the input is. That's what I missed in the actual book (and even there, imho Foer focusses too much on why certain studies are different than on the actual numbers).
Another current book on climate change is The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming by David Wallace-Wells - it was written after a New Yorker's essay of the same name became hugely popular. Foer quotes from that essay, and I somehow feel that he tried to do what David Wallace-Wells did: Write a powerful essay and "add" a book dwelling on that essay's theme. And well, if Foer's book had been the essay only - part 1, with maybe the short fact based part 2 added - it would've worked perfectly as such: A powerful, moving, capturing essay. As a repetitive book that offers not much more insight that the opening statement, it sadly, sadly, sadly felt flat for me. I'm not even sure Foer helped the movement, be it to help fight climate change, to spread veganism/more conscious consumption of animal products or a combination of both.
Finally, Foer often refers to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth movie. He praises the general message of the movie but critises it for two points: First, leaving the whole food/diet/mass farming/nutrition factor out of the equotation - Foer's book got that covered (well, in parts). But he also critisises the movie's ending, the "calls for action" being too soft, too uninspired, too less: "Talk to your parents" or "Writer to your governor" or what not - these actions might make you feel good, as if you've done something, but they hardly change anything. And what can I say? In a way, that's pretty much how I felt about Foer's book. I'm really at a loss and baffled by how little it inspired me.
It's still an okay read = 2 stars, but in the end, I can't recommend it wholeheartedly. And oh, how I wish I could!
---------------
* [Since this a review and I'm no Foer, so I won't get into technical details here, but since I'm also no Foer, I'll give you at least two sources for further reading via footnote right away: here or here.]
Watch my high hopes, expectations and anticipation regarding this book crumble with every chapter...
The book's general idea is so important and needs to be adressed more often and louder. It is, in a nutshell, the idea of everybody going vegan (or at least 2/3 vegan - no animal products before dinner) in order to gain a collectively large change for the better on all things climate. Yes sure, there's emmissions from cars and industry and flights and politicians who refuse to act or even believe and what not, but these things aren't the topic of this book.
This book adresses people who say "But what does it matter what I, the singular person, can do? Does it matter at all? It's only me!" And maybe you're already recycling. Maybe you've cut your car drives by half or switched to public transport completely. Maybe you're only buying wooden toys for your child. And while all this is well and filled with good intentions, it only helps so much. Plus: Not everybody can ditch their car completely. Changing the diet as suggested, on the other hand, would make a great impact*. Plus, everybody can theoretically do it. That's basically what this book is about. Only, it fails to fully show why. It scratches on the surface, but it doesn't bring its intended message across.
And I love Foer's general argument. I longed for it. I was even ready to embrace this book with open arms because I also often miss the ecological factors when veganism is discussed. Don't get me wrong, ethical reasons for going vegan are all fair and legit and also important, no doubt. And yet, the economical side gets overlooked way too often, and given the way this planet is headed, we can't afford neglecting it. So here I was ready for Foer to preach to the choir aka me. And it started out great only to end in... something akin to insignificance. Here's what happened:
Part 1: Foer takes his time with presenting his general idea to his readers. The first part is long, very essay-like, and serves as a very excessive opening statement. I loved it. Foer uses all kinds of different examples of individuals working together for a greater good and overcoming serious situations thanks to (not only, but also) these "community efforts". He also gives examples on his spin of "knowing" vs. "believing" and that, in the end, it doesn't (only) matter if you know something or not - it's believing in things that put you to action. The examples range from historical to very personal, from overview to introspective, he switches back and forth and builds up his argument slowly. Like a painter putting several seemingly unconnected dots onto a blank canvas, you watch him work, see things coming together and, in the end, have a full picture. Only shortly before the end, Foer brings all his strands together to present his real intention of this book. I liked how he did that and enjoyed that first part very much.
Part 2: A few pages with hard facts. 3-5 facts per page, thematically grouped, dealing with climate change and livestock and/or how one infuences the other. Not much new in here for me personally, but I liked the stark contrast between the rather philosphical, long part 1 and the "in your face"-presentation in part 2. I was ready to get moving! Bring it on!
Part 3: This is where things went off track for me. Part 3 was very much like part 1, style-wise, many of the examples recurred. Only, this part had a different angle, it was more a "call to action"-sort of text. Only, it was too tame for that. Also, repeating the style from part 1 lessened the effect and made part 1 look less special in retrospect.
Part 4: Is a long interview of Foer with himself/his soul. He's playing Devil's Advocate with himself. This is where he lost me. See, Foer's big trouble is that he's having a hard time going vegan completely, which, obviously, would be the best solution. But he can't do that, his creavings for meat and dairy every now and then are too big. So he indulges in burgers and such. Not often, but he does. And every so often in his book, he writes about his own troubles with this, well, sort of hypocrisy, tries to explain it, to justify it. Part 4 is mostly about this inner conflict. And while this is all very honest and open, it also weakens his own part as author and gives room for critics such as: who is he to teach me if he's having such a hard time living by his own doctrine? I missed motivation. I missed optimism, at least in that regard, seeing as the general outlooks are pessimistic enough. Instead I felt like the author confessing his sins and lust to me, but who am I to give him absolution and why? I was really at a loss here.
Part 5: Final part, but instead of wrapping things up, I got another chapter like a mix of parts 1 and 3, same style, same examples, more family matters including a personal letter to Foer's children (asking them for absolution, too?) and then the book just ended. No closing stament. No conclusion.
There's a huge appendix with sources and bibliography, but it isn't easy to navigate since the text itself offers no footnotes. Readers have to find the source for themselves in the appendix. It's manageable but rather uncomfortable and I'd wished for better reader service here. Before the actual sources, there's another longer appendix dealing with facts on climate change and diet/livestock, and that's where the input is. That's what I missed in the actual book (and even there, imho Foer focusses too much on why certain studies are different than on the actual numbers).
Another current book on climate change is The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming by David Wallace-Wells - it was written after a New Yorker's essay of the same name became hugely popular. Foer quotes from that essay, and I somehow feel that he tried to do what David Wallace-Wells did: Write a powerful essay and "add" a book dwelling on that essay's theme. And well, if Foer's book had been the essay only - part 1, with maybe the short fact based part 2 added - it would've worked perfectly as such: A powerful, moving, capturing essay. As a repetitive book that offers not much more insight that the opening statement, it sadly, sadly, sadly felt flat for me. I'm not even sure Foer helped the movement, be it to help fight climate change, to spread veganism/more conscious consumption of animal products or a combination of both.
Finally, Foer often refers to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth movie. He praises the general message of the movie but critises it for two points: First, leaving the whole food/diet/mass farming/nutrition factor out of the equotation - Foer's book got that covered (well, in parts). But he also critisises the movie's ending, the "calls for action" being too soft, too uninspired, too less: "Talk to your parents" or "Writer to your governor" or what not - these actions might make you feel good, as if you've done something, but they hardly change anything. And what can I say? In a way, that's pretty much how I felt about Foer's book. I'm really at a loss and baffled by how little it inspired me.
It's still an okay read = 2 stars, but in the end, I can't recommend it wholeheartedly. And oh, how I wish I could!
---------------
* [Since this a review and I'm no Foer, so I won't get into technical details here, but since I'm also no Foer, I'll give you at least two sources for further reading via footnote right away: here or here.]
December 11, 2019
It's not that Foer's main message wasn't important and correct - of course we should save the planet - but this book is just a simplistic, self-centered pamphlet full of platitudes and absurd analogies, badly structured and repetitive. It reads like the great JSF spent about three weeks working on this - but before I write myself into a full-fledged rant, let me try to make some points:
JSF tells us again and again and again that we have to fight climate change - and I mean he literally states it, over and over and over and over again. We know, dude, tell us your ideas how to do that, damn it! It's not that climate deniers will pick up the book and change their minds anyways, because the whole thing is short on facts, but loooooong on emotions and anecdotes. Yes, we get lots of little stories about all kinds of things that are not really related to climate change, but Foer makes emotional connections and compares human behavior in different contexts.
Which brings us to my next issue: Climate change is not like the holocaust. It's not. Really: It's not. Those analogies and comparisons are absurd, and before you now say: But the author is Jewish and lost family members in the holocaust, yes, I know that, but climate change is still not like the holocaust, because absolutely nothing is like the holocaust. I know that these things are discussed differently abroad (hello, Lost Children Archive), but let me re-assure you that not only me, but large parts of the German press were shaking their heads about the passages comparing the Nazis to climate change ("Die Zeit" called it "ridiculous, pompous, tasteless", e.g.) - needless to say, it also works against a stringent and complex analysis.
And while Foer's argument that all of us have to contribute to the fight against climate change, that we all have to give up bad habits and make sacrifices, is crucial for saving the planet, I would have wished that this author, who has always argued against the atomization of society and radical self-centeredness, would also talk about communal efforts, about ways to organize and change policies - this book reads like Foer has given up on politics entirely, but to generate results, we have to use the democratic process and build up pressure. Public opinion changes slowly, but it does change if activists keep at it - together.
So all in all, this book tells me too much about the author's personal sensitivities and moral challenges, but instead of being relatable, it comes across as vain, rather shallow and apolitical. 2 stars because I support his goals and he isn't wrong about his aims, but seriously, JSF, you could have written a much better book about such an important topic.
JSF tells us again and again and again that we have to fight climate change - and I mean he literally states it, over and over and over and over again. We know, dude, tell us your ideas how to do that, damn it! It's not that climate deniers will pick up the book and change their minds anyways, because the whole thing is short on facts, but loooooong on emotions and anecdotes. Yes, we get lots of little stories about all kinds of things that are not really related to climate change, but Foer makes emotional connections and compares human behavior in different contexts.
Which brings us to my next issue: Climate change is not like the holocaust. It's not. Really: It's not. Those analogies and comparisons are absurd, and before you now say: But the author is Jewish and lost family members in the holocaust, yes, I know that, but climate change is still not like the holocaust, because absolutely nothing is like the holocaust. I know that these things are discussed differently abroad (hello, Lost Children Archive), but let me re-assure you that not only me, but large parts of the German press were shaking their heads about the passages comparing the Nazis to climate change ("Die Zeit" called it "ridiculous, pompous, tasteless", e.g.) - needless to say, it also works against a stringent and complex analysis.
And while Foer's argument that all of us have to contribute to the fight against climate change, that we all have to give up bad habits and make sacrifices, is crucial for saving the planet, I would have wished that this author, who has always argued against the atomization of society and radical self-centeredness, would also talk about communal efforts, about ways to organize and change policies - this book reads like Foer has given up on politics entirely, but to generate results, we have to use the democratic process and build up pressure. Public opinion changes slowly, but it does change if activists keep at it - together.
So all in all, this book tells me too much about the author's personal sensitivities and moral challenges, but instead of being relatable, it comes across as vain, rather shallow and apolitical. 2 stars because I support his goals and he isn't wrong about his aims, but seriously, JSF, you could have written a much better book about such an important topic.
December 17, 2019
Audiobook... read by Jonathan Safran Foer
“Climate change is possibly the most boring subject the science world has ever examined”.
Ha... well this urgent - serious non- fiction book is definitely not as adventurous as “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close”, or laugh-out-loud-comic-tragic as “Here I Am”, ( two books I liked ‘lots’ by Foer)....
but it’s at least worth skimming.
I say skimming because - while listening to the Audiobook.... my mind automatically checked out at times... ( a brain-skim-natural ‘zone-out’).
I couldn’t contain all the information presented ...
I could have judged myself for being a turd ...but I didn’t feel like beating myself up.
Here’s the thing... I respect Jonathan Safran Foer ( love his ex-wife’s books a little more than his)> but I like Foer! And I took away value from his words.
“If we except the reality about climate change and that it’s ruining our planet, but don’t do anything about it, we are no better than people who don’t believe in climate change”.
I get it... I’m NO BETTER about saving our planet than our birds, Phil and Lil.
But I can still do my part - and do better.
Believing....daydreaming.... imagining....
Jonathan included himself - ‘with us’ -
We all have beliefs.
We all daydream.
We all imagine.
We all have hopes, dreams, memories, loss and love in our lives. We all share this planet together. 🌍
This book felt like a dialogue conversation... presented as an opening for more discussions.
I felt compassion - empathy - and admiration for the ‘emotional’ worries that Jonathan lives with about our planet.
I DO care about our planet - the historical crisis we are creating for those not born yet - etc...
but I feel very small to the task required to personally make a major difference - I don’t loose sleep over climate change. I bet Foer does. Gotta admire a person like that.
I loose sleep from reading too much in bed - or from eating chocolate before falling asleep -or from personal worries - but it’s not easy to generate an ‘emotional’ gut-worry about climate change.
Yet... I admit Foer pierced deeper to my psyche.
I already do ‘some’ helpful gestures...
I drive little, ( yet I fly a few times a year)... I recycle, I feed our ( three large trays), worms our old veggies & fruits, I turn lights off, I try to re-use possessions rather than throw them out, I don’t cook meat at home... but occasionally - I cherish a yummy hamburger with fries at ‘Opa’, our local watering-hole restaurant.
I re-use tea bags - feed them to our worms too...
I wear little makeup...
But I don’t ‘seriously’ do any research about polio - or smoking -or study the history on health care habits and how they have affected our climate change.
Teens against polio was a historical social change factor that I found interesting in this book.
I get it.....
EVERYONE should try to do better.
I’m willing to try to improve!
Luckily I’m not a fan of bacon and eggs... ( it’s not a breakfast I choose)...
I don’t eat pork or shellfish -
I don’t like steak- so I don’t eat it.
I do eat ice cream.. (dairy) and cheese... but not humongous portions... and or every day.
If I was allowed my Opa Burger only 3 times a year - rather than maybe 6 times a year - and knew I’d be a ‘save-the-planet’ contributor... by doing that ....I’d gladly cut that consumption in half.
So... this book ‘was’ empowering!
As hard as it was for me to understand all that Foer does.... ( I felt sad in parts)...especially his personal family sharing....
a little frightened and overwhelmed about the condition we find ourselves in...
But...
by the time I finished this audiobook...I was left pretty darn moved.
In 2020.... I promise to be ‘more’ conscientious about doing my part. I have a passionate husband who is diligent about climate change. He’d love me to up- my game.
