Book Description

Amazon.com
Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb and a professor of biological studies at Stanford, and Anne Ehrlich, also at Stanford, are angered by what they perceive as deliberate efforts to subvert media interest in pressing environmental issues. They suggest that the planet is in real peril from overpopulation, depletion of the ozone layer, global warming, and loss of biodiversity, and that each of these threats is confirmed by solid scientific research. And yet, they suggest, these once-hot media issues have been diminished in the public imagination by a determined backlash from anti-environmental groups. What riles the Ehrlichs is that this discrediting of the work of serious biologists has been achieved through pseudoscientific counter evidence--often the output of some politically motivated foundation--examples of which the authors methodically examine and refute. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (24)

And things have only gotten worse
Between complacency on the part of many, and aggressive efforts from a few, we are in the midst of a backlash against serious environmentalism. Characterized as a "brownlash" by the authors, this reactionary phenomenon takes many forms. And if it was bad in 1998, it is only worse now. It appears as claims that conservation and pollution controls are too expensive, that green politicians favor owls and desert mice over humans, that we have turned the corner and the future is now certain and bright, or that public interest groups (e.g. Sierra Club, NRDC, Nature Conservancy, etc.) are really the same as special interests (oil, mineral, manufacturing, gun, etc. lobbies).The effect has been clear: budget cuts, reversal of legislation, a psychological spin toward "wise-use" of resources and downplaying of very imminent dangers. One congress person tried to cut funding for the new Mojave National Park to one dollar per year, another seeks to open mining on park lands, and here in my neck of the woods, Congressman Charles Taylor successfully sponsored a bill disguised as a forest health measure which allowed massive clearcuts of old growth timber in 1995-96. This last is instructive, a clear example of the subversion of green aims by the opposition. Taking earth-friendly names like "National Wetlands Coalition, The Sahara Club, The Abundant Wildlife Society of North America, The National Wilderness Institute, etc." the browns wear verbal sheep's clothing while actively working against the causes their names suggest they must support. The Ehrlichs are veterans of the eco-wars, having started their public efforts four years before Rachel Carson's 1962 classic, SILENT SPRING. In their newest effort they take on the pseudo-science of the brownlash and carefully rebut the arguments, point by point, and copiously footnoted. They make it clear that the so-called "experts" and "scientists" quoted in brown literature are on the fringe of serious research, that the mass of scientific opinion wieghs in for the view that we are in deep doo-doo and better lissen up.This book is an eye-opener and excellent resource for those who seek to assure a pleasant future for spotted owls, desert mice and the human race.

Reason and Motives
Paul and Ann Ehrlich have devoted their lives to promoting environmental understanding and influencing government policy. They have endured the scrutiny of their detractors with respect to dire predictions concerning population growth and the environment. They have made mistakes-- the most famous being their ill-conceived wager against Julian Simon concerning resource depletion. Many dismissed them out of hand after that debacle-- a testament to the human tendency towards oversimplification with regard to environmental understanding (Dr. Simon, as well, made rather absurd conclusions about humanity and the planet, which the Ehrlichs address in the book).

Despite what some have concluded, Paul Ehrlich is still a highly respected professor at one of the most prestigious universities in the United States (Stanford University). He and his wife, a prominent researcher in her own rite, continue accepting invitations to lecture at colleges and conventions around the world.

The book Paul and Ann have written, expresses the passion with which they've espoused their cause. Indeed, it is a passion that should be equaled by all the planet's inhabitants, whether we agree with the Ehrlichs or not. Yet one need only to take a quick look at the Internet to find the antagonistic nature of many so-called "environmental" websites-- something the Ehrlichs refer to as "brown-lash." Many are portrayed as "green" or "earth-friendly," yet dismissive of any suggestion that humankind has desecrated the earth. Arguments, as noted by the Ehrlichs, range from dismissing the global warming phenomenon completely, to claims that such phenomenon is even beneficial to humankind (the current trend seems to be towards the latter, since arguing against global warming itself is becoming, less and less, a valid point). Statistics are presented out of context and often misrepresented as conclusive.

