Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Unavailable
    Hope on Earth: A Conversation
    Unavailable
    Hope on Earth: A Conversation
    Unavailable
    Hope on Earth: A Conversation
    Ebook214 pages2 hours

    Hope on Earth: A Conversation

    By Paul R. Ehrlich, Michael Charles Tobias and John Harte

    3/5

    ()

    Currently unavailable

    Currently unavailable

    About this ebook

    Hope on Earth is the thought-provoking result of a lively and wide-ranging conversation between two of the world’s leading interdisciplinary environmental scientists: Paul R. Ehrlich, whose book The Population Bomb shook the world in 1968 (and continues to shake it), and Michael Charles Tobias, whose over 40 books and 150 films have been read and/or viewed throughout the world.  Hope on Earth offers a rare opportunity to listen in as these deeply knowledgeable and highly creative thinkers offer their takes on the most pressing environmental concerns of the moment.

    Both Ehrlich and Tobias argue that we are on the verge of environmental catastrophe, as the human population continues to grow without restraint and without significant attempts to deal with overconsumption and the vast depletion of resources and climate problems it creates. Though their views are sympathetic, they differ in their approach and in some key moral stances, giving rise to a heated and engaging dialogue that opens up dozens of new avenues of exploration.  They both believe that the impact of a human society on its environment is the direct result of its population size, and through their dialogue they break down the complex social problems that are wrapped up in this idea and attempts to overcome it, hitting firmly upon many controversial topics such as circumcision, religion, reproduction, abortion, animal rights, diet, and gun control.  For Ehrlich and Tobias, ethics involve not only how we treat other people directly, but how we treat them and other organisms indirectly through our effects on the environment.  University of California, Berkeley professor John Harte joins the duo for part of the conversation, and his substantial expertise on energy and climate change adds a crucial perspective to the discussion of the impact of population on global warming.

    This engaging and timely book invites readers into an intimate conversation with some of the most eminent voices in science as they offer a powerful and approachable argument that the ethical and scientific issues involved in solving our environmental crisis are deeply intertwined, while offering us an optimistic way forward. Hope on Earth is indeed a conversation we should all be having.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherUniversity of Chicago Press
    Release dateApr 21, 2014
    ISBN9780226113715
    Unavailable
    Hope on Earth: A Conversation
    Author

    Paul R. Ehrlich

    Paul R. Ehrlich is Bing Professor Emeritus of Population Studies in the Department of Biology of Stanford University, and is president of Stanford's Center for Conservation Biology.

    Read more from Paul R. Ehrlich

    Related to Hope on Earth

    Related ebooks

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      Visions Of A Dark Future

      Oct 29, 2019

      Visions Of A Dark Future
      2 min read

    • Article

      Move Fast And Break Things

      Oct 28, 2019

      Move Fast And Break Things
      4 min read

    • Article

      Ocasio-Cortez Gets FDR History Lesson Wrong

      Apr 2, 2019

      At a town hall meeting on the Green New Deal, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez got her history wrong when she was asked what lessons she learned from President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. The post Ocasio-Cortez Gets FDR History Lesson Wrong appear

      2 min read

    • Article

      No Excuse For Ignorance

      Oct 27, 2020

      No Excuse For Ignorance
      14 min read

    • Article

      Jonah Goldberg: Pandemic Is A Blown Opportunity For Conservative Nationalists

      May 20, 2020

      Future historians of the American right are going to have a devil of a time figuring out what the hell happened as the second decade of the 21st century came to a close. But every day I become more convinced about at least one of their conclusions: T

      3 min read

    • Article

      Kid Cudi Says He Had A Stroke At 32. Hailey Bieber Was 25. How Common Are They?

      Aug 22, 2022

      Strokes in adults under 45 are on the rise. Now artist Kid Cudi — long considered an ambassador for mental health issues — and model Hailey Bieber have opened up about their experiences.