Paul won’t even use a napkin during eating our meals at home. His t-shirt works wonders.
I still use a napkin ... but maybe??? I could ‘consider’ a re-usable cloth to wipe my mouth and fingers.
5 stars...for Foer’s call for action book. I’m upping my consciousness ...with the intention do better - thanks to Foer’s leadership and skillful ability to write and influence me/us as well as he does.
I just hope Foer hasn’t given up writing fiction stories too!
“Climate change is possibly the most boring subject the science world has ever examined”.
Ha... well this urgent - serious non- fiction book is definitely not as adventurous as “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close”, or laugh-out-loud-comic-tragic as “Here I Am”, ( two books I liked ‘lots’ by Foer)....
but it’s at least worth skimming.
I say skimming because - while listening to the Audiobook.... my mind automatically checked out at times... ( a brain-skim-natural ‘zone-out’).
I couldn’t contain all the information presented ...
I could have judged myself for being a turd ...but I didn’t feel like beating myself up.
Here’s the thing... I respect Jonathan Safran Foer ( love his ex-wife’s books a little more than his)> but I like Foer! And I took away value from his words.
“If we except the reality about climate change and that it’s ruining our planet, but don’t do anything about it, we are no better than people who don’t believe in climate change”.
I get it... I’m NO BETTER about saving our planet than our birds, Phil and Lil.
But I can still do my part - and do better.
Believing....daydreaming.... imagining....
Jonathan included himself - ‘with us’ -
We all have beliefs.
We all daydream.
We all imagine.
We all have hopes, dreams, memories, loss and love in our lives. We all share this planet together. 🌍
This book felt like a dialogue conversation... presented as an opening for more discussions.
I felt compassion - empathy - and admiration for the ‘emotional’ worries that Jonathan lives with about our planet.
I DO care about our planet - the historical crisis we are creating for those not born yet - etc...
but I feel very small to the task required to personally make a major difference - I don’t loose sleep over climate change. I bet Foer does. Gotta admire a person like that.
I loose sleep from reading too much in bed - or from eating chocolate before falling asleep -or from personal worries - but it’s not easy to generate an ‘emotional’ gut-worry about climate change.
Yet... I admit Foer pierced deeper to my psyche.
I already do ‘some’ helpful gestures...
I drive little, ( yet I fly a few times a year)... I recycle, I feed our ( three large trays), worms our old veggies & fruits, I turn lights off, I try to re-use possessions rather than throw them out, I don’t cook meat at home... but occasionally - I cherish a yummy hamburger with fries at ‘Opa’, our local watering-hole restaurant.
I re-use tea bags - feed them to our worms too...
I wear little makeup...
But I don’t ‘seriously’ do any research about polio - or smoking -or study the history on health care habits and how they have affected our climate change.
Teens against polio was a historical social change factor that I found interesting in this book.
I get it.....
EVERYONE should try to do better.
I’m willing to try to improve!
Luckily I’m not a fan of bacon and eggs... ( it’s not a breakfast I choose)...
I don’t eat pork or shellfish -
I don’t like steak- so I don’t eat it.
I do eat ice cream.. (dairy) and cheese... but not humongous portions... and or every day.
If I was allowed my Opa Burger only 3 times a year - rather than maybe 6 times a year - and knew I’d be a ‘save-the-planet’ contributor... by doing that ....I’d gladly cut that consumption in half.
So... this book ‘was’ empowering!
As hard as it was for me to understand all that Foer does.... ( I felt sad in parts)...especially his personal family sharing....
a little frightened and overwhelmed about the condition we find ourselves in...
But...
by the time I finished this audiobook...I was left pretty darn moved.
In 2020.... I promise to be ‘more’ conscientious about doing my part. I have a passionate husband who is diligent about climate change. He’d love me to up- my game.
Paul won’t even use a napkin during eating our meals at home. His t-shirt works wonders.
I still use a napkin ... but maybe??? I could ‘consider’ a re-usable cloth to wipe my mouth and fingers.
5 stars...for Foer’s call for action book. I’m upping my consciousness ...with the intention do better - thanks to Foer’s leadership and skillful ability to write and influence me/us as well as he does.
I just hope Foer hasn’t given up writing fiction stories too!
October 30, 2019
The book is written in essay form, some personal, some informative. Its purpose is to highlight the changing climate, there are pages of facts and figures. Also, if you read his previous book, one would know he advocates not eating animals nor their by products. Something, by the way, which he admits having trouble doing, and his subsequent guilt after so doing.
Anyone who believes in climate change can see how it is already affecting the weather in different parts of the world. Most agree something must be done, scientists telling us this matter is urgent and we have very few years left to change the horrible scenarios they are predicting. I found the strongest arguement he makes is that if doesn't directly impact someone personally, they are unwilling to act.
"Is there anything more narcissistic than believing the choices you make affect everyone? Only one thing: believing the choices you make affect no one."
He makes many valid points, but at times it became repetitive. That he believes strongly is without doubt, we all should. I though, think we need our government and corporations to take the lead, guide us, change the way they are doing business. I eat meat once a meat. Are the six days I don't going to make a big difference? No, I don't think so, I think we've passed the point of little things making a difference, we now need big things, big actions. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening anytime soon.
ARC from Netgalley.
Anyone who believes in climate change can see how it is already affecting the weather in different parts of the world. Most agree something must be done, scientists telling us this matter is urgent and we have very few years left to change the horrible scenarios they are predicting. I found the strongest arguement he makes is that if doesn't directly impact someone personally, they are unwilling to act.
"Is there anything more narcissistic than believing the choices you make affect everyone? Only one thing: believing the choices you make affect no one."
He makes many valid points, but at times it became repetitive. That he believes strongly is without doubt, we all should. I though, think we need our government and corporations to take the lead, guide us, change the way they are doing business. I eat meat once a meat. Are the six days I don't going to make a big difference? No, I don't think so, I think we've passed the point of little things making a difference, we now need big things, big actions. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening anytime soon.
ARC from Netgalley.
November 20, 2019
Jonathan Safran Foer who, in his book Eating Animals, spoke about the horrific treatment of animals in factory farms, now informs us how our consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs is killing the planet. He makes a case for why we should all be vegan for the planet (though he himself is not and hems around making excuses for that), but without being preachy and with an understanding of how difficult this is for many people. (I personally don't understand that. Why isn't it easy when we know how animals are treated, and even more when we also know what eating them and their products do to our bodies and our planet? I try to understand why everyone is not vegan, but it's difficult for me. Why is my enjoyment of a food more important than an animal suffering and the destruction of our planet? How is it possible that anyone wants to eat animals?)
OK, stepping down off my soap box; I'm not here to preach and neither is Mr. Foer. He points out some of the top issues for our planet and climate due to animal agriculture and makes the case that we should all be eating a plant-based lifestyle. That said, he is more understanding than I am (probably because he himself hasn't been able to do know what he says we should all do) and simply encourages everyone to not eat any animal products before dinner. That would be a terrific improvement, both for our health and for the health of the planet (and much less suffering for animals). Perhaps it is more realistic to encourage people to eat less meat, dairy, and eggs than to expect everyone to switch to a plant-based diet (even if that is optimum).
So why exactly is animal agriculture destroying our planet? Here are a couple of the things Mr. Foer points out:
•"Animal agriculture is responsible for 91 percent of Amazonian deforestation."
•"Livestock are the leading source of methane emissions."
•"Methane has 34 times the global warming potential (GWP)—the ability to trap heat—as CO2."
Simply put, there is no way we can save the planet without significantly reducing our consumption of animal products. We need to globally move to all renewable energy but that will take a lot of time and trillions of dollars (and that's IF we ever get all governments on board). However, we each of us can start helping the environment, right now, today, by how we eat.
This was unfortunately not the best book, even though its message is important. There is much repetition and and at least as much information about the author's personal life and family history as about animal agriculture's impact on climate. I could have done with just the facts but some readers might find the book more interesting because of the personal element. I can't say I learned anything new from this book because it's all very basic; however, others might find it more informative if this is a subject you know little about.
It is crucial that we cut back on animal agriculture sooner rather than later. That starts with you, me, and everyone else on the planet. Even if you think you could never give up steak or cheese or eggs, try switching to vegan options for at least 2 of your daily meals. There are many incredible plant-based versions of your favourite foods, and many wonderful new foods and dishes you will discover and enjoy. Try it. You might just be surprised!
I leave you with this sentence from the book as something to think about the next time you want to eat a burger:
"According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, if cows were a country, they would rank third in greenhouse gas emissions, after China and the United States."
Third in greenhouse emissions. And that's ONLY COWS. It does not include chickens and pigs and turkeys and farmed fish and all the others. If you want to do something to help the planet, think before you eat.
OK, stepping down off my soap box; I'm not here to preach and neither is Mr. Foer. He points out some of the top issues for our planet and climate due to animal agriculture and makes the case that we should all be eating a plant-based lifestyle. That said, he is more understanding than I am (probably because he himself hasn't been able to do know what he says we should all do) and simply encourages everyone to not eat any animal products before dinner. That would be a terrific improvement, both for our health and for the health of the planet (and much less suffering for animals). Perhaps it is more realistic to encourage people to eat less meat, dairy, and eggs than to expect everyone to switch to a plant-based diet (even if that is optimum).
So why exactly is animal agriculture destroying our planet? Here are a couple of the things Mr. Foer points out:
•"Animal agriculture is responsible for 91 percent of Amazonian deforestation."
•"Livestock are the leading source of methane emissions."
•"Methane has 34 times the global warming potential (GWP)—the ability to trap heat—as CO2."
Simply put, there is no way we can save the planet without significantly reducing our consumption of animal products. We need to globally move to all renewable energy but that will take a lot of time and trillions of dollars (and that's IF we ever get all governments on board). However, we each of us can start helping the environment, right now, today, by how we eat.
This was unfortunately not the best book, even though its message is important. There is much repetition and and at least as much information about the author's personal life and family history as about animal agriculture's impact on climate. I could have done with just the facts but some readers might find the book more interesting because of the personal element. I can't say I learned anything new from this book because it's all very basic; however, others might find it more informative if this is a subject you know little about.
It is crucial that we cut back on animal agriculture sooner rather than later. That starts with you, me, and everyone else on the planet. Even if you think you could never give up steak or cheese or eggs, try switching to vegan options for at least 2 of your daily meals. There are many incredible plant-based versions of your favourite foods, and many wonderful new foods and dishes you will discover and enjoy. Try it. You might just be surprised!
I leave you with this sentence from the book as something to think about the next time you want to eat a burger:
"According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, if cows were a country, they would rank third in greenhouse gas emissions, after China and the United States."
Third in greenhouse emissions. And that's ONLY COWS. It does not include chickens and pigs and turkeys and farmed fish and all the others. If you want to do something to help the planet, think before you eat.
November 9, 2020
Exactly as the tagline suggests, this is a book prompting the reader on how to save our planet. And it all begins at breakfast.
Despite measuring in at just over 200 pages, the first 70 were spent on seemingly disparate topics almost exclusively unrelated to climate change. I was, at first, baffled, but soon found this to be a very clever device to ensure the reader began to associate the seemingly distant fears of the irrevocable destruction of our planet to more immediate threats, such as those of war.
This book essentially became a plea for the world to consume a more plant-based diet. It included facts to prove that factory farming is not only inhumane, but is the root cause of our planet's destruction. I whole-heartedly agree and despite being a practising vegan for over two years now still found this wonderfully thought-provoking, if a little abstract in instruction.
Where this book failed for me, was in the admittance from the author that he himself failed to follow his own suggestions. This is the second book on veganism that he has penned and yet he is profiting from selling an ideology that he does not hold. This feels baffling to me!
Jonathan Safran Foer admits to being vegetarian for many years and yet still giving into the occasional temptation for fast-food meats and regularly adding eggs and dairy into his meals. I support that veganism is not a viable lifestyle choice for some, with many economic, cultural, etc. factors in play. What I can't support is someone who has so few of these factors working against him and ALL of the knowledge available, and yet no motivation it seems to be a real force for change. His words speak many truths, but his actions fail to further these intentions.
I don't want this to come across as judging others for their lifestyle choices, merely that I struggle to understand someone who is selling books and is a passionate voice on a topic, but is also failing to introduce the measures he suggests into his own life.
Veganism is daunting to some and so I would like to close this review/rant by further stating how powerful I found the first portion of this book. Also, I would like to add that if the world's population shifted towards more plant-based meals, but was not exclusively vegan, then that would still be a huge win for our planet.
Despite measuring in at just over 200 pages, the first 70 were spent on seemingly disparate topics almost exclusively unrelated to climate change. I was, at first, baffled, but soon found this to be a very clever device to ensure the reader began to associate the seemingly distant fears of the irrevocable destruction of our planet to more immediate threats, such as those of war.
This book essentially became a plea for the world to consume a more plant-based diet. It included facts to prove that factory farming is not only inhumane, but is the root cause of our planet's destruction. I whole-heartedly agree and despite being a practising vegan for over two years now still found this wonderfully thought-provoking, if a little abstract in instruction.
Where this book failed for me, was in the admittance from the author that he himself failed to follow his own suggestions. This is the second book on veganism that he has penned and yet he is profiting from selling an ideology that he does not hold. This feels baffling to me!
Jonathan Safran Foer admits to being vegetarian for many years and yet still giving into the occasional temptation for fast-food meats and regularly adding eggs and dairy into his meals. I support that veganism is not a viable lifestyle choice for some, with many economic, cultural, etc. factors in play. What I can't support is someone who has so few of these factors working against him and ALL of the knowledge available, and yet no motivation it seems to be a real force for change. His words speak many truths, but his actions fail to further these intentions.
I don't want this to come across as judging others for their lifestyle choices, merely that I struggle to understand someone who is selling books and is a passionate voice on a topic, but is also failing to introduce the measures he suggests into his own life.
Veganism is daunting to some and so I would like to close this review/rant by further stating how powerful I found the first portion of this book. Also, I would like to add that if the world's population shifted towards more plant-based meals, but was not exclusively vegan, then that would still be a huge win for our planet.
August 10, 2022
I’m tired.
I read Foer’s Eating Animals after going vegetarian at 19 and it was a large contributing factor to my choice to go vegan at 20. A decade later, I’m still vegan.