Indeed, even some scientists have been fooled by the seemingly authoritative nature of some "anti-environmentalist" literature (though it should be noted that the scientific community, by and large, agrees with both the theory of global warming, and its human related causes). As well, a few scientists operating outside the mainstream, such as Patrick Michaels and S. Fred Singer,seem motivated by the large salaries offered to them by multi-million dollars corporations with economic interests at stake regarding environmental regulation. Michaels is the primary authority on the CO2 and Climate Change website, superficially sponsored by the Greening Earth Society, which is, in turn, funded by the Western Fuels Association. The "laundering" of website sponsorship further adds to the confusion concerning ulterior motives.

Other "editorializers," such as Rush Limbaugh or Michael Fumento, routinely sway public opinion by incompetently interpreting scientific data and essentially indulging in name-calling. While their authority should be dismissed as sheer demagoguery at best, their influence over their radio listeners and column subscribers should not be ignored.

The Ehrlichs make a point that much has been done by way of regulating and improving the environment, but it will always be an uphill battle. In their words, "It's like trying to run up an escalator that's going down." The most easily perceived indicators of environmental health are air and water, yet few realize the other multifarious indicators which are just as important to humankind and the environment.

It is a truism that one should not judge a detractor by his or her affiliation alone, but rather address each particular argument in kind-- praising its merits or debunking its fallacies. One's ideology is best judged in the words and theories they express, not the labels they've been assigned. This applies to the Ehrlichs and their detractors as well. Betrayal of Science and Reason is a must read for anyone concerned about the effects of political spin upon the future of the environment. While "brown-lashing" attempts to succeed in confounding the truth contemporaneously, nature, in time, will offer irrefutable proof of its own-- how soon we heed the warnings will determine how adversely our world is affected.

A curious book, to say the least
I recommend this book, with reservations. My take on it is different than many of the reviews so far given.

The Ehrlichs' role as among the first, most persistent, and most dire of environmental Cassandras is well known and need not be revisited now.The presently-reviewed book adds little to what they have previously said in terms of areas of concern.Rather, it appears to be a valedictory of sorts, where the Ehrlichs return their critics' responses in kind.
To my view, their response, although perhaps understandable, is ineffective as being too filled with slanted prose, hyperbole,and, unfortunately, outright name-calling.A more reasoned sort of response would have been highly preferable.The form of the message so obscures and detracts from its substance as to render both rather incredible.

Also, the book is plagued with easily avoided errors.By way of a single chapter's example, the Ehrlichs contend, in their chapter on climate/global warming, that climate earlier than 1200AD is essentially unknowable because of a lack of record keeping.This is not so, as many methods, including varves, dendrochronology, ice-coring, etc., are available to do year-by-year studies.The Ehrlichs' statementsand implications that warming is now more severe than at any time since the advent of the Holocene find no support.The xerothermic episode of the late 1200's that resulted in the demise of the Anasazi culture in the Southwest, and the desertification of much of Nebraska, occurred at this time.Of these, not a word.Likewise the Altithermal, or Climactic Optimum, of circa 4,000BC, or 6000BP, and not the present, has marked the warmest part of the Holocene.

The Ehrlichs'refusal to bring these facts into the equation shows either a lack of research or a refusal to change a previously-desired impression.Neither, ACCORDING TO THE EHRLICHS IN THE SAME CHAPTER, is the mark of good or effective science.Other examples abound elsewhere, but space limits their discussion here.From a factual viewpoint, I cannot recommend this book to the serious scientific reader.

However, the book is a prototypically good example of the causes of the troubles the Ehrlichs describe the environmental movement as facing.The skeptics decried by the Ehrlichs find their fuel in the Ehrlich style of crying wolf too often, and in the Ehrlichs' scientific inflexibility in the face of developing data that may be contrary to their earlier positions. Here, I need only cite the failure of their predictions in, "The Population Bomb."

The upshot is that if Green proponents want to find how to lose status and credibility with those who are undecided, this book is a must-read. Contrariwise, if skeptics wish to determine why their own claims are subject to a healthy case of doubt, the Ehrlichs show them in many instances.Note carefully that I do not say the Ehrlichs are always wrong.They aren't, and a good deal of what they say is buttressed by fact, just not enough of it to be fully persuasive.I suspect that a more reasoned approach by the Ehrlichs would have resulted in a far more important book.The best way to dispel the confusion the Ehrlichs claim their opponents create is by reasoned, honest presentation, not name-calling, slanted prose, hyperbole, and disingenuous simile and metaphor.

In closing, the book's only real value is to show each side of this important controversy the defects that plague their respective positions.Both sides should read the book with this goal in mind. Otherwise, a reading only serves the contrary purpose of reinforcing previously held biases.

