Living Downstream Second Half

Overall I did not enjoy the second half of the book as much of the first. The details seemed to be getting repetitive and unnecessary. However, the last chapter made up for this by giving a clear "what you can do" section as well as a call to action.

The only other chapter that stuck out for me was the water chapter. Maybe its because I literally filled up my water bottle from the drinking fountain in Pearson right before reading about all the carcinogens found in everyday drinking water. It's scary to think that something as normal as drinking water, which is a very healthy think to do, has the potential to give you cancer.

I thought it was interesting in the last chapter when she outlined the differences between a patient pamphlet and a genetics textbook. Although she seemed critical of the pamphlets emphasis on behavioral changes you can make to lower risks of cancer, this does make sense. The pamphlet would not be as helpful saying that you are screwed no matter what. As a patient of cancer you do want to feel empowered and feel like there is something you can do. However, I do agree that this does ignore the huge issue of carcinogens in the environment being a bigger problem than just not smoking or drinking (at least I have that going for me.)

There did come a point in this book that I resigned to the feeling that no matter what I did as a consumer, I would be exposed to carcinogens. This is why I liked the call to policy change in the last chapter. People are unknowingly and unwillingly being exposed. I liked that Steingraber calls this a human rights issue and points our the eco-racism.

Steingraber echoes the same thoughts we've had all semester about the fact that science always has uncertainty, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't act. She also talks about the precautionary approach, where chemicals are guilty until proven safe. Although I like this idea in theory, it may be difficult to implement in practice, but this is a step in the right direction compared to the copious amounts of chemicals being dumped in our environment.

Living Downstream First Half

It is nice with our last book of the semester Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber to move away from climate change and extinction and to have a fresh topic. However there have been some similar themes in this book that do connect with what we've been talking about all semester. For example, in the chapter about silence Steingraber talks about Rachel Carson's three views about silence, including scientists being silent and afraid to speak out. This has been a common theme in our seminar about whether or not scientists should be objective data collectors, or become activists. I do think there is an innate fear of speaking out and losing credibility, but at some point we need to get over this if it betters the world we live in. Furthermore, Steingraber mentions the idea of scientific uncertainty and how it will always be present, but that does not mean we should not act. This idea was present in Merchants of Doubt who use to uncertainty to stop action, as well as Amanda Vincent's talk about how we do know enough to act.

The topic of cancer and manmade chemicals is a scary one. The fact that there are no uncontaminated controls to use as a baseline is frightening. Even if we chose personally to not use insecticides on our lawn, residues can still be found in our house. There is not escaping this chemical warfare. Some of the cancer statistics are disheartening, knowing that almost half of us will suffer from cancer. And yet it almost feels like we have done very little to stop the use of pesticides in this country. I know that my dad uses weed killer and insecticides on our lawn yearly for no other reason than aesthetics. We talk a lot in this country about finding a cure, but you never hear much about preventing it. Like climate change we are relying on technology to put a band-aid on the problem rather than fixing the problem itself. This relates to the epigraph at the beginning of the book where people were focused on saving the people drowning, not the person pushing people in.

Steingraber gives clear evidence as to how the environment can effect cancer. The studies of people moving and how their cancer risks match that of the new location over their homeland, cancer in animals, and the correlation of chemical use coinciding with cancer rates all give evidence to this point. And yet still there are many chemicals in use. And the majority of these have not been tested and yet are still called harmless.

Despite the scientific background of the author, I think Steingraber does a good job with writing for a general audience. Most of the biology is easy to understand. However, some of the technical names for the chemicals can be confusing. However, the biological effects of the chemicals is comprehensible. I also think this book does a good job aiming for the heart as well as the head. Steingraber's personal journey with fighting cancer helps the reader feel the need for action. I thought this technique was interesting as the author clearly sees Rachel Carson as an idol, and yet Carson kept her personal battle with cancer out of her writings for fear of being seen as biased. This might be so, but I think the personal accounts help readers connect with the cancer patients and see them as people. I liked when Steingraber looked into the history of the person whose breast tissue was cultured into the cell line for research. Adding this human aspect to the story aids in showing the importance of the message.