Picking up this book I was excited to feel galvanized yet again, and instead I’ve been left angry and frustrated.
In the past decade that I have eaten a plant based diet every single day, even when living on a cruise ship for half a year with limited options, even when struggling with my mental health, even when hungry and tired with few to no options around me while traveling.
Foer helped to further inform me of the horrors of animal agriculture, and encouraged me to give up dairy for good (by far my favourite food group for the first 20 years of my life) because it was the right thing to do.
It hasn’t always been easy, but I have been happy to make sacrifices to live according to my values. Only to listen to this audiobook where Foer admits he has failed at being a vegetarian over and over again over the years, and barely tried at all to give up dairy. He has made his living encouraging others to make the change he hasn’t made himself. The hypocrisy is shocking.
This book will have no impact on how I live my life. I will be vegan until the day I die. I will continue to try to make choices in my day to day life to reduce my impact on the environment, when I can.
But it certainly has had an impact on how I view Foer and the book that helped to change my life.
Perhaps this book will help someone to take the next step to live more consciously, but I’m not sure I can see how.
Content/trigger warnings: suicide, genocide, the holocaust, climate destruction
You can find me on...
Youtube | Instagram | Twitter| TikTok
You can join our book club over on Patreon...
PBB Book Club
I read Foer’s Eating Animals after going vegetarian at 19 and it was a large contributing factor to my choice to go vegan at 20. A decade later, I’m still vegan.
Picking up this book I was excited to feel galvanized yet again, and instead I’ve been left angry and frustrated.
In the past decade that I have eaten a plant based diet every single day, even when living on a cruise ship for half a year with limited options, even when struggling with my mental health, even when hungry and tired with few to no options around me while traveling.
Foer helped to further inform me of the horrors of animal agriculture, and encouraged me to give up dairy for good (by far my favourite food group for the first 20 years of my life) because it was the right thing to do.
It hasn’t always been easy, but I have been happy to make sacrifices to live according to my values. Only to listen to this audiobook where Foer admits he has failed at being a vegetarian over and over again over the years, and barely tried at all to give up dairy. He has made his living encouraging others to make the change he hasn’t made himself. The hypocrisy is shocking.
This book will have no impact on how I live my life. I will be vegan until the day I die. I will continue to try to make choices in my day to day life to reduce my impact on the environment, when I can.
But it certainly has had an impact on how I view Foer and the book that helped to change my life.
Perhaps this book will help someone to take the next step to live more consciously, but I’m not sure I can see how.
Content/trigger warnings: suicide, genocide, the holocaust, climate destruction
You can find me on...
Youtube | Instagram | Twitter| TikTok
You can join our book club over on Patreon...
PBB Book Club
December 18, 2019
(2.5) I’ve read all of Jonathan Safran Foer’s major releases, from Everything Is Illuminated onwards, and his 2009 work Eating Animals had a major impact on me. (I included it on a 2017 list of “Books that (Should Have) Literally Changed My Life.”) It’s an exposé of factory farming that concludes meat-eating is unconscionable, and while I haven’t gone all the way back to vegetarianism in the years since I read it, I eat meat extremely rarely, usually only when a guest at others’ houses, and my husband and I often eat vegan meals at home.
When I heard that Foer’s new book would revisit the ethics of eating meat, I worried it might feel redundant, but still wanted to give it a try. Here he examines the issue through the lens of climate change, arguing that slashing meat consumption by two-thirds or more (by eating vegan until dinner, i.e., for two meals a day) is the easiest way for individuals to decrease their carbon footprint. I don’t disagree with this proposal. It would be churlish to fault a reasonable suggestion that gives ordinary folk something concrete to do while waiting (in vain?) for governments to act.
My issues, then, are not with the book’s message but with its methods and structure. Initially, Foer successfully makes use of historical parallels like World War II and the civil rights movement. He rightly observes that we are at a crucial turning point and it will take self-denial and joining in with a radical social movement to protect a whole way of life. Don’t think of living a greener lifestyle as a sacrifice or a superhuman feat, Foer advises; think of it as an opportunity for bravery and for living out the convictions you confess to hold.
As the book goes on, however, the same reference points come up again and again. It’s an attempt to build on what’s already been discussed, but just ends up sounding repetitive. Meanwhile, the central topic is brought in as a Trojan horse: not until page 64 (of 224 in the main text) does Foer lay his cards on the table and admit “This is a book about the impacts of animal agriculture on the environment.” Why be so coy when the book has been marketed as being about food choices? The subtitle and blurb make the topic clear. “Our planet is a farm,” Foer declares, with animal agriculture the top source of deforestation and methane emissions.
Fair enough, but as I heard a UK climate expert explain the other week at a local green fair, you can’t boil down our response to the climate crisis to ONE strategy. Every adjustment has to work in tandem. So while Foer has chosen meat-eating as the most practical thing to change right now, the other main sources of emissions barely get a mention. He admits that car use, number of children, and flights are additional areas where personal choices make a difference, but makes no attempt to influence attitudes in these areas. So diet is up for discussion, but not family planning, commuting or vacations? This struck me as a lack of imagination, or of courage. Separating Americans from their vehicles may be even tougher than getting them to put down the burgers. But that doesn’t mean it’s not worth trying.
Part II is a bullet-pointed set of facts and statistics reminiscent of the “Tell the Truth” section in the Extinction Rebellion handbook. It’s an effective strategy for setting things out briefly, yet sits oddly between narrative sections of analogies and anecdotes. My favorite bits of the book were about visits to his dying grandmother back at the family home in Washington, D.C. It took him many years to realize that his grandfather, who lost everything in Poland and began again with a new wife in America, committed suicide. This family history, nestled within the canon of Jewish stories like Noah’s Ark, Masada and the Holocaust, dramatizes the conflict between resistance and self-destruction – the very battle we face now.
Part IV, Foer’s “Dispute with the Soul,” is a philosophical dialogue in the tradition of Talmudic study, while the book closes with a letter to his sons. Individually, many of these segments are powerful in the way they confront hypocrisy and hopelessness with honesty. But together in the same book they feel like a jumble. Although it was noble of Foer to tackle the subject of climate change, I’m not convinced he was the right person to write this book, especially when we’ve already had recent works like The Uninhabitable Earth by David Wallace-Wells. Arriving at a rating has been very difficult for me because I support the book’s aims but often found it a frustrating reading experience. Still, if it wakes up even a handful of readers to the emergency we face, it will have been worthwhile.
A favorite passage: “Climate change is not a jigsaw puzzle on the coffee table, which can be returned to when the schedule allows and the feeling inspires. It is a house on fire.”
Originally published on my blog, Bookish Beck.
When I heard that Foer’s new book would revisit the ethics of eating meat, I worried it might feel redundant, but still wanted to give it a try. Here he examines the issue through the lens of climate change, arguing that slashing meat consumption by two-thirds or more (by eating vegan until dinner, i.e., for two meals a day) is the easiest way for individuals to decrease their carbon footprint. I don’t disagree with this proposal. It would be churlish to fault a reasonable suggestion that gives ordinary folk something concrete to do while waiting (in vain?) for governments to act.
My issues, then, are not with the book’s message but with its methods and structure. Initially, Foer successfully makes use of historical parallels like World War II and the civil rights movement. He rightly observes that we are at a crucial turning point and it will take self-denial and joining in with a radical social movement to protect a whole way of life. Don’t think of living a greener lifestyle as a sacrifice or a superhuman feat, Foer advises; think of it as an opportunity for bravery and for living out the convictions you confess to hold.
As the book goes on, however, the same reference points come up again and again. It’s an attempt to build on what’s already been discussed, but just ends up sounding repetitive. Meanwhile, the central topic is brought in as a Trojan horse: not until page 64 (of 224 in the main text) does Foer lay his cards on the table and admit “This is a book about the impacts of animal agriculture on the environment.” Why be so coy when the book has been marketed as being about food choices? The subtitle and blurb make the topic clear. “Our planet is a farm,” Foer declares, with animal agriculture the top source of deforestation and methane emissions.
Fair enough, but as I heard a UK climate expert explain the other week at a local green fair, you can’t boil down our response to the climate crisis to ONE strategy. Every adjustment has to work in tandem. So while Foer has chosen meat-eating as the most practical thing to change right now, the other main sources of emissions barely get a mention. He admits that car use, number of children, and flights are additional areas where personal choices make a difference, but makes no attempt to influence attitudes in these areas. So diet is up for discussion, but not family planning, commuting or vacations? This struck me as a lack of imagination, or of courage. Separating Americans from their vehicles may be even tougher than getting them to put down the burgers. But that doesn’t mean it’s not worth trying.
Part II is a bullet-pointed set of facts and statistics reminiscent of the “Tell the Truth” section in the Extinction Rebellion handbook. It’s an effective strategy for setting things out briefly, yet sits oddly between narrative sections of analogies and anecdotes. My favorite bits of the book were about visits to his dying grandmother back at the family home in Washington, D.C. It took him many years to realize that his grandfather, who lost everything in Poland and began again with a new wife in America, committed suicide. This family history, nestled within the canon of Jewish stories like Noah’s Ark, Masada and the Holocaust, dramatizes the conflict between resistance and self-destruction – the very battle we face now.
Part IV, Foer’s “Dispute with the Soul,” is a philosophical dialogue in the tradition of Talmudic study, while the book closes with a letter to his sons. Individually, many of these segments are powerful in the way they confront hypocrisy and hopelessness with honesty. But together in the same book they feel like a jumble. Although it was noble of Foer to tackle the subject of climate change, I’m not convinced he was the right person to write this book, especially when we’ve already had recent works like The Uninhabitable Earth by David Wallace-Wells. Arriving at a rating has been very difficult for me because I support the book’s aims but often found it a frustrating reading experience. Still, if it wakes up even a handful of readers to the emergency we face, it will have been worthwhile.
A favorite passage: “Climate change is not a jigsaw puzzle on the coffee table, which can be returned to when the schedule allows and the feeling inspires. It is a house on fire.”
Originally published on my blog, Bookish Beck.
September 26, 2019
Tra 3 e 4 stelle.
Davanti a una crisi occorre prendere una decisione: o assumere un atteggiamento passivo o agire nel proprio piccolo affinché la salute climatica non peggiori ulteriormente.
Come? Innanzitutto modificando le nostre abitudini: se tutti noi (centinaia di migliaia di persone) lo facessimo, allora tutto diventa possibile, un po’ come trovarsi allo stadio e seguire l’onda della ola appena arriva.
“Che giudizio daremmo di uno che, mentre si compie l’enorme sforzo di salvare non solo milioni di vite, ma la libertà del nostro sistema di vita, considerasse un sacrificio troppo grande spegnere le luci? Ovviamente la guerra non poteva essere vinta solo con l’atto collettivo di spegnere le luci –per la vittoria ci fu bisogno di sedici milioni di americani arruolati nelle forze armate, di oltre quattromila miliardi di dollari e degli eserciti di una quindicina di altri paesi. Ma provate a pensare che la guerra non potesse essere vinta senza quel gesto. Provate a pensare che per impedire alla bandiera nazista di sventolare su Londra, Mosca e Washington fosse necessario quel clic notturno degli interruttori. Provate a pensare che i dieci milioni e mezzo di ebrei sopravvissuti nel mondo non si sarebbero potuti salvare senza quelle ore di buio. Come considereremmo, allora, quella rinuncia dei cittadini? Non avremo compiuto nessun «sacrificio».”
Safran Foer indaga le origini della crisi climatica: “L’impressione è che sia sostanzialmente impossibile spostare la catastrofe dalla nostra contemplazione laggiù per farla entrare nei nostri cuori quaggiù. Per usare le parole dello scrittore Amitav Ghosh nel libro La grande cecità: «La crisi climatica [è] anche una crisi della cultura, e pertanto dell’immaginazione». Io la definirei una crisi della capacità di credere.”
La modifica delle abitudini comporterà il riaccendere la speranza, perché ogni medaglia ha due facce: “Un arcobaleno è anche una corda: può essere gettato a una persona che affoga o legato a formare un nodo scorsoio. Nessuno se non noi distruggerà la Terra e nessuno se non noi la salverà. Le condizioni più disperate possono innescare le azioni più cariche di speranza. Abbiamo trovato il modo di riportare la vita sulla Terra dopo un collasso totale, perché abbiamo trovato il modo di provocare un totale collasso della vita sulla Terra. Noi siamo il Diluvio e noi siamo l’Arca.”
Che questo libro sia un invito a diventare protagonisti attivi per cambiare le sorti del Pianeta, facendo nostra la mal comprensione che Jonathan Safran Foer aveva da bambino alla fine del racconto della storia di sua nonna: “Ma da bambino, invece di «You are so lucky to be leaving», io capivo: «You are so lucky to believing –Sei fortunata a crederci».”
Non basta essere fortunati per essere vivi. Dobbiamo esserlo perché ci crediamo nel cambiamento.
Davanti a una crisi occorre prendere una decisione: o assumere un atteggiamento passivo o agire nel proprio piccolo affinché la salute climatica non peggiori ulteriormente.
Come? Innanzitutto modificando le nostre abitudini: se tutti noi (centinaia di migliaia di persone) lo facessimo, allora tutto diventa possibile, un po’ come trovarsi allo stadio e seguire l’onda della ola appena arriva.
“Che giudizio daremmo di uno che, mentre si compie l’enorme sforzo di salvare non solo milioni di vite, ma la libertà del nostro sistema di vita, considerasse un sacrificio troppo grande spegnere le luci? Ovviamente la guerra non poteva essere vinta solo con l’atto collettivo di spegnere le luci –per la vittoria ci fu bisogno di sedici milioni di americani arruolati nelle forze armate, di oltre quattromila miliardi di dollari e degli eserciti di una quindicina di altri paesi. Ma provate a pensare che la guerra non potesse essere vinta senza quel gesto. Provate a pensare che per impedire alla bandiera nazista di sventolare su Londra, Mosca e Washington fosse necessario quel clic notturno degli interruttori. Provate a pensare che i dieci milioni e mezzo di ebrei sopravvissuti nel mondo non si sarebbero potuti salvare senza quelle ore di buio. Come considereremmo, allora, quella rinuncia dei cittadini? Non avremo compiuto nessun «sacrificio».”