I recommend the book, but subject to the foregoing substantial cautions.A pity, because so much more could have been accomplished by a disciplined writer.

Why read such tripe ?
I'll ignore for the moment that I've followed Mr.Ehrlich's writing for 3 decades and I find his arguments to have been poorly reasoned, based on doubtful information, to include vast overgeneralizations and to clearly be written for the purpose of sensationalizing potential disaster.

The title of this current work should send shivers down the spine of anyone with an investment in intellectual freedom.Disputing contrary opinion using legitimate forms of argument is admirable, but instead labelling an opponents view as "rhetoric [that] threatens our future" is antithetic to the purpose of an open society.If opposing views, mere ideas, threaten our future how far can we be from book burnings and pogroms ?The suggestion that ideas threaten us is a closed minded anti-social statement that only appeals to the inherently bigoted.

None of Mr. Ehrlich's numerous disaster scenarios for the planet is as probable as that people on each side of the environment issue will close their minds and cease to give respect and fair consideration to the views of the other.Without the concensus that can only come from open, respectful, thoughtful discussion of the issues there can be no action on the environmental problems of our day.In this way Paul Ehrlich as a polarizing dogmatist is much more part of the problem than part of any solution.

The very title is an insult.Ehrlich is THE modern day con.
While it is often humorous-if not the epitome of irony-to see titles like Betrayal of Science and Reason spring from an authors such as Paul Eurlich considering his professional career has essentially consisted of scare-mongering by claiming looming disaster is ahead, even when his "scientific" predictions never bear out.Eurlich is a modern day boy crying wolf, and should at long last be ignored.Statements like, "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate...", should have buried Eurlich's cerdibility long ago, but, alas, there are plenty of individuals out there still ready to be further hoodwinked (Ehrlich 1971, p.xi).

Ehrlich obviously takes P.T. Barnum's statement that, "There's a sucker born every minute , but non of them ever die," to heart.He has fed from the sullied trough of fear for decades now, and with this latest installment he is further insulting our intelligence by stating that those peers who reviewed his "studies" were blinded by ideology at the same time that his cataclysmic predictions of world starvation and overpopulation evaporated.Come now Mr. Eurlich, let's get serious. ... Read more

Amazon.com
It's common to blame "human nature" for some of the unpleasant facts of life--road rage, say, or murder, or war. The problem with this convenient out, argues the distinguished scientist Paul Ehrlich, is that there really is no single human nature. Humans, it's true, share a common genetic code with remarkably few large-scale differences (if all but native Africans disappeared from the planet, he notes, "humanity would still retain somewhat more than 90 percent of its genetic variability"); and evolution has endowed us with capabilities shared by no other species. But for all that, he adds, our separation into haves and have-nots, weak and strong, and other such categories is more often than not a product of cultural evolution, a process far more complex than the mere mutation and adaptation of a few genes. And, in any event, those genes "do not shout commands to us about our behavior," Ehrlich says. "At the very most, they whisper suggestions."

In this wide-ranging survey of what it is that has made and that continues to make us human, Ehrlich touches on a number of themes--among them, his recurrent observation that science has taught us little about how genes influence human behavior. (Instead, he notes wryly, "science tells us that we are creatures of accident clinging to a ball of mud hurtling aimlessly through space. This is not a notion to warm hearts or rouse multitudes.")He urges that scientists take a larger, interdisciplinary view that looks beyond mere genetics to the larger forces that shape our lives, a view for which Human Natures makes a handy, and highly accessible, primer. --Gregory McNamee Book Description

The Bell Curve, The Moral Animal, The Selfish Gene-these and a host of other books and articles have made a seemingly overwhelming case that our genes determine our behavior. Now, in a new book that is sure to stir controversy, one of the world's leading evolutionary biologists shows why most of those claims of genetic destiny cannot be true, and explains how the arguments often stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution itself. "You can't change human nature," the saying goes. But you can, Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich shows us in Human Natures, and in fact, evolution is the story of those changing natures. He makes a compelling case that "human nature" is not a single, unitary entity, but is as diverse as humanity itself, and that changes in culture and other environmental variations play as much of a role in human evolution as genetic changes. We simply don't have enough genes to specify behavior at the level that is often asserted. Never has knowledge of our evolutionary past been more important to our future. Developing intelligent strategies for antibiotic use, pest control, biodiversity protection-and even for establishing more equitable social arrangements-all depend on understanding evolution and how it works. A hallmark of Human Natures is the author's ability to convey lucidly that understanding in the course of presenting an engrossing history of our species. Using personal anecdote, vivid example, and stimulating narrative, Ehrlich guides us through the thicket of controversies over what science can and cannot say about the influence of our evolutionary past on everything from race to religion, from sexual orientation to economic development. A major work of synthesis and scholarship, Human Natures gives us the fruit of a lifetime's thought and research on evolution and environment by a modern master of scientific understanding. Ehrlich's innovative vision lights the way to a fresh view of human nature and evolution, bringing insight and clarity to urgent questions of where we are as a species, and where we may be headed. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (17)