Oil and Honey- Final Impressions

I know I'm in minority here but I didn't care for this book. The style of writing didn't do it for me. There was too much detail about things I didn't care about. I still feel like the connection between the oil and the honey was weak. I get that he was trying to show a lifestyle different from the typical capitalist lifestyle that most people live, and the growing need for small farmers, but this connection didn't permeate the whole story. Furthermore, the whole description of McKibben going on tour didn't interest me. I did not need all the details about life on the road and all the sellout venues he attended. Also I didn't understand the importance of talking about the local fair in Vermont, even though he did mention the failure of show crops/animals that year. I think these details detracted from the message of climate change.

Overall, I think this book was too much about Bill McKibben as a person and his journey as an advocate and less about the issue of climate change. Whereas the other books focused on an issue and included personal relationships to the issue, this book focused just on the personal relationship. I think this might be a contributing factor as to why I didn't enjoy the book as much.

I did like the shift in focus from the pipeline to fighting the fossil fuel industries. This seemed to be a much more important battle to overcoming climate change. Although fighting the Keystone pipeline is important, stopping one pipeline will not drastically alter the fate of the planet. Bringing the fight to the companies I think is a more effective use of time and resources. The fact that they are planning on burning 5 times the amount that the world has set as a limit is a problem and I think educating the public on this issue as McKibben has done in his lecture series. I like the idea of reframing the fossil fuel industries as radical and not having the best interests of the people. However, I do not think this message has reached all the people it needs to. This striking fact is something that can be used to sway people. Is this a risk people are willing to take, even if they do not understand all the science behind climate change?

I was also wondering what people thought about the ice sculpture that was pulled. I was having trouble seeing why it was offensive. I guess it was extravagant and the money could be used elsewhere, but it would have make a strong point. I did appreciate though that McKibben pulled the plug in order to not alienate any of his supporters, but I do agree that it might have been a missed opportunity. Is there anything like this that we could do that would make a point without being too extravagant?

Oil and Honey- Initial Impressions

I'm not sure how I feel about Oil and Honey by Bill McKibben so far. It reads quickly and has some interesting parts, but I feel like I'm just not into it. Even though he uses many metaphors to connect the bee parts to the fight against oil, I still feel like they are disjointed. In the middle of the fight against the Keystone pipeline he will randomly go back to talking about the bees. I'm not sure how they fit together in this book.

I'm also not sure of the point McKibben is trying to make with this book. Every book so far I have understood the thesis statement. The previous books have all had a intro/prologue that illustrated why the author was writing the book and the point that was supposed to come across. McKibben however does not have a intro/prologue and seems to immediately go into the story. I think this tactic was useful in the other books, which I didn't really appreciate until not having it in this book.

I have enjoyed learning some of the cool biology and behaviors of the bees. The idea that scouts go out to look for new areas for hives and then have a democratic discussion to chose a new location was fascinating. But I feel like this part of the story is detracting from the picture of fighting the oil companies. Again, maybe this will make more sense later in the book, but as of now I just don't get it.

There is a mixture of pessimism and optimism when thinking about fighting the oil companies. There seems to be some hope that a grassroots battle has stopped the pipeline. The oil companies just assumed they would win due to their political power and money, and yet the protests were able to stop them. However, it is said multiple times in the book, stopping one pipeline will not stop global warming. This is just one battle in a large war. In addition, the battle over this one pipeline has not ended. It seems doubtful that we can create the quick changes that are necessary to prevent the 4 degree increase.

The thing that struck me in the beginning of the book is how willing people were to go to jail to fight the pipeline. I'm not sure if I would be brave enough to do that. I tend to be a rule follower and although I like the tactics of civil disobedience used, I am not sure if I could do it. I really appreciated the peaceful nature of the protest, and the fact that they wore their Sunday best to show their civility. As McKibben has stated, they are not radical, but changing the composition of the atmosphere is very radical.

Wild Ones- Second Half of Butterflies and Birds

I thought the ending notes of the book were very depressing. I have so mad sad faces in my notes from this book! There seemed to be such a sense of cynicism among almost all the conservationists who had been working on the projects for long periods of time. They all started out so enthusiastic and just ended up hopeless. I think this has to do with the shifting baseline idea and how despite all their efforts, they still aren't seeing the wildness of their youth. There just seemed to be so many setbacks in each of the stories, the cranes refusing to migrate, destruction of the dunes to see a whale, the video of the starving polar bear cub. There also seems to be a bad outlook on human nature. The backpack of rocks metaphor was really depressing; we can never escape the negative qualities of being human. We always carry that weight with us.  It's hard to see the "weirdly reassuring" aspect of this story. Even Mooallem believes that there is no chance for the wildness to continue and that future generations will curse us for our destruction. But he says at least they know that things were better.