Safran Foer indaga le origini della crisi climatica: “L’impressione è che sia sostanzialmente impossibile spostare la catastrofe dalla nostra contemplazione laggiù per farla entrare nei nostri cuori quaggiù. Per usare le parole dello scrittore Amitav Ghosh nel libro La grande cecità: «La crisi climatica [è] anche una crisi della cultura, e pertanto dell’immaginazione». Io la definirei una crisi della capacità di credere.”
La modifica delle abitudini comporterà il riaccendere la speranza, perché ogni medaglia ha due facce: “Un arcobaleno è anche una corda: può essere gettato a una persona che affoga o legato a formare un nodo scorsoio. Nessuno se non noi distruggerà la Terra e nessuno se non noi la salverà. Le condizioni più disperate possono innescare le azioni più cariche di speranza. Abbiamo trovato il modo di riportare la vita sulla Terra dopo un collasso totale, perché abbiamo trovato il modo di provocare un totale collasso della vita sulla Terra. Noi siamo il Diluvio e noi siamo l’Arca.”
Che questo libro sia un invito a diventare protagonisti attivi per cambiare le sorti del Pianeta, facendo nostra la mal comprensione che Jonathan Safran Foer aveva da bambino alla fine del racconto della storia di sua nonna: “Ma da bambino, invece di «You are so lucky to be leaving», io capivo: «You are so lucky to believing –Sei fortunata a crederci».”
Non basta essere fortunati per essere vivi. Dobbiamo esserlo perché ci crediamo nel cambiamento.
January 24, 2020
Yes, you see that correctly, I gave this book one star.
Since I also gave Greta Thunberg’s ‘No One Is Too Small To Make A Difference’ one star, I feel the need to stress (again) that I am not a climate sceptic! I am a book reviewer, and both of these books are really really bad. This one is worse though!
In the case of this book, Foer starts out telling us about himself; about his Jewish grandparents; about how he sometimes eats meat; about mirrors and how tiny fish that live in coral that will disappear in a few years can recognize themselves in them... It’s just absolutely ridiculous that he thinks his navel gazing is supposed to inspire others to make changes!
Not only is this book not talking about climate change on 80% of its pages, it is also really weirdly written. There is barely any overarching structure, and the way Foer hops from anecdotes to historical analogies to random scientific facts is just horrible to read. Oh and I almost forgot, it’s also plain boring!
So no, I do not recommend this. I had to literally force myself to finish this book. If you want to torture yourself, go ahead and read this, otherwise just put this back wherever you found it and do not look back. It is not worth the time you need to read this!!!!
Since I also gave Greta Thunberg’s ‘No One Is Too Small To Make A Difference’ one star, I feel the need to stress (again) that I am not a climate sceptic! I am a book reviewer, and both of these books are really really bad. This one is worse though!
In the case of this book, Foer starts out telling us about himself; about his Jewish grandparents; about how he sometimes eats meat; about mirrors and how tiny fish that live in coral that will disappear in a few years can recognize themselves in them... It’s just absolutely ridiculous that he thinks his navel gazing is supposed to inspire others to make changes!
Not only is this book not talking about climate change on 80% of its pages, it is also really weirdly written. There is barely any overarching structure, and the way Foer hops from anecdotes to historical analogies to random scientific facts is just horrible to read. Oh and I almost forgot, it’s also plain boring!
So no, I do not recommend this. I had to literally force myself to finish this book. If you want to torture yourself, go ahead and read this, otherwise just put this back wherever you found it and do not look back. It is not worth the time you need to read this!!!!
September 26, 2019
This week Greta Thunberg's impassioned accusation, "you have stolen my dreams and my childhood" by talking about "money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth," brought many to tears...and others to attack the sixteen-year-old activist. We don't want to hear Thunberg because we don't want to accept her vision of the future.
We have heard the reasoned arguments and warnings. Most people accept climate change as scientific fact. In the popular film An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore warned, "We have everything that we need to reduce carbon emissions, everything but political will. But in America, the will to act is a renewable resource." But the political will has not been there and many deny the scientific studies as fable.
The first Earth Day I purchased a "Give Earth a Chance" pinback button at the information table set up in my high school hallway. I took ecology in college, recycled when we had to cart everything to centers, limited the use of our car (when we turned in our lease we had totaled 8,000 miles over three years).
"Most people want to do what's good for the world, when it doesn't come at personal expense."~from We Are The Weather
But we also eat eggs and cheese and use the air conditioner and furnace. Some things are easier to give up, and some things we cling to. I can't tolerate high temperatures and without air conditioning, I am a mess. Michigan has experienced more 95 degree days than ever, and we are told it will get worse. I think about it all the time, how we may need to install a bathroom in the basement when we need to escape to its coolness because the a.c.will be illegal or limited or unaffordable.
In We Are The Weather: Saving the Planet Begins at Breakfast, Jonathan Safran Foer argues that people just don't "feel" the threat of climate change; we think of it as some apocalyptic fantasy set in the future. Like Justice Felix Frankfurter when he learned of the Warsaw Ghetto and concentration camps responded, "I must say I am unable to believe what you told me...My mind, my heart, they are made in such a way that I cannot accept it." The good justice believed, and he was horrified, but it was too much for him to fathom it was real.
Foer's book is, in essence, a long discussion with us, and himself, on how difficult it is to get to where Thunberg is: a deep commitment based on a sense of personal and existential threat of death.
We are killing ourselves. We are committing suicide. We can change our behavior and it can affect the weather and, perhaps, save our lives, our children's lives.
Foer offers individuals how to change the future through personal action. Walk, bicycle, instead of using cars. (check; my husband walked to work much of his career.) Avoid flying (check; I've only flown a few times my entire life), have one child less (check; we have one). Dry clothes on a clothesline instead of in a dryer. (Done that, had the stiff underwear to prove it. But I do have an energy-efficient dryer.)
And eat a plant-based diet (kinda, sometimes).
Our first year of marriage we bought Diet For a Small Planet by Frances Moore Lappe. Some of those recipes remain regular favorites in our house, such as Mexican Pan Bread. Later we collected Moosewood Restaurant's cookbooks and added more delicious recipes. We fell into the cooking of our childhood when raising a picky-eater child. But after he left for college, I read Michael Pollen's The Omnivore's Dilemma and we became strict vegetarians for three years...then, living with our son again fell back into buying more meat.
I am now in a dilemma. We are trying to get animal products back out of our diet, but I am told to increase my protein. I don't like tofu or those awful shakes. I have been buying local eggs from a farm market--is that ok? Then, there is my husband's deep and abiding love for cheese.
Foer informs that agriculture, mostly animal agriculture, accounts for 24% of annual greenhouse gas emissions. And we know those animals require huge amounts of food which takes up lots of land and energy and water, and factories to process animals into meat, and trucks to get the meat to markets. Plus, factory farming of animals creates environmental problems and pollution. Last of all, eating animal products, as my doctor has emphasized, is bad for our individual health.
Where is the 'upside' of eating meat?
It appears to come down to grilled steaks taste so good vs. save our life and humanity.
"We are the flood, and we are the ark," Foer concludes. Our fate is in our own hands.
And so we struggle on to overcome our desires and the ease of tradition as our children accuse our complacency costs their future.
I received a free ebook from the publisher through NetGalley. My review is fair and unbiased.
We have heard the reasoned arguments and warnings. Most people accept climate change as scientific fact. In the popular film An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore warned, "We have everything that we need to reduce carbon emissions, everything but political will. But in America, the will to act is a renewable resource." But the political will has not been there and many deny the scientific studies as fable.
The first Earth Day I purchased a "Give Earth a Chance" pinback button at the information table set up in my high school hallway. I took ecology in college, recycled when we had to cart everything to centers, limited the use of our car (when we turned in our lease we had totaled 8,000 miles over three years).
"Most people want to do what's good for the world, when it doesn't come at personal expense."~from We Are The Weather
But we also eat eggs and cheese and use the air conditioner and furnace. Some things are easier to give up, and some things we cling to. I can't tolerate high temperatures and without air conditioning, I am a mess. Michigan has experienced more 95 degree days than ever, and we are told it will get worse. I think about it all the time, how we may need to install a bathroom in the basement when we need to escape to its coolness because the a.c.will be illegal or limited or unaffordable.
In We Are The Weather: Saving the Planet Begins at Breakfast, Jonathan Safran Foer argues that people just don't "feel" the threat of climate change; we think of it as some apocalyptic fantasy set in the future. Like Justice Felix Frankfurter when he learned of the Warsaw Ghetto and concentration camps responded, "I must say I am unable to believe what you told me...My mind, my heart, they are made in such a way that I cannot accept it." The good justice believed, and he was horrified, but it was too much for him to fathom it was real.
Foer's book is, in essence, a long discussion with us, and himself, on how difficult it is to get to where Thunberg is: a deep commitment based on a sense of personal and existential threat of death.
We are killing ourselves. We are committing suicide. We can change our behavior and it can affect the weather and, perhaps, save our lives, our children's lives.
Foer offers individuals how to change the future through personal action. Walk, bicycle, instead of using cars. (check; my husband walked to work much of his career.) Avoid flying (check; I've only flown a few times my entire life), have one child less (check; we have one). Dry clothes on a clothesline instead of in a dryer. (Done that, had the stiff underwear to prove it. But I do have an energy-efficient dryer.)
And eat a plant-based diet (kinda, sometimes).
Our first year of marriage we bought Diet For a Small Planet by Frances Moore Lappe. Some of those recipes remain regular favorites in our house, such as Mexican Pan Bread. Later we collected Moosewood Restaurant's cookbooks and added more delicious recipes. We fell into the cooking of our childhood when raising a picky-eater child. But after he left for college, I read Michael Pollen's The Omnivore's Dilemma and we became strict vegetarians for three years...then, living with our son again fell back into buying more meat.
I am now in a dilemma. We are trying to get animal products back out of our diet, but I am told to increase my protein. I don't like tofu or those awful shakes. I have been buying local eggs from a farm market--is that ok? Then, there is my husband's deep and abiding love for cheese.
Foer informs that agriculture, mostly animal agriculture, accounts for 24% of annual greenhouse gas emissions. And we know those animals require huge amounts of food which takes up lots of land and energy and water, and factories to process animals into meat, and trucks to get the meat to markets. Plus, factory farming of animals creates environmental problems and pollution. Last of all, eating animal products, as my doctor has emphasized, is bad for our individual health.
Where is the 'upside' of eating meat?
It appears to come down to grilled steaks taste so good vs. save our life and humanity.
"We are the flood, and we are the ark," Foer concludes. Our fate is in our own hands.
And so we struggle on to overcome our desires and the ease of tradition as our children accuse our complacency costs their future.
I received a free ebook from the publisher through NetGalley. My review is fair and unbiased.
June 15, 2023
Di Foer tempo fa provai a leggere "Ogni cosa è illuminata", ma non andò granchè bene, anzi lo abbandonai dopo poche pagine, perchè la scrittura mi era molto lontana ed anche ciò che veniva scritto sulle pagine di quel libro, non erano nelle mie corde; così decisi di far passare del tempo per riprovarci.
M'interessa conoscere sempre di più sulla questione ambientale e sui cambiamenti climatici che ormai sono gli argomenti più importanti, anche se facciamo ancora poco o nulla per migliorare la situazione, degli ultimi anni. Quindi qualche settimana fa vidi questo libro con questa copertina così evocativa e allo stesso tempo inquietante e comica: una mela a rappresentare il nostro pianeta, martoriato, come una mela mordicchiata, da noi esseri umani. L'immagine è surreale, ma rappresenta a pennello il problema. Vogliamo continuare a "mordicchiare" ancora e ancora e ancora fino al torsolo o cerchiamo di cambiare le nostre abitudini per salvaguardarlo? Il problema è che l'immagine rappresenta un'allegoria della situazione, perchè il pianeta non scomparirà alla fine, ma saremo noi esseri umani e purtroppo anche tutte le altre forme di vita sulla Terra, a scomparire.
Così mi chiedo cosa ci troverò in questo saggio, le prime pagine sono subito d'impatto, così come tutte le seguenti, fino al finale, che mi è risultato forse troppo autobiografico, ma questo è un mio problema.
Quello che mi ha sbalordito di questo libro è che l'autore si mette in prima persona e s'interroga su cosa potremmo fare per migliorare la situazione che si fa sempre più catastrofica, non si tratta di un testo scientifico o tecnico sulla questione, ma un'autobiografia sul tema. Il cambiamento principale ormai lo sappiamo tutti qual è, diminuire enormemente, se non eliminare completamente l'alimentazione di origine animale e conseguentemente chiudere tutti gli allevamenti intensivi, evitare il più possibile i viaggi aerei, che negli ultimi anni sono aumentati in modo spropositato. (25/30 anni fa, quand'ero ragazzino, viaggiare in aereo era un'utopia, ne parlavamo come fantascienza, poi siamo entrati nel nuovo millennio e divennero, i viaggi aerei, sempre più accessibili, fino ad ora, praticamente come prendere l'autobus.)
Mi fanno molto piacere tutti i movimenti pro cambiamenti, che stanno crescendo negli ultimi anni, così tanti giovani impegnati con la voglia di migliorare la vita di tutti, soprattutto di chi sta peggio. L'uguaglianza rimarrà una vera e propria utopia, se il sistema marcio radicato nella civiltà contemporanea non virerà verso nuovi lidi. Le deforestazioni selvagge ed a macchia d'olio che avvengono sempre di più, non sono altro che la faccia putrida di una decadenza di valori fondamentali. Li vediamo, ci indignamo, ma non facciamo molto per cambiare la situazione.
Il testo si focalizza anche su una parte fondamentale del problema che è quello intimista di ognuno di noi, guardarci dentro ci fa paura? Cerchiamo sempre di evadere dal problema aggrappandoci alle cose futili, quelle che ci fanno usare meno il cervello, perchè confrontarci con la realtà delle cose ci mette in soggezione, come la paura per l'ignoto o peggio ancora ce ne freghiamo, anzi ci sentiamo defraudati del poco tempo che la vita ci dà: "insomma ho poche decine di anni di vita da vivere e lasciamele vivere in santa pace e godendomela come meglio credo, no?." Un po' come in quella pubblicità famosa, dove: "se vieni da noi risparmi, così poi puoi goderti la vita." Maledetto buonismo da quattro soldi!
