Just like before I'll link to my review on Goodreads.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1391667675?book_show_action=false
Thursday, September 24, 2015
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.
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.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
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.
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.
Thursday, September 10, 2015
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
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?
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?
Thursday, September 3, 2015
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)