The personal connection of the conservationists to their work and the amount of effort that people are willing to put forth is maybe the reassuring part, but still all I can think of are the sad endings. For example, George put so much work to get the crane Tex to lay eggs. After all that work he was worried about people making fun of him, but then Tex died. This was very sad, to put all that work into a project and form a personal connection to your work, to have it end abruptly. Another example, is the story of Gibbs and her husband looking at the cranes. All they wanted to do was look at the natural beauty together in their old age as he was getting Alzheimer's. This story was very adorable and touching. It is reassuring that people care so much and despite all the negative qualities of humans, we are still working. But I'm not sure this is enough to feel good about our future.

I know in our discussion last week, many people wanted more ecological and biological detail. Why should we care about these species. But I do think the main point of this story is not the animals themselves or why they are important ecologically speaking, but how people view the animals. There is a conservation bias in people and it is important to see how you can get the public behind conservation. I think it is important to understand how people view animals and how that can be used to help them. Although this is inevitably a small picture approach it may be useful in driving big picture changes. In the end though, the wildness that we see today is changing, and as more and more environmental problems creep up, it is hard to see the end of human intervention in keeping animals alive. It is hard not to want to give up or know what the point is but hopefully the future holds some positive outlooks for biodiversity. 

Wild Ones- Bears and Half of Butterflies

So far Wild Ones by Jon Mooallen is very reminiscent in style of The Sixth Extinction. The book is similarly divided into case studies, but has more depth into each and less breadth. Mooallen similarly puts himself into each situation and not only describes the science but also his interactions with the scientists and their history and personalities. The story flows much better and less dense than the previous two reads, and I think would be very accessible to the public.

Many themes seem to be present so far in the book. The first of which seems to be the disconnect between the fantasy we have of animals, and the reality. The first few chapters of the butterfly section haven't delved into this much, but this idea was very prevalent in the intro and the polar bear chapters. It was interesting to see how the cultural views of polar bears has changed from viscous beasts, to cuddly vulnerable creatures. This view seemed to greatly upset the people in the town of Churchill who actually interact with the bears. I like the idea that Mooallen is trying to bridge this disconnect by going to see these species. I also like how the inspiration for this is his daughter. As much as I love the Disney versions of animals (who doesn't love the Lion King) they do seem to glorify certain animals over others. Even educational TV like Animal Planet and Nat Geo seem to sensationalize nature, and in my opinion this has gotten worse over time. I think it is important to get that connection by looking a wild animal in the eye and developing a healthy respect for the animal. I know many people who paint certain predators in a savage light, but that bias is not conductive to understanding the biology of the animal.

Another common theme is charismatic mega fauna. Of course the polar bear is a better spokesperson for climate change over a wolf spider. People have a fascination with animals that they can relate to, mostly mammals and birds. I thought it was interesting that the butterfly seems to "transcend" other insects in this respect. We see butterflies as beautiful and worth saving, but not other "creepy-crawlers." Most people wouldn't bat an eye at the extinction of most insects, but the lose of the polar bear would be seen as a tragedy. It's hard to get past this inherent bias in us, and I'm not sure how we as conservationists can overcome this in the public sphere. I like that we can use a charismatic megafauna to attack a broader issue, but as Mooallen suggests, the media has been oversaturated with polar bears and the message is getting lost. I think using multiple species as examples and not just the classic polar bear could help with this, but still it might not be enough.

A third theme that seems to be common in this book is the idea that these animals can no longer exist without human intervention. This has created a lot of cynicism in some of the scientists trying to help. One of the lepidopterists. Powell, has gone so far as to say "what is the point." It is disheartening to know that the butterflies can't exist unless we continuously and artificially alter the landscape, and the polar bears cannot exist without the possibility of supplemental feeding. This reminds me of the phrase "you are alive but are you really living." Yes the species still exists but are they really living. This was an idea that was hard for me to grapple with. I don't want to see these species go extinct, but it sad to think that they would be completely dependent on humans.

A final thing that struck me in the book was the fact that many of the people who love the polar bears the most, were climate deniers. I couldn't understand this. How can you deny the thing that is causing the extinction of a species you claim to love. I enjoyed that Mooallen referred back to the mammoth story we read about in The Sixth Extinction. Extinction is a hard thing to grasp and it is hard to believe that these species could possibly cease to exist.