Superconsigliato a tutti, soprattutto a chi ancora non ci crede...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G87V0...
M'interessa conoscere sempre di più sulla questione ambientale e sui cambiamenti climatici che ormai sono gli argomenti più importanti, anche se facciamo ancora poco o nulla per migliorare la situazione, degli ultimi anni. Quindi qualche settimana fa vidi questo libro con questa copertina così evocativa e allo stesso tempo inquietante e comica: una mela a rappresentare il nostro pianeta, martoriato, come una mela mordicchiata, da noi esseri umani. L'immagine è surreale, ma rappresenta a pennello il problema. Vogliamo continuare a "mordicchiare" ancora e ancora e ancora fino al torsolo o cerchiamo di cambiare le nostre abitudini per salvaguardarlo? Il problema è che l'immagine rappresenta un'allegoria della situazione, perchè il pianeta non scomparirà alla fine, ma saremo noi esseri umani e purtroppo anche tutte le altre forme di vita sulla Terra, a scomparire.
Così mi chiedo cosa ci troverò in questo saggio, le prime pagine sono subito d'impatto, così come tutte le seguenti, fino al finale, che mi è risultato forse troppo autobiografico, ma questo è un mio problema.
Quello che mi ha sbalordito di questo libro è che l'autore si mette in prima persona e s'interroga su cosa potremmo fare per migliorare la situazione che si fa sempre più catastrofica, non si tratta di un testo scientifico o tecnico sulla questione, ma un'autobiografia sul tema. Il cambiamento principale ormai lo sappiamo tutti qual è, diminuire enormemente, se non eliminare completamente l'alimentazione di origine animale e conseguentemente chiudere tutti gli allevamenti intensivi, evitare il più possibile i viaggi aerei, che negli ultimi anni sono aumentati in modo spropositato. (25/30 anni fa, quand'ero ragazzino, viaggiare in aereo era un'utopia, ne parlavamo come fantascienza, poi siamo entrati nel nuovo millennio e divennero, i viaggi aerei, sempre più accessibili, fino ad ora, praticamente come prendere l'autobus.)
Mi fanno molto piacere tutti i movimenti pro cambiamenti, che stanno crescendo negli ultimi anni, così tanti giovani impegnati con la voglia di migliorare la vita di tutti, soprattutto di chi sta peggio. L'uguaglianza rimarrà una vera e propria utopia, se il sistema marcio radicato nella civiltà contemporanea non virerà verso nuovi lidi. Le deforestazioni selvagge ed a macchia d'olio che avvengono sempre di più, non sono altro che la faccia putrida di una decadenza di valori fondamentali. Li vediamo, ci indignamo, ma non facciamo molto per cambiare la situazione.
Il testo si focalizza anche su una parte fondamentale del problema che è quello intimista di ognuno di noi, guardarci dentro ci fa paura? Cerchiamo sempre di evadere dal problema aggrappandoci alle cose futili, quelle che ci fanno usare meno il cervello, perchè confrontarci con la realtà delle cose ci mette in soggezione, come la paura per l'ignoto o peggio ancora ce ne freghiamo, anzi ci sentiamo defraudati del poco tempo che la vita ci dà: "insomma ho poche decine di anni di vita da vivere e lasciamele vivere in santa pace e godendomela come meglio credo, no?." Un po' come in quella pubblicità famosa, dove: "se vieni da noi risparmi, così poi puoi goderti la vita." Maledetto buonismo da quattro soldi!
Superconsigliato a tutti, soprattutto a chi ancora non ci crede...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G87V0...
Read
June 18, 2023
”Con le tue finestre aperte sulla strada
e gli occhi chiusi sulla gente”
🎶🎵
- “Canzone per l’estate” di Fabrizio de’ André 1975-
Ricordo che , qualche anno fa, in un libro pubblicato negli anni ’70, trovai, con mia grande sorpresa,
dei riferimenti alla crisi climatica.
Ingenuamente (ora me ne vergogno un po’) lo consideravo un argomento di questo ultimo decennio quando, invece, ero io che avevo incominciato ad aprire gli occhi in quel periodo.
Ma i miei occhi sono veramente aperti?
La casa sta bruciando lo so:
ma vedo queste fiamme e ne sento il calore?
lo sappiamo ma non riusciamo a crederci: questo è il nocciolo.
... un sentimento transitorio mai abbastanza profondo o abbastanza durevole da cambiare il mio comportamento in modo stabile”
Mentre diciamo “crisi climatica”, nello stesso momento, la nostra attenzione si è già rivolta ad altro:
”Ma anche quando c’importa della crisi del pianeta, la viviamo come una guerra in corso laggiù. Siamo consapevoli dell’urgenza e della cruciale importanza della posta in gioco, ma pur sapendo che sta infuriando una guerra per la nostra sopravvivenza, non abbiamo la sensazione di esserci immersi dentro. Questa distanza tra comprensione e sensazione può rendere molto difficile agire anche per chi è attento e politicamente impegnato – per chi vuole agire.”
Non neghiamo che ci sia una crisi in atto ma non ci comportiamo coerentemente con quello che diciamo di conoscere.
Di fatto ci comportiamo come se negassimo.
La tesi dell’autore mira a dimostrare come la mancanza di empatia, di emozione, nei confronti dell’argomento, sia la principale causa della paralisi soggettiva e quindi colletiva.
La triste realtà è che abbiamo bisogno di costrutti fabbricati ad hoc perché si creino delle situazioni pratiche. E’ necessario allestire un teatrino che
- catturi l’attenzione
- generi emozioni
Così funziona la nostra psiche
La domanda è: noi che siamo persone comuni, senza abilità e conoscenze scientifiche, cosa possiamo fare?
Sicuramente non defilarci e convincerci che :
«Non siamo impotenti».
Dovremmo ripetercelo come un mantra;
in continuazione, in modo ossessivo:
«Non siamo impotenti»
«Non siamo impotenti»
«Non siamo impotenti»
Continuiamo a credere che contino solo le decisioni dei governi.
I potenti, così li chiamiamo perché loro possono noi ci sentiamo formiche, importanti nel quadro globale ma miseramente ininfluenti nel nostro piccolo.
Non è così!
Dobbiamo finirla di vivere questa situazione catastrofica come qualcosa di lontano nel tempo e nello spazio.
L‘indifferenza con cui continuiamo a srotolare le nostre giornate ripetendo comportamenti anche se sappiamo essere nocivi ma seguitiamo a pensare che un nostro cambiamento (nell’alimentazione, nella rinuncia a certe comodità...) sia irrilevante.
Non è così!
Le cifre e le immagini della catastrofe in atto (non futura!) non riescono a smuovere che pochi singoli e anche tra questi si tratta di momenti in cui si prende coscienza salvo poi tornare alla vita di sempre.
Ecco cosa ho tratto da questa lettura: la consapevolezza di sapere e non agire.
Jonathan Safran Foer riporta essenzialmente il discorso sulla responsabilità singola.
La crisi dell’ecosistema è un fatto personale: riguarda la mia vita, come la tua, la sua, la nostra...
Foer ci presenta i dati incontrovertibili di questa rovina; cifre, numeri da capogiro che dovrebbero scuoterci, eppure...
Ma l’autore non è uno scienziato.
E’ un uomo di lettere e il suo discorso non può eliminare la sfera dei comportamenti umani.
Ne esce un racconto ricco di aneddoti di varia natura come, ad esempio la storia di Jan Karski, il partigiano polacco che nel 1942 scappò negli Stati Uniti cercando aiuto ma nessuno volle credere all’esistenza dei campi di concentramento; oppure la verità (inaudita) su Rosa Parks che sostituisce la vera protagonista: Claudette Colvin (https://www.unadonnalgiorno.it/claude...).
Le nostre orecchie ascoltano solo ciò che vogliono?
E nostri occhi cosa vogliono vedere?
” ... Questo libro parla dell’impatto dell’allevamento sull’ambiente.
Eppure sono riuscito a nasconderlo per le 75 pagine precedenti.”
E’ un argomenta che allontana, infastidisce..
Io personalmente ho avuto decine di discussioni su questo punto...
Il libro procede anche ripetendosi su episodi della vita privata dello scrittore stesso:
dalla sua famiglia alle sue scelte alimentari non sempre integerrime e che si tingono dii sensi di colpa.
Per me il messaggio è chiaro e riconducibile ad un’unica affermazione:
Ci sono solo due reazioni al cambiamento climatico: rassegnazione o resistenza.
E’ arrivato il momento di prendere coscienza e decidere.
Perché questo è il nostro potere:
scegliere:
1. Conoscere/Sapere
2. Credere
3. Sforzarsi di.. (cambiare, rinunciare)
4. Decidere (Il termine «decisione» deriva dal latino deciděre, che significa «tagliare via».)
"I cambiamenti climatici non sono un puzzle sul tavolino del salotto cui dedicarci quando siamo liberi e ci sentiamo ispirati. È una casa in fiamme"
e gli occhi chiusi sulla gente”
🎶🎵
- “Canzone per l’estate” di Fabrizio de’ André 1975-
Ricordo che , qualche anno fa, in un libro pubblicato negli anni ’70, trovai, con mia grande sorpresa,
dei riferimenti alla crisi climatica.
Ingenuamente (ora me ne vergogno un po’) lo consideravo un argomento di questo ultimo decennio quando, invece, ero io che avevo incominciato ad aprire gli occhi in quel periodo.
Ma i miei occhi sono veramente aperti?
La casa sta bruciando lo so:
ma vedo queste fiamme e ne sento il calore?
lo sappiamo ma non riusciamo a crederci: questo è il nocciolo.
... un sentimento transitorio mai abbastanza profondo o abbastanza durevole da cambiare il mio comportamento in modo stabile”
Mentre diciamo “crisi climatica”, nello stesso momento, la nostra attenzione si è già rivolta ad altro:
”Ma anche quando c’importa della crisi del pianeta, la viviamo come una guerra in corso laggiù. Siamo consapevoli dell’urgenza e della cruciale importanza della posta in gioco, ma pur sapendo che sta infuriando una guerra per la nostra sopravvivenza, non abbiamo la sensazione di esserci immersi dentro. Questa distanza tra comprensione e sensazione può rendere molto difficile agire anche per chi è attento e politicamente impegnato – per chi vuole agire.”
Non neghiamo che ci sia una crisi in atto ma non ci comportiamo coerentemente con quello che diciamo di conoscere.
Di fatto ci comportiamo come se negassimo.
La tesi dell’autore mira a dimostrare come la mancanza di empatia, di emozione, nei confronti dell’argomento, sia la principale causa della paralisi soggettiva e quindi colletiva.
La triste realtà è che abbiamo bisogno di costrutti fabbricati ad hoc perché si creino delle situazioni pratiche. E’ necessario allestire un teatrino che
- catturi l’attenzione
- generi emozioni
Così funziona la nostra psiche
La domanda è: noi che siamo persone comuni, senza abilità e conoscenze scientifiche, cosa possiamo fare?
Sicuramente non defilarci e convincerci che :
«Non siamo impotenti».
Dovremmo ripetercelo come un mantra;
in continuazione, in modo ossessivo:
«Non siamo impotenti»
«Non siamo impotenti»
«Non siamo impotenti»
Continuiamo a credere che contino solo le decisioni dei governi.
I potenti, così li chiamiamo perché loro possono noi ci sentiamo formiche, importanti nel quadro globale ma miseramente ininfluenti nel nostro piccolo.
Non è così!
Dobbiamo finirla di vivere questa situazione catastrofica come qualcosa di lontano nel tempo e nello spazio.
L‘indifferenza con cui continuiamo a srotolare le nostre giornate ripetendo comportamenti anche se sappiamo essere nocivi ma seguitiamo a pensare che un nostro cambiamento (nell’alimentazione, nella rinuncia a certe comodità...) sia irrilevante.
Non è così!
Le cifre e le immagini della catastrofe in atto (non futura!) non riescono a smuovere che pochi singoli e anche tra questi si tratta di momenti in cui si prende coscienza salvo poi tornare alla vita di sempre.
Ecco cosa ho tratto da questa lettura: la consapevolezza di sapere e non agire.
Jonathan Safran Foer riporta essenzialmente il discorso sulla responsabilità singola.
La crisi dell’ecosistema è un fatto personale: riguarda la mia vita, come la tua, la sua, la nostra...
Foer ci presenta i dati incontrovertibili di questa rovina; cifre, numeri da capogiro che dovrebbero scuoterci, eppure...
Ma l’autore non è uno scienziato.
E’ un uomo di lettere e il suo discorso non può eliminare la sfera dei comportamenti umani.
Ne esce un racconto ricco di aneddoti di varia natura come, ad esempio la storia di Jan Karski, il partigiano polacco che nel 1942 scappò negli Stati Uniti cercando aiuto ma nessuno volle credere all’esistenza dei campi di concentramento; oppure la verità (inaudita) su Rosa Parks che sostituisce la vera protagonista: Claudette Colvin (https://www.unadonnalgiorno.it/claude...).
Le nostre orecchie ascoltano solo ciò che vogliono?
E nostri occhi cosa vogliono vedere?
” ... Questo libro parla dell’impatto dell’allevamento sull’ambiente.
Eppure sono riuscito a nasconderlo per le 75 pagine precedenti.”
E’ un argomenta che allontana, infastidisce..
Io personalmente ho avuto decine di discussioni su questo punto...
Il libro procede anche ripetendosi su episodi della vita privata dello scrittore stesso:
dalla sua famiglia alle sue scelte alimentari non sempre integerrime e che si tingono dii sensi di colpa.
Per me il messaggio è chiaro e riconducibile ad un’unica affermazione:
Ci sono solo due reazioni al cambiamento climatico: rassegnazione o resistenza.
E’ arrivato il momento di prendere coscienza e decidere.
Perché questo è il nostro potere:
scegliere:
1. Conoscere/Sapere
2. Credere
3. Sforzarsi di.. (cambiare, rinunciare)
4. Decidere (Il termine «decisione» deriva dal latino deciděre, che significa «tagliare via».)
"I cambiamenti climatici non sono un puzzle sul tavolino del salotto cui dedicarci quando siamo liberi e ci sentiamo ispirati. È una casa in fiamme"
January 15, 2020
This is not a bad book--it is just not what I thought I was getting. I heard the author interviewed on CBC radio, which prompted me to put a hold on it at the public library and I had to wait for quite a while to get a hold of it. I hadn’t realized that it was mostly a memoir, detailing the author’s struggle to adhere to his own beliefs about what he could personally do about climate change.