Ehrlich as Sisyphus
Ehrlich's central thesis-that there is not just one human nature but many seems eminently reasonable on the surface. But Ehrlich sidesteps the most convincing evidence! His "culture theory" rebuttal of the straw man of "genetic determinism" singularly fails to review the many twin and adoption studies showing that people inherit their behavior as well as their appearance.

Ehrlich becomes especially annoying when he repeats the mantra that human races do not exist and brands the genetic argument over race and sex differences "racist" and "sexist." Consider the following sets of data. If race was an invalid concept and genes had little or no predictive power, the findings I summarize would not be so consistently found.

For example, although IQ tests were invented by Whites and standardized on mainly White populations, dozens of studies now show that East Asians, whether tested in North America or in Pacific Rim countries, typically average higher than Whites, scoring in the range of 101 to 111. Caucasoid populations in North America and in Europe typically average an IQ of 100. African populations living south of the Sahara, in North America, and in the Caribbean have mean IQs of from 70 to 90.

Ehrlich also fails to mention that IQ scores are related to brain size and that the races differ in brain size. Over a dozen magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies have found a r = 0.40 relation between brain size and IQ. Racial differences in brain size have been established using four quite different procedures: MRI, autopsies, endocranial volume, and external head measures. The brains of East Asians (Koreans, Chinese, Japanese) and their descendants consistently average a larger volume (about 17 cm3) than those of Europeans and their descendants, and 97 cm3 larger than those of Africans and their descendants.

Changes in brain size have cascading effects on other traits, including athletic ability. Blacks have narrower hips than Whites or East Asians which gives them a more efficient stride and enables them to run and jump better. The reason why Blacks have narrower hips, however, is because they give birth to smaller brained babies. During evolution, increasing cranial size meant women had to have a wider pelvis.

Why did Ehrlich neglect to mention all these data if he's interested in the truth about human natures (in the plural)? Wouldn't we expect the evolutionary process to have different effects in different environments? In the wake of the success of The Bell Curve and other recent books about race by Arthur Jensen, Michael Levin, and me (Race, Evolution, and Behavior) that provide race-realist answers to the question of differential group achievement, there has been an intense effort to get the 'race genie' back in the bottle. Its sad when a scientist with so many accomplishments and so Herculean a reputation as Ehrlich takes it upon himself to assume so Sisyphean a task.

Once more into the breach . . .
Paul Ehrlich enters the lists of "nature vs nurture" by fulminating against the straw-man of "genetic determinism".One would have thought this joust would have been called for "time" by now.In his attempt to triumph over this rather ephemeral opponent, Ehrlich has performed a prodigious task.This well-written and comprehensive view of human evolution is a valuable resource.A massive footnotes and references collection grants this book value far above the narrative itself.Ehrlich, a practiced writer and researcher, brings many years of work and observations of the human condition to this massive overview.He strives to explain who we are and how we arrived at our current stature.He further warns that our lack of understanding of our backgrounds may threaten our future.

"Human nature" is often cited as a foundation for many behavioural traits.The fallacy of that moral expression is revealed in the variety of our habits.Ehrlich recognises that variation in his title and goes on to explain it in this book.While the genetic foundation of our behaviour is being solidly established by much field research, he ultimately concludes much of that basis is overriden by our cultural influences.Much of our confusion about "nature versus nurture", he contends, lies in the rapid pace of humanity.Compared to most other species, our mental development raced past the other animals - with language as the accelerator pedal.Since the genetic base for most traits is so slow and nearly muted, our development agriculture, religion and urban society virtually overwhelmed our "animal instincts".The prime example, of course, is the massive impact we have on our environment.