This Changes Everything Part 3

The last section of the book is mostly about how things are beginning to change and how we should take them further to fully address climate change.

I was struck by how hopeful the last section was. I was expecting more of "what we should do," not "what is happening." It did give me some hope reading about Blockadia and the working with Indigenous groups to stop drilling and use green energy. This hope seemed so wildly different from the feeling of impeding doom from the introduction and first section. However, the hope was mitigated with the conclusion stating how we still have much more radical shifts to make. But it is heartening to see that we are making progress, even if we need more.

We discussed earlier whether this book was a call to revolution or not. I guess it depends on what you define as a revolution. The book is without a doubt a call to action, urging for grassroots resistance to fossil fuel companies. But to me revolution conjures up images of chopping off heads with a guillotine to overthrow a government, which is definitely not what is called for here. What I think is more important is not to necessarily change our entire economic system and government, but rather to change our ideology. It's not capitalism per say that is the problem, but the idea of non-regulation and exploitation. We can still use the land, but do so regeneratively and avoid greed. However, this could be more difficult than a bloody revolution... I also liked how she stated that it is a moral problem and not an economic problem. Yes going green may not be the best for the economy, but it is morally right. I did enjoy the analogy to slavery, although that was still a difficult change to make and involved bloodshed. I know as scientists we try to stay away from the moral side of things, but perhaps we should in this case.

Overall I did really enjoy this book. The flow was much better, even though it was still heavy with detail, and a long read. I did enjoy the personal touches Klein adds to her story, especially the section on fertility. This humanizes the author with an experience that many people can relate do (hits the gut, not just the brain.) Although Klein does seem very radical in the intro and conclusion, the main body of the book doesn't contain much of her radical ideas. I feel like if you remove the intro and conclusion you could ALMOST get a conservative person to agree with her ideas (I'm trying to be optimistic here which goes against my instincts.) We've said many times as a group that we wouldn't give these books to our conservative family members, and I have agreed, but maybe we should just to see how they react and if these books would actually resonate with them.

This Changes Everything Part 2

Although we are not meeting to discuss the book this week due to Fall Break, I decided to post a blog anyway since the book is nicely divided into three parts.

The second part of the book focuses on the "Magical Thinking" solutions that have been thought of and how they have all failed. This section tended to be a very frustrating read. It seems that people want quick and easy fixes that don't get to the root of the problem, emissions. It was so infuriating that people care more about the money than saving the earth. It was also upsetting the bias towards Western countries over those that are poorer, but have not contributed to the problem.

I was hopeful that the CEO of Virgin, Branson, would actually do something with his proposal, but I knew there would be a but, and of course, there was. It amazes me that people haven't held him accountable for his promise and allowed him to just continue with emissions. I agree with Klein that it seems even the best intentions go away when money is involved. I believe Branson was on the right track with his promise and if followed through by him and other companies, there would be no need to fix pollution with pollution. Perhaps government regulation would fix this problem, but at the moment does not seem like it will happen soon.

Personally, the idea of geoengineering to stop climate change just seems like a terrible idea. First of all, this would just treat the symptoms, warming, and not the cause, emissions. Furthermore, it appears that it will do more harm than good. Although I do agree with Klein that if faced with people dying on the streets I would gladly agree with the SRM plans, but we are not at that point. I like to think that there is still a chance that we can change and not rely on these drastic solutions. I don't like the idea of putting earth on "life support" and completely relying on technology to sustain our way of life. There is something beautiful about an organic landscape, but these fixes will drastically alter the landscape. You will not be able to escape human's meddling with the environment when you are literally blocking out the sun. I couldn't believe that people found this less intrusive than using high efficiency light bulbs. It seems like there would be no greater government obtrusion.

Now that Klein has outlined what is currently being done and why it is failing, I am interested in seeing how she proposes we fix the problem. The first part of the book was very radical and did not seem practical so I am interested in seeing how everything will come together in the final chapters.

This Changes Everything Part 1

Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything is a god book to read following Merchants of Doubt. It seems to tackle similar issues of dealing with the public's doubt of climate change, fear of socialism, and issues with the free market that was portrayed by Singer and Sietz. The prose of this book is much easier to get through in this book, although the anger inducing sections are still apparent in this piece. For example, it was hard to read about the Heartland group saying that we should let poorer countries fend for themselves with climate change while we just all buy air conditioners. However, this book does call into question our beliefs and notions about how to handle climate change and the opportunities that the solution presents.