I struggle with knowing what I can do about such a huge issue and I was hoping for advice. Most recommendations are either nebulous or on a higher level (i.e. governmental) than I am capable of influencing. This sounded like it had practical strategies.
I don’t disagree with the author, I will try to reduce my dietary impact on the environment. I just felt that he had already covered this in a previous book and that the contents of this book could have been expressed in an essay, rather than an entire hardcover book.
My disappointment is my own and your experience of the book may be entirely different. In fact, I hope your experience is entirely different.
I struggle with knowing what I can do about such a huge issue and I was hoping for advice. Most recommendations are either nebulous or on a higher level (i.e. governmental) than I am capable of influencing. This sounded like it had practical strategies.
I don’t disagree with the author, I will try to reduce my dietary impact on the environment. I just felt that he had already covered this in a previous book and that the contents of this book could have been expressed in an essay, rather than an entire hardcover book.
My disappointment is my own and your experience of the book may be entirely different. In fact, I hope your experience is entirely different.
October 7, 2019
So this was not good.
Yikes. This was bad. This is everything on earth that the environmental movement didn't need. It is the ramblings of self indulgent man only wanting to hear himself talk. The book isn't about "the weather" or about climate change or about taking steps to fight global warming. In fact, the author goes the first one fifth of the book without mentioning the environment - and he brags about it!
What does he talk about? Literally everything else that has ever been of interest to him. He shares random stories about a book he liked as a child, about a large hill he used to ride his bike on, he talks about Rosa Parks and astronauts, he shares thoughts on photographs and on being Jewish, he gives a few accounts on WWII and the NAACP. The one thing he doesn't talk about is climate change.
The book has one very short section that is a collection of bullet points about the climate crisis. That's it. That is the entirety of his argument for climate change. If you're thinking this is a book to encourage you to change how you eat - a reasonable guess based on the title - you would be wrong. Breakfast is mentioned twice in the entire book. That's it.
This book isn't an argument, a guide, a conversation, or even a study on the environmental crisis. No. It is a book about someone attempting to solicit guilt in others and manipulate their actions through *his own memories*. I am hard pressed to think of a bigger failing in a book. I am so shockingly disappointed by this work.
The author clearly had a collection of notes swarming around in his head and felt those were more important than contributing actual thoughts to this ongoing crisis. I am oddly offended by this book, by its self indulgence and inability to view itself. The author has an entire section on the introduction of mirrors (yes, it seemed strange to me too) but I think I can finally understand his point. Mirrors are only helpful if you use them. He should have taken another glance, an accurate assessment, at this book.
Yikes. This was bad. This is everything on earth that the environmental movement didn't need. It is the ramblings of self indulgent man only wanting to hear himself talk. The book isn't about "the weather" or about climate change or about taking steps to fight global warming. In fact, the author goes the first one fifth of the book without mentioning the environment - and he brags about it!
What does he talk about? Literally everything else that has ever been of interest to him. He shares random stories about a book he liked as a child, about a large hill he used to ride his bike on, he talks about Rosa Parks and astronauts, he shares thoughts on photographs and on being Jewish, he gives a few accounts on WWII and the NAACP. The one thing he doesn't talk about is climate change.
The book has one very short section that is a collection of bullet points about the climate crisis. That's it. That is the entirety of his argument for climate change. If you're thinking this is a book to encourage you to change how you eat - a reasonable guess based on the title - you would be wrong. Breakfast is mentioned twice in the entire book. That's it.
This book isn't an argument, a guide, a conversation, or even a study on the environmental crisis. No. It is a book about someone attempting to solicit guilt in others and manipulate their actions through *his own memories*. I am hard pressed to think of a bigger failing in a book. I am so shockingly disappointed by this work.
The author clearly had a collection of notes swarming around in his head and felt those were more important than contributing actual thoughts to this ongoing crisis. I am oddly offended by this book, by its self indulgence and inability to view itself. The author has an entire section on the introduction of mirrors (yes, it seemed strange to me too) but I think I can finally understand his point. Mirrors are only helpful if you use them. He should have taken another glance, an accurate assessment, at this book.
July 30, 2020
This short book by Jonathan Safran Foer is a very personal look at the strategies for mitigating climate change. He lists the various human activities that contribute to climate change. He then comes up with the single-most important item on the list, that everybody can immediately help with. That factor is switching from an omnivorous diet to a plant-based diet. It is easy, cheap, and does not require politicians to get off their collective ass to solve the problem.
Foer argues compellingly, all the ways that raising and eating meat, poultry and dairy products contribute to climate change. It's not just that meat and dairy products consume much more energy and water resources. It is also the vast amount of methane produced by cattle; Methane is an order-of-magnitude more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, in contributing to global warming.
I strongly recommend this book to everyone who is interested in immediately reducing the problem of climate change. It is not particularly well-written, in that Foer goes off on tangents about his personal soul-searching. Nevertheless, I give it a 5-star rating because the message is extremely important.
I didn't read this book--I listened to the audiobook, narrated by the author. Foer is okay as a reader, and he gives the book a nice personal touch, as it is written in the first person.
Foer argues compellingly, all the ways that raising and eating meat, poultry and dairy products contribute to climate change. It's not just that meat and dairy products consume much more energy and water resources. It is also the vast amount of methane produced by cattle; Methane is an order-of-magnitude more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, in contributing to global warming.
I strongly recommend this book to everyone who is interested in immediately reducing the problem of climate change. It is not particularly well-written, in that Foer goes off on tangents about his personal soul-searching. Nevertheless, I give it a 5-star rating because the message is extremely important.
I didn't read this book--I listened to the audiobook, narrated by the author. Foer is okay as a reader, and he gives the book a nice personal touch, as it is written in the first person.
July 25, 2020
I thought this book was good. I loved the overall message that he was trying to get across but in my opinion I'm not sure that the book ended up accomplishing what he hoped it would. I wish that he would have talked about climate change and eating a more vegan diet just a little bit more. I think it's good how he added the personal elements in there to make the facts more relatable, but I personally think that it could have done with just a bit more facts on the main topic and a bit less personal and random historical stories. I did like all of the random short history stories, I found them very interesting, but it resulted in the book seeming a bit all over the place. It almost started coming off as a book on human psychology instead.
I enjoyed it overall though and I really respect the author and what he is trying to do because I think it is a message that really, really needs to get out there. Our future literally depends on people taking action!
I enjoyed it overall though and I really respect the author and what he is trying to do because I think it is a message that really, really needs to get out there. Our future literally depends on people taking action!
September 19, 2019
Well, this is no Eating Animals. I found Foer's ruminations a little confusing. His summaries of scientific data are nothing new (albeit appalling), but interspersed with a lot of navel gazing and ponderousness and rhetorical tricks - and I am one of the converted! Have to say that I was shocked to hear that the person who wrote Eating Animals sometimes eats hamburgers and still hasn't given up eggs and dairy!! - and he claims to crave animal products every day (I find that really strange to hear). For these "moral failings" he castigates himself but he also tries to explain it; he tries to both rationalize his hypocrisy and to excoriate himself for not following his own message.
Apparently, if one is to believe Foer's message - and this is strange, too - when he wrote Eating Animals in 2009 he only really recognized animal cruelty as the reason for not supporting factory farms, and only recently has he come to recognize the environmental destruction caused by raising animals for food. (Will health be next?) So he has spent the last few years studying climate change and now adds that to his rationale. And sells a book that happens to meet a current popular trend, I might add.
At one point I was afraid that Foer was going to pull out a Roy Scranton argument - and he was going down that path - as in: I know I'm wrecking my kid's future but I can't help it and I'm just one person so I can't effect change and I really like meat so let's just give in and write a suicide note for the Earth. -- But just when he gets close, Foer brings up Scranton and - I was so relieved - Foer criticizes Scranton at length for the same reasons that I got so angry reading Scranton's We're Doomed, Now What?
I guess I'm on the fence about We Are the Weather.
Apparently, if one is to believe Foer's message - and this is strange, too - when he wrote Eating Animals in 2009 he only really recognized animal cruelty as the reason for not supporting factory farms, and only recently has he come to recognize the environmental destruction caused by raising animals for food. (Will health be next?) So he has spent the last few years studying climate change and now adds that to his rationale. And sells a book that happens to meet a current popular trend, I might add.
At one point I was afraid that Foer was going to pull out a Roy Scranton argument - and he was going down that path - as in: I know I'm wrecking my kid's future but I can't help it and I'm just one person so I can't effect change and I really like meat so let's just give in and write a suicide note for the Earth. -- But just when he gets close, Foer brings up Scranton and - I was so relieved - Foer criticizes Scranton at length for the same reasons that I got so angry reading Scranton's We're Doomed, Now What?
I guess I'm on the fence about We Are the Weather.
October 23, 2019
This book was incredibly frustrating. I like Jonathan Safran Foer. I appreciate what he’s trying to do here. And most importantly, I agree with his overarching message. We need to care more collectively about the state and future of the planet. There are things we can each do to lessen the burden on our natural resources. Climate change is an issue that requires immediate, decisive and immense attention. But I’m not reviewing political topics, I’m reviewing a book written on one. And this just wasn’t effective at much of anything except making me want to get Mr. Foer to stop rambling vaguely about the climate.
At many points I didn’t feel like I was reading an actual book. It’s one part science fact-dump and one part devolving Reddit thread. If you aren’t familiar with how Reddit works, in this case it’s one random thought in response to another, linked by an unspoken “....And another thing!” The book is split into five parts, with each part containing a multitude of essay-like mini-chapters, many with too-clever titles. Individually they can seem offbeat, but collectively they’re just goofy. He doesn’t really make points, but paraphrases or quotes verbatim the words of influential figures at the head of other powerful movements.
And again, I get what he’s going for. I agree with his urgency, but am left gaping at his thought process. The climate crisis is incredibly severe, but do pages and pages lamenting about World War II or the American Civil Rights movement do anything to make this point? Is Rosa Parks really the perfect analogy for what you’re trying to accomplish here? You can’t just compare two injustices as if they’re the same thing. Economic inequality is the Holocaust. See? That doesn’t offer any insight or tangible solution. It doesn’t reframe the way I think about either thing. It just makes me think about the Holocaust and muddles the meaning of whatever you’re comparing it to. Add in the anti-modernity diatribes, like his strange admonishment of selfies, and some may be less inclined to take proactive action after reading what this author-turned-advocate has to say on the subject.
As far as intended content, I do have a bit of a problem with that too. Public perception is huge. Especially since the public has been gaslit by corporations, industries, politicians and certain media outlets into doubting scientists and our own lying eyes for years. Major moves can be made by large groups of people motivated to change the world for the better. But there is simply too much onus put on people to fight a system designed to minimize their impact. Why not start with the industries and companies who profit from the death of the planet as opposed to the people already vulnerable to the negative effects we’re already seeing? Why is electing representatives that create legislation with these things in mind dismissed by the author as something that simply ‘makes us feel better’? In this way, Jonathan Safran Foer isn’t any better than the only TV network he criticizes for being counterproductive to the movement, which, inexplicably, is MSNBC. (Is he confused? Did he forget Fox ‘News’ exists? Where they seemingly breed millionaire climate-deniers?)
So much of the time Foer keeps saying “we” to make his points. “We are”, “we need”, “we must”; what he really means is ‘you’. This book is purely instructional, and no amount of common man pronouns are going to shake the feeling that a privileged person who has the luxury to consider the ethical implications of his dinner is telling people who may not be able to afford food that they aren't doing enough to save the world. As a vegetarian (one who doesn’t dabble in airport burgers...wtf Jonathan?), I understand there’s no point in demanding people make the same dietary decisions I do. It’s not practical or helpful. What is useful, though, are alternatives, incentives and awareness. Corporations need to be regulated and face steep consequences if in violation. Electric vehicles and alternative power need to be economically advantageous options. Don’t force regular people to make hard choices. You may not like what they choose.
The best I can say for this book is that at least it’s trying to to talk about the subject, which I guess earns a couple of participation stars in the awareness column. I guess this means I probably shouldn’t check out Eating Animals if it’s anything like We Are the Weather, or else it might turn me back into an omnivore.
*Thanks to Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Netgalley & Goodreads for advance copies!
At many points I didn’t feel like I was reading an actual book. It’s one part science fact-dump and one part devolving Reddit thread. If you aren’t familiar with how Reddit works, in this case it’s one random thought in response to another, linked by an unspoken “....And another thing!” The book is split into five parts, with each part containing a multitude of essay-like mini-chapters, many with too-clever titles. Individually they can seem offbeat, but collectively they’re just goofy. He doesn’t really make points, but paraphrases or quotes verbatim the words of influential figures at the head of other powerful movements.
And again, I get what he’s going for. I agree with his urgency, but am left gaping at his thought process. The climate crisis is incredibly severe, but do pages and pages lamenting about World War II or the American Civil Rights movement do anything to make this point? Is Rosa Parks really the perfect analogy for what you’re trying to accomplish here? You can’t just compare two injustices as if they’re the same thing. Economic inequality is the Holocaust. See? That doesn’t offer any insight or tangible solution. It doesn’t reframe the way I think about either thing. It just makes me think about the Holocaust and muddles the meaning of whatever you’re comparing it to. Add in the anti-modernity diatribes, like his strange admonishment of selfies, and some may be less inclined to take proactive action after reading what this author-turned-advocate has to say on the subject.
As far as intended content, I do have a bit of a problem with that too. Public perception is huge. Especially since the public has been gaslit by corporations, industries, politicians and certain media outlets into doubting scientists and our own lying eyes for years. Major moves can be made by large groups of people motivated to change the world for the better. But there is simply too much onus put on people to fight a system designed to minimize their impact. Why not start with the industries and companies who profit from the death of the planet as opposed to the people already vulnerable to the negative effects we’re already seeing? Why is electing representatives that create legislation with these things in mind dismissed by the author as something that simply ‘makes us feel better’? In this way, Jonathan Safran Foer isn’t any better than the only TV network he criticizes for being counterproductive to the movement, which, inexplicably, is MSNBC. (Is he confused? Did he forget Fox ‘News’ exists? Where they seemingly breed millionaire climate-deniers?)