Ehrlich's key in assessing genetic versus cultural input lies [logically!] in the structure of the brain.When he wrote this book, the human genome was thought to be comprised of 100 000 genes.With that figure halved, he concludes the genome hasn't the power to command the billions of neurons with their trillions of connections that comprise the human brain.This "gene" shortage, he avers, suggests the genome hasn't the capacity to drive human behaviour to any significant degree.This rather simplisitic enumeration ignores the fact that the entire genome, whatever the number of genes, must be highly interactive in many areas of the body - the brain is simply another part of the mechanism.He is apparently unaware of the brain research showing how similar interactions have been mapped within the brain.Genes merely kickstart the process, they don't need to "control" our behaviour.

Ehrlich takes the usual swipes at Richard Dawkins as he builds his narrative.Like so many others, Ehrlich's reading of "The Selfish Gene" appears to have ceased at the title.To him, the "Great Leap Forward" of some fifty thousand years ago emancipated us from the shackles of our genetic heritage.With the development of language [which wouldn't have happened without a biologically endowed "voice box"], human cognition, hence behaviour, launched on a new course.Ehrlich asserts we've never looked back, but also warns our capabilities should be adapted to now look forward.Our abilities threaten the biosphere with an intensity and scope no other species possessed.

In his conclusion, the author nearly reverses all his prior narrative.He urges humanity to develop a better understanding of its place within nature.That, of course, means a full programme of understanding animal behaviour and the mechanisms animals and plants use to stay alive and reproduce.Our evolution, particularly the cultural input, has led us to believe we are distinct from Nature.Ehrlich recognises the dangers of such an attitude and urges us to overcome it.Although an excellent synthesis and supremely comprehensive, it's unfortunate that Ehrlich's prejudices blinded him to create a problem that doesn't exist.Nobody argues for "biological determinism" in an absolute sense - certainly not Dawkins.Where Ehrlich is correct is that we must increase our knowledge of how nature works and undertake the tasks needed to stop and reverse the spoilage under way.
[stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

A weak intro and polemic
Paul Erlich is usually introduced as the author of "The Population Bomb", so it's not unreasonable to look back for a moment at that book- and Erlich's intellectual history- in considering this new book. Back in the 1960s Erlich was a mainstay of the popular media- sort of a Carl Sagan of population- and a regular guest on the Tonight Show, where he spelled out his apocalyptic vision.

"The Population Bomb" was a polemic that dictated a series of prescriptions for society, without which we were racing headlong to all sorts of disasters, notable shrtages of all strategic resources, massive starvation involving millions of people, food riots that destroyed governments and the downfall of western society as we knew it. This was prophisized to happen in the 1970s, and as most of us recall, none of it happened. He went on to predict that *billions* would die of starvation in the 1980s. Erlich also made a famous bet with economist Julian Simon,in which Simon challanged Erlich to pick 5 commodities that he felt would go up in price because of shortages. Erlich took the bet, and all five fell drastically in price.

In fact, nothing that Erlich prophasized ever happened. Erlich's predictions had little to do with science and much do do with ad-hoc justifications for his political prescriptions. Now Erlich has jumped onto the nature/nurture bandwagon, which hasgenerated a lot of renewed interest in recent years owing to some major breakthroughs in the understanding of, and potential control over, the genetic makeup of humans. And once again, Erlich sees a lot of reasons we should follow his particular social agenda.

There's nothing particularly new or original in the discussion of nature and nurture in this book, which isn't surprising as Erlichhas never done any research in this area. Most of the book is a fairly elementary rehash of the last twenty years of genetic research. Unfortunately it's not a terribly good one. His understanding of issues like human language is elementary at best.Even as science continues to discover just how much of our nature and our biology is, in fact, genetically determined, Erlich's position is that the contribution of genes to behavior is all but trivial, and that leads into the real intent of this book, which is to say hisprescription for how society should be run. And not surprisingly, it's the same prescription he was making in the 1960s.

Erlich's problem is that he wants to be a social philosopher. He longs to dictate his notion of an ideal society- but he doesn't have any good social arguments. Instead he gives us specious arguments rooted in questionable scientific interpretations. The result is a poor introduction to either the nature-nurture debate or social philosophy.

Excellent reading for both the scientist and lay person
Ehrlich has added to a number of good inter-disciplinary books that have been published in the last few years that all bring together the social and hard sciences.This is a well written and brilliantly engaging work.Few readers will fail to come away after reading this without some sort of intellectual reward.