Like the previous book, Klein directly blames Republican free market ideology for the current state of the environment. Governments are so obsessed with economic growth through the attainment of resources that we have decimated the planet. Klein encourages a complete overhaul of the current system to fix climate change, not just buying electric cars and putting up a few windmills. It is really striking how radical Klein appears to be here. And yet she admits to her ideas being radical. I can't imagine people actually being supportive of the radical changes in economic systems. Instead of changing people's opinions, this book might just be used by people like Singer and Sietz to prove their points about green is the new red. I can already hear the neigh sayers calling Klein a hysterical communist using terms like social justice and redistribution of wealth. How dare she claim that the rich are to blame not the lazy poor. It's sad to think that many people on the right will view this work as liberal propaganda and not the eye opening read that I find it to be.

Although Klein does blame the right for many of the environmental problems, she doesn't leave the left free of blame. This is where I find this read much less biased as Merchants of Doubt. She has mentioned about Obama's failure to go green as well as the left wing policies in South America still living an extractivism lifestyle. She calls into question not just right wing policies, but the ideology most people have about buy, buy, buy, I want, I want, I want. We all seem to over consume our resources regardless of our political affiliation. For the world Klein wants to be a reality to succeed, it is not just the right that has to change its ways, but all Western culture.

Another thing I call into question is the feasibility of the changes Klein states that we need to make. Even though she makes really good points, people resist change, especially and complete shift in ideology that they have supported for their entire lives. Also with the fossil fuel companies being as powerful politically and monetarily, it's hard to see governments being able to control them. They have too much lobbying power. She seems to be an idealist and think that making a radical change in our economic structure will fix all our problems. Although it looks good on paper, will her steps really fix the economic inequalities the way she says it will. It almost seems too good to be true. Although I think it would be worth it to save the environment, I'm not sold that everything will be as smooth and utopian as she seems to think.

Overall so far I am enjoying this book much better. It is long and slow at some points, but is still much easier to read. There have been some personal moments from Klein, such as her visiting the tar pits in Canada and her wish for her son to have the same experiences she has had. The style of writing does make it more accessible due to her journalistic background.

Merchants of Doubt Goodreads Review

Just like before I'll link to my review on Goodreads.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1391667675?book_show_action=false

Merchants of Doubt Final Thoughts

If I was technologically capable I would make it so that The Who's song "Won't Get Fooled Again" automatically played when you read this post, but I have no idea how to do that so I'll just put a link to the song on YouTube. (Also I'm wearing my Who T-shirt while writing this which I feel is appropriate.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q

The final chapters of Naomi Orestes and Erik Conway's Merchants of Doubt features the same characters as they continue to fool the public on issues such as second hand smoke, global warming, and pesticides. Although this section was just as detailed I did find that it read better, maybe due to being more contemporary issues that I had more prior information on. However, I am still happy to finally be done with this book. Overall I just didn't enjoy reading it. This is probably due to the saying "ignorance is bliss." Knowing these stories about how a small group of politically powerful scientists have deliberately misconstrued facts to support a political agenda was just infuriating. I rarely enjoy political discussions due them making me angry, so I felt like this book was overall too political for me.

One thing that stands out especially well in the final chapters is the overall irony of the contrarians' actions. For example, these people were so motivated to stop Communism, that they end up embracing the ideals of the Soviet government by changing facts and misconstruing data to support their political propaganda. They critiqued the scientists for using "scare tactics" when they were using these tactics themselves, using the fear of Communism. They kept criticizing the scientists for using data to promote a political agenda when they were the ones to do so. They were completely in support of the free market system, but denied the information from scientists needed for the free market to fix environmental problems. And the greatest irony of all is that by delaying the consensus on environmental issues to stall government regulations has necessitated the need for these regulations.

There was also the personal irony for me when talking with my family members about these types of topics. Last Thanksgiving my brother went on a rant about how "global warming is a government conspiracy" whereas this book makes the case that covering up climate change is a government conspiracy. I also was surprised to see the site junkscience.com mentioned in this book, which my aunt told me I should check out (I did for like two seconds.)