      3 min read

    • Article

      Jonah Goldberg: Pandemic Is A Blown Opportunity For Conservative Nationalists

      May 20, 2020

      Future historians of the American right are going to have a devil of a time figuring out what the hell happened as the second decade of the 21st century came to a close. But every day I become more convinced about at least one of their conclusions: T

      3 min read

    • Article

      The Ecomodernist

      Aug 5, 2019

      The Ecomodernist
      3 min read

    • Article

      Far-Right Misinformation Is Thriving On Facebook. A New Study Shows Just How Much

      Mar 6, 2021

      Research from New York University found that far-right accounts known for spreading misinformation drive engagement at higher rates than other news sources.

      2 min read

    • Article

      The State Of Satire

      Oct 23, 2019

      The State Of Satire
      7 min read

    • Article

      Churchill’s Presidents

      May 3, 2021

      Winston Churchill met more American presidents than most American presidents. The articles in this issue show that, of the fourteen presidents who served from 1897 to 1977, all but three had some form of direct contact with Churchill. At the time of

      1 min read

    • Article

      The Corals And The Capitalist

      Dec 1, 2022

      The Corals And The Capitalist
      15 min read

    • Article

      Is the Modern Mass Extinction Overrated?

      Oct 26, 2017

      After decades of researching the impact that humans are having on animal and plant species around the world, Chris Thomas has a simple message: Cheer up. Yes, we’ve wiped out woolly mammoths and ground sloths, and are finishing off black rhinos and S

      17 min read

    • Article

      A Global Warning

      Mar 1, 2023

      A Global Warning
      6 min read

    • Article

      The Sixth Extinction

      Jan 23, 2018

      The Sixth Extinction
      5 min read

    • Article

      The Queer Ecology of the Colombian Civil War: Meet the transgendered ecologist helping her country move past years of conflict.

      Dec 8, 2016

      The former Luis Guillermo Baptiste began her transformation into Brigitte in the mid 1990s, when she was part of a cadre of scientists helping to establish the Bogota-based Humboldt Institute, a hybrid public-private biodiversity research foundation.