Culture as a model of human evolution is emphasised, not to overtake genetics, but to add another dimension.The implications of this effect many fields, including biology, genetics, psychology, history and anthropology. Ehrlichs intelligent and clear writing, persuasive analysis and excellent footnotes make reading "Human Natures" a worthwhile effort.A joy to read.

A "must read"
"Human Natures" is far and away the clearest, most comprehensive, and most compelling synthesis of what is known about the co-evolution of humans, their cultures, and the rest of nature currently available. The title subtly reflects the important distinction between human "nature" and human "natures" - the plural implying that our species has many and varied natures - not a single unitary nature.This pluralism is in stark contrast to the stilted and unrealistic assumptions about a singular human nature embodied in both the reductionist biological model and the conventional economic model.The biological reductionist idea that all human behavior can be reduced to a genetic basis is clearly insufficient in light of the massive importance of cultural evolution in shaping human behavior.Likewise, the all-knowing, perfectly rational economic utility or profit maximizer of the conventional economic model may be convenient for mathematical tractability, but it is so far from the reality of human natures that it is laughable.The only mystery is why, given what we know about human natures, more economists are not laughing. The case of Phineas Gage, described by Ehrlich in the book, serves to illustrate the size of the chasm between the conventional economic model and reality.Gage was a railroad worker who had a large portion of his frontal lobe removed when a 1.25 inch-thick tamping rod shot through his head in a freak railroad accident in 1848. Amazingly, Gage survived and was not even knocked unconscious by the accident.But he was a changed man.He had lost the part of the brain that we now know is dedicated to emotional responses.A surprising result was that while he could think, talk, and calculate perfectly well - he was completely "rational" - he simply could not make a decision.It turns out that rationality without emotions leads to swamping with details and the inability to make any decisions at all, even ones so trivial as what to eat for dinner.That emotions are necessary for decision making is an interesting part of real human natures, but is in direct contradiction to the conventional economic assumptions about decision-making, which considers emotions to be a hinderence to "rational" decision-making.But as Ehrlich points out: "Human emotional capacities evolved along with our cognitive capacities. Without the ability to respond to stimuli with appropriate emotions, critical decision making becomes impossible" (pp. 121-122).The challenge is to build economic models that incorporate the realities of human natures, rather than to assume them away. The weakest aspect of the book is the imbalance between its treatment of genetic and cultural evolution.While Ehrlich takes pains to acknowledge the large and growing importance of cultural evolution in shaping human natures, he gives very little space in the book to the details of how cultural evolution works and does not attempt to synthesize the research in this area in anything like the completeness with which he treats human genetic evolution.For example, he notes that cultural evolution has several unique characteristics relative to genetic evolution.Most importantly, learned behavior can be passed on through the culture to genetically unrelated individuals and changes in culture can occur with light speed relative to genetic evolution.But how does this work and what does this mean for human natures and for the future of our society?This and several other key questions about the details of the relationship between genetic and cultural evolution are hinted at in passing, but left largely unaddressed in the current volume. For example, conventional biological evolution theory is largely circular and descriptive, not predictive.It is one thing to describe how alligators evolved, but quite another to be able to predict the emergence of alligators.To do this one would need to know the underlying criteria for success in evolution that can be specified before the fact.From a predictive point of view, it doesn't help much to say that those individuals that reproduce best will survive, unless one can say why particular individuals will be able to reproduce better than others in particular situations. Most human evolutionary ecologists work on time scales that make this question moot, but it is essential for understanding cultural evolution, the results of which are observable in units of years rather than thousands of years. To use the evolutionary paradigm in predictive modeling, we require a quantitative measure of fitness (or more generally performance) that can be specified before the fact, in order to drive the selection process. Another important question has to do with the "reflexive" nature of cultural evolution - because we are capable of at least some degree of conceptualization and foresight, we can exertat least partial control over our own selection environment.The process then becomes one of conscious design and tinkering with the cultural evolutionary process rather than passive response to externally determined criteria. How does this process work and what are it's limits? Devising policy instruments and identifying incentives that can translate foresight into effective modifications of the short-run cultural evolutionary dynamics is the key research challenge. In cultural evolution, we have the unique potential to first envision our goals and then modify the selection criteria in order to achieve them. Ehrlich's book provides a solid basis for addressing these and countless other questions that are critical to understanding our human natures and how we can actively participate in changing them.Adequately understanding and controlling our complex human natures is essential to the continued survival of our so far exceptionally successful species. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (41)

