This book review was written by Eugene Kernes
“We are today even more dependent on botanical matter than we were three hundred years (or five hundred, or even five millennia) ago, and not just for our food. Most contemporary humans are completely dependent on energy that comes from long-buried carbon – and what are coal, oil, and natural gas except fossilized forms of botanical matter?” – Amitav Ghosh, Chapter 1: A Lamp Falls, Page 28
“In other words, English settlers believed that they were less cruel than their Spanish counterparts because instead of military violence, they were using “material forces” and “natural processes” to decimate Indigenous peoples. This belief is so extraordinary that it requires a moment’s reflection: in effect it simultaneously acknowledges that nonhuman forces are being used as weapons while also asserting that settlers bear no blame for the impacts because they are unfolding in the domain of “Nature,” through “material forces.” This conjuration neatly effaces the role human actions play in setting environmental changes in motion; it is as if they occur independently of human intentions.” – Amitav Ghosh, Chapter 4: Terraforming, Page 67
“In principle there is no reason why reducing any particular
terrain to a resource should lead to its depletion, in terms of either meaning
or productivity. It should be possible,
after all, to “use” that terrain rationally, matching ends and means. | And
yet that is not what happens. It would
seem that there is an inherent instability to the framework of
world-as-resource that impels it to devour that which it enframes.” – Amitav
Ghosh, Chapter 6: Bonds of Earth, Page 82
Is This An Overview?
The distribution of resources is not uniform across
political boundaries. Resources can
become a curse, as demand for the resource can provide motivation for
conflict. States with demand for a
resource, but do not have the resource in their region, can develop ideologies
and methodologies that justify the seizure of the resource from states that do
have the resource. Justifying atrocities
against nature and people to obtain the resource. Whether the resource is a nutmeg or fossil
fuels. As civilization has become more
dependent on unsustainable energy sources, the dependence creates demand for
military force to be used for control of regions that contain the sources of
energy.
Resources can be allocated to match ends and means. But what usually happens, is that people
deplete a resource. As sustainable
resources and practices are competing against those who provide unsustainable
resources and practices, those who do provide the unsustainable resources are
preventing societies from transitioning toward sustainable resources.
Caveats?
The examples confirm a single assumption, a single bias, that
creates misinformation about history, people, and science. The examples only provide evidence of when
humans are destructive toward nature, with a recognition that there no positive
interactions between humans and nature.
This sentiment creates apathy toward the future, as it creates an
assumption that nothing can done to change the looming destruction. But there actually is evidence of nature
having a resurgence because of humans changing their behavior, with technology
and practices that are making society sustainable. As this book is apathetic towards the future,
the book does not provide a guide on how to overcome the problems.
There is an assumption, with evidence, that the methods of capitalism cause environmental destruction. Due to the author socialist bias, there are no references of socialist decisions that have caused human and environmental destruction. Nor are there refences to capitalists choosing environmentally favorable decisions because of the profit motive. All people, no matter their political or regional associations, are capable of unfavorable views toward others, and actions against others.