      7 min read

    Reviews for Hope on Earth

    3/5

    6 ratings2 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 5/5
      This is a well documented follow-up on Gore's Inconvenient Truth.The authors show that the climate change is building in strength and that revised predictions show more, not less negative results. For example a previously unsuspected loss of carbon from the soils during the heat-up of two degrees, in most latitudes. The studies are bringing out the details and specific places and people that will be harmed the most. Very important reading as it is all based on documented changes going on right now, not just modeling.As for their recommendations, there are many.As for their emphasis, they hope a way is found to impress on most people the importance of the problem and its immediacy.
    • 1/5
      "Hope on Earth: A Conversation" (2014) presents itself as a record of several conversations between Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich and author Michael Charles Tobias, both experts in ecology and biological conservation. (One conversation also features John Harte, a researcher who is not mentioned on the dust jacket and whose background is not described.) The form is vaguely reminiscent of a dramatic script: almost all text in the book consists of spoken lines (which are nonetheless frequently large, unbroken paragraphs). While likely based on a transcript or recording, the text appears to have been reworked to adopt a more literary tone and sometimes (but not always) include precise references to sources. The book is short, at 183 pages, including a number of photos, and is set in a relatively large typeface, making it quick to read. Nevertheless, I gave up on it after reading 86 pages.While it is clear that the speakers are intelligent people, the book fails as a tool to engage and inform the reader. This is mostly due to the manner in which the material is presented. First, the book assumes both too much background knowledge and too much preexisting agreement from the reader. The first chapter does not provide an overall introduction to the large issues to be discussed, such as climate change, nor does it even clarify the goals or basic positions of the two speakers. Instead, we are thrust into the middle of a discussion about the minutiae of rescuing wildlife from oil spills and the mental capabilities of chickens. The reader starts adrift, not understanding where the speakers stand or when the meandering conversation will reach any specific topic.The style of argumentation is also a problem. Most of Ehrlich and Tobias' arguments are rooted in ethical philosophy- they rarely if ever disagree on any question of science or factual substance. This makes philosophical argumentation, rather than science, the intellectual hinge of the book. However, unlike good works of philosophy that I've read, there is no real attempt by the speakers to build convincing cases for their viewpoints. Instead, they tend to make loud pronouncements of what they believe, and if the other speaker does not challenge a particular point, the first speaker typically does not defend or justify it- forgetting, perhaps, that the reader may have different concerns and objections than the other discussant. (Perhaps difficulty considering the needs of the reader is a downside inherent using a transcript of a conversation as the basis for a book.) A more general defense of each point is necessary.This particularly problematic when Ehrlich and Tobias stray onto topics about which they are personally very passionate. In these instances, they abandon all attempt to be convincing to a general audience, ignore cultural context, and engage in attacks on groups of people who disagree with them. For example, Tobias argues strenuously against eating meat (at several different points in the book- the first of those occasions, described here, is on page 8). If a concerned consumer tries to do better by purchasing "free range" chicken, "this is simply a justification by the consumer; a false sense of feeling ethically consoled when, in truth, an animal will be murdered and devoured whilst someone makes a profit on the killing and the consumer feels they are environmentally sensitive to the needs of a chicken in nature. This is just insane, and only those in the animal rights movement actually seem to understand." By taking this tone, Tobias detracts from the substance of his argument, and the focus of the the passage becomes his demeaning view of everyone who is not in the animal rights movement. A more tactful argument, sensitive to the role that meat-eating plays in society (not to mention the impact of our evolutionary heritage, which has shaped us through hundreds of thousands of years of eating meat), would be both more convincing and have a tone more appropriate to a work published by a university press.Rather than learning from Tobias' error, Ehrlich makes the same mistake just a few pages later, in a manner so egregious as to border on the humorous. Ehrlich proudly describes a Stanford initiative with which he is involved called the Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere, whose goal is to bring people together, "uniting all the disparate forces of civil society trying to steer human cultural evolution in the right direction- to solve the environmental crisis... You've got to bring together separate cultures... to preserve civilization." Then, as a startling non sequitur, Ehrlich changes the topic of the conversation to circumcision. "Do you believe in involuntary genital mutilation?... Do you believe in torturing babies who have no choice in the matter, causing them extreme agony and reducing their sexual pleasure for the rest of their lives... in order to make them members of a group?" When Tobias informs Ehrlich that he was circumcised, he does not believe it to be torture, and he thinks legislation to ban the practice would be draconian, Ehrlich retorts, "Well, the problem of whether it's legitimate to protect babies from torture because torturing them was a habit of ancient, ignorant desert nomads is one where people obviously differ."It is incredible to see a man with one breath insist on the importance of bringing together different cultures to solve global problems, and with the next breath to denigrate religious practices that are held sacred by some of those same cultures (not to mention, to refer to founders or early practitioners of certain faiths as "ignorant desert nomads").The fraction of society Erhlich and Tobias manage not to alienate is slim indeed. In addition to meat-eaters and people who practice circumcision, they also have harsh words for gun rights advocates, the cigarette industry, the fossil fuel industry, people who oppose abortion, people who "suggest there should be no limit to the number of children one has," "right-wingers," and Catholic bishops (all in five pages: 41-45).This points to the second crucial problem with the book: Ehrlich and Tobias both emerge looking pompous, moralistic, culturally tone-deaf, and- frankly- not the sort of people you'd want to agree with. When it comes to ethical questions, answers are not matters of scientific fact. With the possible exception of philosophy students who have adopted a particular ethical system (such as utilitarianism, virtue ethics, or deontology), humans tend to make ethical decisions based on their gut reactions. So, when the advocate for a particular ethical position sounds like a jerk, the reader will tend to want to adopt the opposite view. This limits the extent to which "Hope on Earth" is convincing (and makes it something of a chore to read, despite its short length).After 86 pages, I decided that I had not encountered enough of value to justify reading the remainder of the book. If you are interested in topics such as bioethics, environmental philosophy, or animal rights, I would recommend skipping "Hope on Earth" and seeking out books written by contemporary philosophers, who are likely to treat these topics with more rigor, tact, and care.