So much of the time Foer keeps saying “we” to make his points. “We are”, “we need”, “we must”; what he really means is ‘you’. This book is purely instructional, and no amount of common man pronouns are going to shake the feeling that a privileged person who has the luxury to consider the ethical implications of his dinner is telling people who may not be able to afford food that they aren't doing enough to save the world. As a vegetarian (one who doesn’t dabble in airport burgers...wtf Jonathan?), I understand there’s no point in demanding people make the same dietary decisions I do. It’s not practical or helpful. What is useful, though, are alternatives, incentives and awareness. Corporations need to be regulated and face steep consequences if in violation. Electric vehicles and alternative power need to be economically advantageous options. Don’t force regular people to make hard choices. You may not like what they choose.
The best I can say for this book is that at least it’s trying to to talk about the subject, which I guess earns a couple of participation stars in the awareness column. I guess this means I probably shouldn’t check out Eating Animals if it’s anything like We Are the Weather, or else it might turn me back into an omnivore.
*Thanks to Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Netgalley & Goodreads for advance copies!
July 30, 2021
İklim krizi mi terör saldırısı mı olduğu tartışılan çoklu orman yangınlarının patlak verdiği haftada bu ayın başında okumayı bitirdiğim “Bu Bizim Havamız” kitabına dikkat çekmek istiyorum: Üç gün önce Türkiye’de yangınlar henüz başlamamışken ciddiyetini arttıran (arttırmaya devam edecek olan) iklim krizine ne kadar dikkatimizi veriyorduk?
Bu benim Foer ile tanışma kitabım. Bitki temelli beslenmek konusundaki düşüncelerimi güçlendirmek için okuma listeme girmişti ve Foer’in verdiği mesaj netti: Bildiğimiz dünyanın öyle kalması için önlem alınması gereken son tarih Haziran 2020 idi (yazıldığı tarihte henüz zamanımız vardı) ve biz onu çoktan aştık; şimdi ise evimize olanları izlemeye kalbimiz dayanmıyor ama daha kötüye gitmesini engellemek için yapabileceklerimiz var.
Yazım tekniği (sanırım bu felsefe temelli olmasından kaynaklı) bilimsel makalelerden ve aile hikayelerinden beslenen, bunları karşılaştırmalı kullanarak argüman üreten sorgulayan insanın kafasından geçenleri kâğıda dökmesi gibi. Böyle yazınca ben de “nasıl bir şey o ya?” dedim ama gerçekten öyle. Zannediyorum kitabın sonuna geldiğinde kendisiyle birlikte bizi de vegan yapmak niyetindeydi.
Kendisi de aralıklı olarak vejetaryen olan (arada et yiyen) yazarla aynı yerdeyim. Vegan olmaya hazır değilim, vejetaryenliğe yakın olsam da “hiç” et yememek fikrine müthiş açık değilim ama güzel mavi gezegenimiz için yapabilmek istiyorum. Buradan önemli olanın niyet ve herkesin bir şey yaparsa iyiye gidebileceğimiz fikrine geliyoruz aslında:
• Süt ürünleri ve et tüketimini azaltmak için vegan olmaya gerek yok
• Atık miktarını azaltmak için sıfır atıkçı olmaya gerek yok
• İklim aktivisti olmak için her Cuma grev yapmaya gerek yok
Bir kalıba girmek zorunda değiliz, sadece elimizden gelenin en iyisini yapsak yeter.
*
Foer’in asıl dikkat çekmek istediği konu iklim krizini yaratanlarla sonuçlarına katlananların çok farklı coğrafyalar olduğu. Orada bir yerde yaşananlar direkt bizi etkilemedikçe yok saymaya meyilliyiz, bunu örneklendiriyor ve II. Dünya Savaşı üzerinden anlatıyor. Et ve süt ürünleri endüstrisinin karbon salınımının (yazıldığı tarihte) %51’ini kapsadığını söylüyor (korkunç bir oran). Bu yüzden de “Gezegeni Kurtarmak Kahvaltıyla Başlar” diyor.
İlgili BBC haberini de linke bırakıyorum.
Buraya kadar okuyup kafalarınız karıştıysa, bilimsel makale okuyamayan herkesi bu kitabı okumaya davet ediyorum. Kitabın kaynakçasında listelediği dokumanlarla desteklediği savlarını dergi okur sakinlikte size de bir anlatsın. Gelin hepimizin kafası biraz daha karışsın ama “ben de bireysel olarak bir şeyler yapmalıyım ve bu fark yaratır” fikrine kendimizi ikna edelim.
*
3,5/5
Bu benim Foer ile tanışma kitabım. Bitki temelli beslenmek konusundaki düşüncelerimi güçlendirmek için okuma listeme girmişti ve Foer’in verdiği mesaj netti: Bildiğimiz dünyanın öyle kalması için önlem alınması gereken son tarih Haziran 2020 idi (yazıldığı tarihte henüz zamanımız vardı) ve biz onu çoktan aştık; şimdi ise evimize olanları izlemeye kalbimiz dayanmıyor ama daha kötüye gitmesini engellemek için yapabileceklerimiz var.
Yazım tekniği (sanırım bu felsefe temelli olmasından kaynaklı) bilimsel makalelerden ve aile hikayelerinden beslenen, bunları karşılaştırmalı kullanarak argüman üreten sorgulayan insanın kafasından geçenleri kâğıda dökmesi gibi. Böyle yazınca ben de “nasıl bir şey o ya?” dedim ama gerçekten öyle. Zannediyorum kitabın sonuna geldiğinde kendisiyle birlikte bizi de vegan yapmak niyetindeydi.
Kendisi de aralıklı olarak vejetaryen olan (arada et yiyen) yazarla aynı yerdeyim. Vegan olmaya hazır değilim, vejetaryenliğe yakın olsam da “hiç” et yememek fikrine müthiş açık değilim ama güzel mavi gezegenimiz için yapabilmek istiyorum. Buradan önemli olanın niyet ve herkesin bir şey yaparsa iyiye gidebileceğimiz fikrine geliyoruz aslında:
• Süt ürünleri ve et tüketimini azaltmak için vegan olmaya gerek yok
• Atık miktarını azaltmak için sıfır atıkçı olmaya gerek yok
• İklim aktivisti olmak için her Cuma grev yapmaya gerek yok
Bir kalıba girmek zorunda değiliz, sadece elimizden gelenin en iyisini yapsak yeter.
*
Foer’in asıl dikkat çekmek istediği konu iklim krizini yaratanlarla sonuçlarına katlananların çok farklı coğrafyalar olduğu. Orada bir yerde yaşananlar direkt bizi etkilemedikçe yok saymaya meyilliyiz, bunu örneklendiriyor ve II. Dünya Savaşı üzerinden anlatıyor. Et ve süt ürünleri endüstrisinin karbon salınımının (yazıldığı tarihte) %51’ini kapsadığını söylüyor (korkunç bir oran). Bu yüzden de “Gezegeni Kurtarmak Kahvaltıyla Başlar” diyor.
İlgili BBC haberini de linke bırakıyorum.
Buraya kadar okuyup kafalarınız karıştıysa, bilimsel makale okuyamayan herkesi bu kitabı okumaya davet ediyorum. Kitabın kaynakçasında listelediği dokumanlarla desteklediği savlarını dergi okur sakinlikte size de bir anlatsın. Gelin hepimizin kafası biraz daha karışsın ama “ben de bireysel olarak bir şeyler yapmalıyım ve bu fark yaratır” fikrine kendimizi ikna edelim.
*
3,5/5
November 29, 2021
Сovid, officially designated the main source of fear and awe of modernity, has not canceled global climate change and anthropogenic factors affecting it. That's unless planes almost never flew to lockdown, and many learned the delights of working remotely, that is, CO2 emissions from high-octane fuel burned were slightly less. But, I'll say an unexpected thing now, which I read from Foer: the main source of environmental pollution is not our transport or even industry, but... our eating habits.
Unprecedented satiety in the history of mankind is due to the emergence of industrial animal husbandry, which did not exist until the 1960s. That is, before that, animals intended for food were raised on open pastures in quantities that are safe for the environment. Today, 59% of the agricultural land suitable for agriculture is used by people for growing fodder. A third of all fresh water consumed by us goes to the needs of animal husbandry (and only one thirtieth for personal needs), 70% of the antibiotics produced in the world are used in animal husbandry, weakening their effectiveness in the treatment of human diseases. For every person living on Earth, there are an average of thirty farm animals.
Once again, if it is not clear: our love for meat and the desire to absorb it for breakfast, lunch and dinner deplete the planet's resource to a greater extent than industry and transport, and methane released from manure and carbon dioxide exhaled by animals in combination with deforestation (the lungs of the planet) for pastures, destroy the ozone layer. This is a purely utilitarian and rather cynical approach to the problem, not touching on the topic of the conditions in which animals are kept.
Не обокрасть детей
Большинство людей согласны творить всемирное благо, пока это не требует от них личных затрат.
Думаю, я не одна такая, кто помнит Джонатана Сафрана Фоера только по роману "Жутко громко и запредельно близко". Такой сплав органичного целого из трагедии 11 сентября, холокоста, аутизма, семейной саги, Нью-Йорка с его фриками и общественным транспортом, и еще кучи разных вещей. Удивительно, как легко вспоминается эта книга, хотя минуту назад казалось, что только и помню из нее "Да" и "Нет", на ладонях человека, утратившего способность говорить. Два слова, посредством которых он общался с миром. И удивительно светлое, спустя много лет, ощущение, вопреки горечи большинства тем.
Признаюсь, с этой книгой рассчитывала на нечто подобное. И нет, "Погода - это мы" не художественное произведение. В прежние времена подобные вещи проходили под грифом "роман-предостережение" и касались главным образом угрозы ядерной войны, сегодня не то, чтобы неактуальной,но появление множества дополнительных факторов, не в меньшей степени угрожающих жизни на планете, отодвинуло этот вариант коллективного самоубийства популяции на задний план.
На самом деле, ковид, официально назначенный главным источником страха и трепета современности, не отменил глобального изменения климата и влияющих на него антропогенных факторов. Вот разве что самолеты в локдаун почти не летали, и многие познали прелести работы на удаленке, то есть, выбросов СО2 от сжигаемого высокооктанового топлива было чуть меньше. Но, я сейчас неожиданную вещь скажу, которую прочла у Фоера: основной источник загрязнения окружающей среды не наш транспорт и даже не промышленность, а... наши привычки в еде.
Беспрецедентная за историю человечества сытость обусловлена появлением промышленного животноводства, не существовавшего до 1960-х. То есть, до того животные, предназначенные в пищу, выращивались на открытых пастбищах в количествах, безопасных для окружающей среды. Сегодня 59% сельскохозяйственных земель, пригодных для земледелия, люди используют для выращивания кормов. Треть всей пресной воды, потребляемой нами, идет на нужды животноводства (и лишь одна тридцатая для личных нужд), 70% производимых в мире антибиотиков используется в животноводстве, ослабляя их эффективность при лечении человеческих болезней. На каждого живущего на Земле приходится в среднем тридцать сельскохозяйственных животных.
Еще раз, если не понятно: наша любовь к мясу и желание поглощать его на завтрак, обед и ужин истощают ресурс планеты в большей степени, чем промышленность и транспорт, а метан, выделяемый из навоза, и выдыхаемый животными углекислый газ в сочетании с вырубкой лесов (легких планеты) под пастбища, уничтожают озоновый слой. Это чисто утилитарный и довольно циничный подход к проблеме, не затрагивающий темы условий, в которых содержатся животные.
Нет, он не призывает всех тотчас обратиться к веганству, да это было бы и невозможно. Фоер говорит о том, что мы реально можем сделать. Каждый из нас, и это не потребует серьезных жертв. Отказаться от пищи животного происхождения до ужина. Позволять ее себе только вечером. Почему ужин, а не завтрак, к примеру? Потому что он самая приятная трапеза для абсолютного большинства. И еще, думаю, определенная доля лукавства в этом есть - в основном мы не переедаем на сон грядущий.
Человеческая природа тоже ведь жестоко мстит за избыток высококалорийной пищи в рационе. Ожирение, сердечно-сосудистые заболевания, диабет, болезни суставов, печени и поджелудочной железы напрямую связаны с поглощением большего количества, чем можем усвоить.
Иногда нужно, чтобы кто-то пришел и сказал не самые удобные вещи, которые заставят задуматься над отдельным аспектом бытия. Может быть послужат к значительному улучшению качества сегодняшней жизни и позволят оставить следующим поколениям цветущую землю.
Unprecedented satiety in the history of mankind is due to the emergence of industrial animal husbandry, which did not exist until the 1960s. That is, before that, animals intended for food were raised on open pastures in quantities that are safe for the environment. Today, 59% of the agricultural land suitable for agriculture is used by people for growing fodder. A third of all fresh water consumed by us goes to the needs of animal husbandry (and only one thirtieth for personal needs), 70% of the antibiotics produced in the world are used in animal husbandry, weakening their effectiveness in the treatment of human diseases. For every person living on Earth, there are an average of thirty farm animals.
Once again, if it is not clear: our love for meat and the desire to absorb it for breakfast, lunch and dinner deplete the planet's resource to a greater extent than industry and transport, and methane released from manure and carbon dioxide exhaled by animals in combination with deforestation (the lungs of the planet) for pastures, destroy the ozone layer. This is a purely utilitarian and rather cynical approach to the problem, not touching on the topic of the conditions in which animals are kept.
Не обокрасть детей
Большинство людей согласны творить всемирное благо, пока это не требует от них личных затрат.
Думаю, я не одна такая, кто помнит Джонатана Сафрана Фоера только по роману "Жутко громко и запредельно близко". Такой сплав органичного целого из трагедии 11 сентября, холокоста, аутизма, семейной саги, Нью-Йорка с его фриками и общественным транспортом, и еще кучи разных вещей. Удивительно, как легко вспоминается эта книга, хотя минуту назад казалось, что только и помню из нее "Да" и "Нет", на ладонях человека, утратившего способность говорить. Два слова, посредством которых он общался с миром. И удивительно светлое, спустя много лет, ощущение, вопреки горечи большинства тем.