The epilogue of this book talks about the nature of science and how the public's view of science needs to change so that they "don't get fooled again" (thus the Who song.) The general public is not knowledgable about the nature of science, including concepts of uncertainty and expertise. The contrarians in this story were all retired physicists who were not experts in ecology, but yet were using their political power to influence the public. They kept using statements of how things weren't "proven" so therefore not true. Although scientists know that uncertainty is part of science, the public tends to think in absolutes. I still hear people talk about how evolution hasn't been proven. I think the best way to prevent this doubt message is to educate the public about the scientific process. We can give them the facts, but there can always be someone who disputes them, so I think it is more important to get the public to see things more critically and to be able to evaluate the facts for themselves.

Merchants of Doubt Initial Thoughts

My feelings about Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Orestes and Erik Conway differ from that of the previous book. The Sixth Extinction, although dealing with a depressing topic, kept me engaged and wanting to read more. However, so far I find this book a struggle to read. Although the information is interesting, the chapters are long and take much more time to get through. Furthermore, the details of the story seem to repeat themselves from chapter to chapter as we see the same characters up to the same old tricks. Most of the time while reading I just got angry at the misinformation that was being spread to the public. This was especially true of the tobacco chapter which was denying the harm of its product to the consumer.

Although I don't really enjoy reading the book, it does allow for interesting discussion questions. One thing that is present throughout the book are the scientists who are portrayed as "villains." Singer and Sietz are two of the more prominent characters throughout the story that seem to always be against what the "hero" scientists are saying. Although in hindsight, we do know that the "hero" scientists have been correct, it is hard to know exactly what the motivations of the "villains" are. The book does seem to be one-sided in this sense. We can speculate as to why Singer and Sietz act the way they do, like their fear of Communism which was common throughout society in their time, but the book seems to portray them as evil scientists. I have to believe that people do things because they truly think that they are doing the right thing, even if in hindsight it was the wrong thing. Although I did get angry at these scientists constantly throughout the book, I wonder if these feelings were do to the writing as well as the fact that from my "future" perspective that I know they are incorrect in their actions.  I think it would be interesting to get their perspectives on their actions, or how they are portrayed in this book.

One thing I noticed throughout the book was the anti-conservatism or anti-Republican views of the author. Although it may be true that more conservative people hold the anti environmental views, I think this book would alienate more conservative readers even if they do agree with the environmental movement. I noticed that this was the views of one of the reviewers on GoodReads who was offended by the bias against Republicans. I feel like this book would not do a good job of swaying people's views, but rather affirming the views of people who already agree with the environmental movement. Whereas Kolbert was more objective in telling her story, you cannot escape the authors views in  this book.

I am hoping that the second half of the book follows a different format. I feel like I am reading the same thing over and over again with each chapter. Although Kolbert also used a case study approach to her chapters in The Sixth Extinction, I felt like each chapter brought something new to the table. So far this book seems to use a lot of words to just repeat the same message with different situations.

Goodreads Review of The Sixth Extinction

If anyone is interested, below is the link to my review of this book on Goodreads. Most of the ideas are similar to what I posted on here.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1380939608

If might also be useful to read other reviews of the book on the site at the link below. It does have an overall rating of 4.02 out of 5 so it seems like most people liked it.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17910054-the-sixth-extinction

The Sixth Extinction Part 2

The second half of The Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth Kolbert focuses more on modern extinctions caused by humans as well as modern extinction concepts, including ocean acidification effecting reefs, global warming causing migration of rain forest trees to higher elevations, fragmentation of habitats, invasive species like the white nose fungus, and the extinctions of megafauna. Unlike the previous chapters that focused more on past extinctions, as well as the history of the concept, these chapters focus more on how and why humans have changed the environment.

One thing I noticed about these chapters is the more depressing tones. Although Kolbert keeps her humor and witty descriptions of people, it is much harder to escape the "doom and gloom" in these chapters. This was especially prevalent in the bat chapter. I couldn't help but cringe as she talked about walking over piles of dead bats. She uses imagery such as mummies to described how the bats looked to her. This chapter seemed especially grotesque mentioning blood, piles of bones, and dead bodies. The amount of death in this chapter made it really hard to stay positive. Despite this however, I would not say that the depressing imagery was off-putting for the reader. I felt that it was useful to add to the shock factor off how rapidly bats are declining. This helped the reader become emotionally attached to the situation. Furthermore, like other chapters, there are portions that talk about the history and concept of invasive species that tend to lighten the mood enough that the emotion does not weigh down the reader.

Another aspect that I found peppered throughout the last few chapters is that although humans may be the cause of many extinctions, humans are not distinctly amoral for doing so. She writes as though human nature has led us to unintentionally change nature in such a way that does not allow for species to adapt. For example, the megafauna chapter talked about how killing one individual a year could eventually wipe out the species in a few thousand years. Furthermore, in the last chapter, she writes that when people usually picture humans causing extinctions, they conjure up images of poachers and loggers, but could just as easily also picture themselves reading. We tend to think of evil Europeans coming to pristine areas such as North American and Australia and destroying the environment, but the author also talks about how the Aboriginals, who are typically thought of as living in harmony with nature, have also drastically changed the environment. The author claims that humans have never lived in harmony with nature. In addition, the Neanderthal chapter talks about how our need to explore may be linked to our DNA, which also contributes to our devastating effects on the environment. Although humans may be to blame, we are not necessarily "evil people" for our environmental impacts.

The last chapter is where the author wraps up her ideas on human mediated extinction, bringing together the ideas from previous chapters. She starts out by saying how much effort humans have put forth to help save species. This section almost appears hopeful. But then she states that this is just another example of how humans are changing the environment. Everything we do is effecting the environment in some way that is drastically different than what other species do. There is something about the nature of being human that is anomalous, like our exploratory nature, cooperation between individuals, and extensive communication. Despite this, we are still subject to the same natural laws, and may be paving the way for our own demise. On the other hand, we may be able to use our ingenuity to survive any obstacle that we cause, but at what cost to the environment?

The Sixth Extinction Part 1

My first impressions of Elizabeth Kolbert's The Sixth Extinction are mostly positive. The author uses dramatic storytelling to give the readers an understanding of the history of the concept of extinction, while always referring to the main idea of human mediated extinction. I really enjoyed to prologue and how it was written as if the author herself was not human. It was instantly engaging and thought provoking. I also liked how she stated that the influence of humans on the environment was not a new phenomenon but has been occurring for as long as our species has existed.
Each chapter of the book is intended to illustrate a concept of extinction through the use of a case study species. For example the first chapter focuses on the golden frog of Panama and the current conservation issues with amphibians and the chytrid fungus. She also includes species that have become extinct in the past including the mastodon (Chapter 2), ammonites (Chapter 4), and graptolites (Chapter 5). By using multiple different species from different eras helps to explain the history of extinction and how that compares to what is occurring today.
One of the more interesting scientific details in the book that I found fascinating was the contrasting opinions and somewhat hostile attitudes that scientists had toward new ideas. For example the resentment many scientists had toward the existence of species that are not alive today, or the fact that species can change. It seems interesting in hindsight knowing what we know now, but at the time people were dead set against certain ideas. I really liked the beginning of the 5th chapter with the playing cards having the red spades and black hearts and the students reactions to them. We tend to be dead set in our ways and very reluctant to change, especially if we've been taught something by professors we respect. For example so many respected scientists were against catastrophism that the scientists of the new generation could not accept that a mass extinction could occur, even with so much evidence for it.
One aspect of this book that I thoroughly enjoy is the personal connection the author has to each of the stories. Each chapter has multiple sections written from the POV of her own experience. For example the author visited the frog hotel in Panama and sailed to the island of the last known great auk in Iceland. The author interviews many scientists who have been studying the focus species for decades. The author also tends to include humorous details to liven up her stories and add a human element to the narrative. Some examples of this are the worker at the frog hotel who claimed that frogs ruined her marriage, or the grad students who roll their eyes when their advisor brings out his papers on graptolites. In addition, the author adds some cultural significance to the species as well as biological. For example the golden frogs being lucky in Panama and the ammonite shells being important to the Hindu religion. Although most of these details are ultimately unnecessary for the overall story, I actually really enjoyed them as it made the book read smoother and keep the reader entertained. There were multiple points when I laughed at loud at the details or the wording of the story which is useful for engaging the reader. Extinction can be a serious subject so these small details help to lighten the mood and not bear down the reader with depressing details.
One critique that I have of the book itself is that it can be jumpy. Usually each chapter has parts of history and the authors own experience mixed together, and they don't always flow smoothly. The author does try to make connections between each section but it can feel like she switches gears randomly, going back and forth often.