Признаюсь, с этой книгой рассчитывала на нечто подобное. И нет, "Погода - это мы" не художественное произведение. В прежние времена подобные вещи проходили под грифом "роман-предостережение" и касались главным образом угрозы ядерной войны, сегодня не то, чтобы неактуальной,но появление множества дополнительных факторов, не в меньшей степени угрожающих жизни на планете, отодвинуло этот вариант коллективного самоубийства популяции на задний план.
На самом деле, ковид, официально назначенный главным источником страха и трепета современности, не отменил глобального изменения климата и влияющих на него антропогенных факторов. Вот разве что самолеты в локдаун почти не летали, и многие познали прелести работы на удаленке, то есть, выбросов СО2 от сжигаемого высокооктанового топлива было чуть меньше. Но, я сейчас неожиданную вещь скажу, которую прочла у Фоера: основной источник загрязнения окружающей среды не наш транспорт и даже не промышленность, а... наши привычки в еде.
Беспрецедентная за историю человечества сытость обусловлена появлением промышленного животноводства, не существовавшего до 1960-х. То есть, до того животные, предназначенные в пищу, выращивались на открытых пастбищах в количествах, безопасных для окружающей среды. Сегодня 59% сельскохозяйственных земель, пригодных для земледелия, люди используют для выращивания кормов. Треть всей пресной воды, потребляемой нами, идет на нужды животноводства (и лишь одна тридцатая для личных нужд), 70% производимых в мире антибиотиков используется в животноводстве, ослабляя их эффективность при лечении человеческих болезней. На каждого живущего на Земле приходится в среднем тридцать сельскохозяйственных животных.
Еще раз, если не понятно: наша любовь к мясу и желание поглощать его на завтрак, обед и ужин истощают ресурс планеты в большей степени, чем промышленность и транспорт, а метан, выделяемый из навоза, и выдыхаемый животными углекислый газ в сочетании с вырубкой лесов (легких планеты) под пастбища, уничтожают озоновый слой. Это чисто утилитарный и довольно циничный подход к проблеме, не затрагивающий темы условий, в которых содержатся животные.
Нет, он не призывает всех тотчас обратиться к веганству, да это было бы и невозможно. Фоер говорит о том, что мы реально можем сделать. Каждый из нас, и это не потребует серьезных жертв. Отказаться от пищи животного происхождения до ужина. Позволять ее себе только вечером. Почему ужин, а не завтрак, к примеру? Потому что он самая приятная трапеза для абсолютного большинства. И еще, думаю, определенная доля лукавства в этом есть - в основном мы не переедаем на сон грядущий.
Человеческая природа тоже ведь жестоко мстит за избыток высококалорийной пищи в рационе. Ожирение, сердечно-сосудистые заболевания, диабет, болезни суставов, печени и поджелудочной железы напрямую связаны с поглощением большего количества, чем можем усвоить.
Иногда нужно, чтобы кто-то пришел и сказал не самые удобные вещи, которые заставят задуматься над отдельным аспектом бытия. Может быть послужат к значительному улучшению качества сегодняшней жизни и позволят оставить следующим поколениям цветущую землю.
June 12, 2020
3.5*
Antra autoriaus negrožinė knyga. Aplinkosauginė. Ką mes kiekvienas dar galim nuveikti klimato kaitos problemai spręsti. Autorius siūlo mažiau važinėti, mažiau skraidyti, turėti mažiau vaikų ir mažiau valgyti mėsos. Foer'as šioje knygoje ypač susifokusaves į mėsos ir pieno produktų vartotojus. Apdairiai, kad per daug nepapiktintų šių produktų vartotojų, ragina neatsisakyti jų, bet riboti juos.
Šiek tiek nuvylė, kad knyga parašyta kiek padrikai. Nesijautė vientisumo. Labiau priminė esė rinkinį. Daug pasikartojimų. Man visada norisi, jog knygos šia ar panašiomis temomis būtų ypatingai stipriai ir nepriekaištingai parašytos ''/ Nors šiaip jau, nereikia čia kabinčtis, visai gera ta knyga ir svarbiausia - labai reikalinga.
Beje, patiko man, kaip jis sugretino savo močiutės, bėgusios iš Lenkijos nuo nacių, tikejimą išsigelbėjimu su jo paties tikejimu planetos, savo vaikų ateities gelbėjimu.
Rekomenduoju.
Antra autoriaus negrožinė knyga. Aplinkosauginė. Ką mes kiekvienas dar galim nuveikti klimato kaitos problemai spręsti. Autorius siūlo mažiau važinėti, mažiau skraidyti, turėti mažiau vaikų ir mažiau valgyti mėsos. Foer'as šioje knygoje ypač susifokusaves į mėsos ir pieno produktų vartotojus. Apdairiai, kad per daug nepapiktintų šių produktų vartotojų, ragina neatsisakyti jų, bet riboti juos.
Šiek tiek nuvylė, kad knyga parašyta kiek padrikai. Nesijautė vientisumo. Labiau priminė esė rinkinį. Daug pasikartojimų. Man visada norisi, jog knygos šia ar panašiomis temomis būtų ypatingai stipriai ir nepriekaištingai parašytos ''/ Nors šiaip jau, nereikia čia kabinčtis, visai gera ta knyga ir svarbiausia - labai reikalinga.
Beje, patiko man, kaip jis sugretino savo močiutės, bėgusios iš Lenkijos nuo nacių, tikejimą išsigelbėjimu su jo paties tikejimu planetos, savo vaikų ateities gelbėjimu.
Rekomenduoju.
September 14, 2021
Safran Foer has written yet another non-fiction book I'd recommend, although I don't know as though I'd recommend reading both this book and Eating Animals, as the books are strikingly similar. Both promote the transition away from animal-based diets into either vegetarianism/veganism. This book is essentially Eating Animals minus the graphic descriptions and in-depth look at factory farming, but with plenty of insight into other facets of climate change and their effectiveness (or lack thereof). A thoroughly researched and thoughtful book that can be best summed up by one of Safran Foer's metaphors: "We are the flood, we are the ark." 4 ⭐️
February 9, 2025
3.5/4 ⭐️
Ascoltato in audiolibro!
Ho trovato molto interessante l'impostazione argomentativa del testo, forse ancora di più dell'argomento in sè; ho apprezzato anche la costruzione della prima parte, molto lenta e apparentemente vaga, in funzione della presentazione della tesi centrale del libro. La terza parte purtroppo torna un po alla vaghezza iniziale e onestamente non ne ho capito il motivo.
Ammiro l'umanità e la sincerità di Foer nell'affrontare certi temi, il suo mettere a nudo le sue debolezze e fragilità tanto quanto la sua forza d'animo. Con la quarta parte ("Disputa con l'Anima") mi son ritrovata a piangere mentre guidavo.
Una lettura che a me ha dato tanto (mi pento un po di averla conclusa così velocemente).
Prendiamo parte alla ola ❤️
Ascoltato in audiolibro!
Ho trovato molto interessante l'impostazione argomentativa del testo, forse ancora di più dell'argomento in sè; ho apprezzato anche la costruzione della prima parte, molto lenta e apparentemente vaga, in funzione della presentazione della tesi centrale del libro. La terza parte purtroppo torna un po alla vaghezza iniziale e onestamente non ne ho capito il motivo.
Ammiro l'umanità e la sincerità di Foer nell'affrontare certi temi, il suo mettere a nudo le sue debolezze e fragilità tanto quanto la sua forza d'animo. Con la quarta parte ("Disputa con l'Anima") mi son ritrovata a piangere mentre guidavo.
Una lettura che a me ha dato tanto (mi pento un po di averla conclusa così velocemente).
Prendiamo parte alla ola ❤️
November 25, 2019
Read this. Right now.
A well-written - and more importantly, an extremely relatable - book about climate change. I am now - for the first time - seriously considering a vegan diet. "Choosing to eat fewer animal products is probably the most important action an individual can take to reverse global warming—it has a known and significant effect on the environment, and, done collectively, would push the culture and the marketplace with more force than any march."
“It is dangerous to pretend that we know more than we do. But it is even more dangerous to pretend that we know less.”
A well-written - and more importantly, an extremely relatable - book about climate change. I am now - for the first time - seriously considering a vegan diet. "Choosing to eat fewer animal products is probably the most important action an individual can take to reverse global warming—it has a known and significant effect on the environment, and, done collectively, would push the culture and the marketplace with more force than any march."
“It is dangerous to pretend that we know more than we do. But it is even more dangerous to pretend that we know less.”
December 31, 2020
Asta este o carte despre impactul creșterii animalelor asupra mediului. Fac precizarea asta de la început, pentru că autorul o face abia după o treime din carte. Până acolo, sunt adunate mai multe povești care pregătesc tema și oferă cumva explicații pentru lipsa noastră de acțiune în fața celei mai mari crize a omenirii. A șasea extincție în masă este prima criză climatică.
De ce ne duce autorul cărții De ce mâncăm animale pe la Satu Mare, cum se spune? Pentru că îi e frică de faptul că subiectul este o mână moartă. Și-atunci, ne pregătește preț de vreo 80 de pagini pentru ce are de fapt să ne spună.
Și pregătindu-ne aflăm că:
- dacă istoria umană ar dura o zi, am fi vânători-culegători până cu zece minute înainte de miezul nopții.
- la nivel global, oamenii utilizează 59% din suprafața cultivabilă pentru a crește hrană pentru vite.
- O treime din toată apa proaspătă pe care o folosesc oamenii se duce la vite, în timp ce doar aproximativ 1/30 este folosită în case.
- 70% dintre antibioticele produse la nivel global sunt folosite pentru vite, slăbind astfel eficacitatea antibioticelor în tratarea bolilor umane.
- 60% dintre toate mamiferele de pe pământ sunt animale crescute pentru hrană.
- Pentru fiecare om de pe planetă există aproximativ 30 de animale crescute pentru hrană.
Și multe altele. Scrise chiar așa, schematic. Pe unele le veți respinge din start, pentru că nu suntem pregătiți să acceptăm și să înțelegem realitatea. Iar motivul pentru care ne comportăm așa e simplu, creierele noastre sunt construite de societate, de educație să gândească cu totul altfel și să respingă acest pericol climatic, în epoca abundenței alimentare.
Oamenii mănâncă 65 de miliarde de pui pe an. În medie, americanii consumă de două ori mai multă proteină decât este recomandat. Oamenii care mănâncă diete bogate în proteină animală au un risc de patru ori mai mare de a muri de cancer decât cei care au diete alimentare cu consum scăzut de proteină. Fumătorii au un risc de trei ori mai mare de a muri de cancer decât nefumătorii.
Ideea este că am orientat într-o direcție greșită eforturile noastre pentru combaterea crizei climatice. Nu e despre combustibilii fosili sau alte povești în principal. Ci este despre industria zootehnică. Care trebuie redusă și readusă la o formă sustenabilă. Problema este că soluția propusă de autor nu va interesa pe nimeni. O găsiți în carte, nu v-o spun, ca să vă las lectura interesantă.
Oricum, să știi cu date și toate dovezile științifice apărute în ultimii ani nu doar cât de rău ne face consumul excesiv de carne procesată, ci și că, iată, industria asta poluează mai mult decât orice și să nu îți pese, să nu încerci măcar să reduci consumul, asta înseamnă în opinia mea să fii un ignorant complet. Și să nu dai doi bani nici pe tine și nici pe ceilalți. O lectură care vă va da imboldul să faceți ceea ce trebuie, dar după care foarte puțini vor fi cei care chiar vor acționa. Explică de ce tot Foer în carte.
De ce ne duce autorul cărții De ce mâncăm animale pe la Satu Mare, cum se spune? Pentru că îi e frică de faptul că subiectul este o mână moartă. Și-atunci, ne pregătește preț de vreo 80 de pagini pentru ce are de fapt să ne spună.
Și pregătindu-ne aflăm că:
- dacă istoria umană ar dura o zi, am fi vânători-culegători până cu zece minute înainte de miezul nopții.
- la nivel global, oamenii utilizează 59% din suprafața cultivabilă pentru a crește hrană pentru vite.
- O treime din toată apa proaspătă pe care o folosesc oamenii se duce la vite, în timp ce doar aproximativ 1/30 este folosită în case.
- 70% dintre antibioticele produse la nivel global sunt folosite pentru vite, slăbind astfel eficacitatea antibioticelor în tratarea bolilor umane.
- 60% dintre toate mamiferele de pe pământ sunt animale crescute pentru hrană.
- Pentru fiecare om de pe planetă există aproximativ 30 de animale crescute pentru hrană.
Și multe altele. Scrise chiar așa, schematic. Pe unele le veți respinge din start, pentru că nu suntem pregătiți să acceptăm și să înțelegem realitatea. Iar motivul pentru care ne comportăm așa e simplu, creierele noastre sunt construite de societate, de educație să gândească cu totul altfel și să respingă acest pericol climatic, în epoca abundenței alimentare.
Oamenii mănâncă 65 de miliarde de pui pe an. În medie, americanii consumă de două ori mai multă proteină decât este recomandat. Oamenii care mănâncă diete bogate în proteină animală au un risc de patru ori mai mare de a muri de cancer decât cei care au diete alimentare cu consum scăzut de proteină. Fumătorii au un risc de trei ori mai mare de a muri de cancer decât nefumătorii.
Ideea este că am orientat într-o direcție greșită eforturile noastre pentru combaterea crizei climatice. Nu e despre combustibilii fosili sau alte povești în principal. Ci este despre industria zootehnică. Care trebuie redusă și readusă la o formă sustenabilă. Problema este că soluția propusă de autor nu va interesa pe nimeni. O găsiți în carte, nu v-o spun, ca să vă las lectura interesantă.
Oricum, să știi cu date și toate dovezile științifice apărute în ultimii ani nu doar cât de rău ne face consumul excesiv de carne procesată, ci și că, iată, industria asta poluează mai mult decât orice și să nu îți pese, să nu încerci măcar să reduci consumul, asta înseamnă în opinia mea să fii un ignorant complet. Și să nu dai doi bani nici pe tine și nici pe ceilalți. O lectură care vă va da imboldul să faceți ceea ce trebuie, dar după care foarte puțini vor fi cei care chiar vor acționa. Explică de ce tot Foer în carte.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,552 reviews