Brave, Caring, Prophetic
By now, late 2007, one can hope that the anti-Ehrlich voices have gotten fewer in number.Our skyrocketing world population should be recognized by everyone as partly or largely responsible for many of our recent worldwide social crises and environmental disasters - global warming, the widespread water shortages, the disappearing arctic ice sheets, the global fish shortage, the extinction of the great apes, the exhaustion of ancient aquifers, uncontrolled urban sprawl, mega-cities, mega-slums, mega-smog, monster hurricanes and typhoons, unprecedented wildfires, disappearing wilderness, longer commutes, massive traffic jams, massive illegal immigrations, multimillions of refugees, various genocides, etc., etc.

Here is the basic history of the overpopulation problem, a history that most people are shockingly ignorant of (and kept ignorant of by the powers that be).The entire human population of the world at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth, that is, in the 1st centuries B.C. and A.D., was only about 300 million.(It had been merely 10 million in about 10,000 B.C.).It then grew slowly to about 1 billion by 1850.Then, due to the Industrial Revolution, it grew very fast to 2 billion by 1930.Then superfast to 3 billion already by 1950 (WWII, with its 55 million dead, was a minor speed bump on the road), then very fast again to 4 billion by 1975.Let's skip the whiz-by dates for the 5 and 6 billion figures.We are now, in 2007, approaching 7 billion and will reach it within a few more years.By 2050, according to almost all projections, we humans will number 9-10 billion.Most projections I have seen deceptively stop there in 2050, as if that magical year will suddenly cause all couples throughout the world to stop having any more than 2 or 3 children, without even thinking about the subject.Alas, history and human population will not so conveniently stop.The latter will keep growing until it comes to a horrific halt, and long before that halt the great majority of humans will live in crowded misery and daily hunger.Unless some action in the form of worldwide public policy (incentives and penalties to keep population limited) is taken very soon.

Surely most people, if they don't recognize that the world has an overpopulation problem now, would accept the idea that eventually we will have one.If 6.5 billion people is not appalling enough for them, the prospect of 16 billion should be.Or finally 60 billion, assuming they can count (which may be assuming a lot, in some cases).

Paul Ehrlich's understandably frightened 1967 perspective looked out upon the U.S. Baby Boom, that 20-year population explosion 1946-64, when couples had big, healthy families in prosperous times.By 1967, the U.S. population had grown from 150 million to 200 million within a mere 20 years.That growth was phenomenal - but worrisome.And while our U.S. population was reaching its worrisome milestone of 200 million, India reached its own scary milestone of 500 million (today it seems so quaint, merely 500 million in India).The entire world population in the late 1960s was rapidly approaching 4 billion, and truly responsible people like Ehrlich were reflecting on the implications of it all.

Ehrlich's critics rarely if ever acknowledge that his working statistics were taken from the years preceding 1967, when India, for example, was on the brink of mass starvation.The Green/Food Revolution, which prevented (postponed by some decades) Ehrlich's dire predictions of catastrophic starvation from coming true, actually began, very belatedly, in 1966.India first imported the remarkable dwarf wheat seeds, specially bred by Norman Borlaug, in 1966.Those seeds arrived not one moment too soon.Ehrlich briefly and hopefully alludes to them in his book, but he finished writing it in 1967, and it was published in early 1968, before that new technology's beneficial effects were confirmed.

In any case, the Green/Food Revolution that started in the late 1960s has since exacted a heavy toll on soil fertility and other resources.The extensive use of water and fertilizers and pesticides also demanded by that technology has depleted precious aquifers and poisoned vast amounts of farmland.India is now once again in dire shape, as are many other countries.Billions of people in the world go to bed hungry or malnourished every night.

In 1960 (just yesterday), the population of India was 443 million; by 1970, only ten years later, it was 553 million; by 1980, 684 million; by 1990, 838 million; by 2000, 1 billion; and now, in 2007, it approaches 1.2 billion.Isn't it obvious where this awful Juggernaut is heading?Toward the rapid meltdown and starvation of India soon (and disastrous side-effects for many other nations), all because the people of India persist in having 5, 6, 7 or more babies per couple.

Ehrlich's critics (pro-growth capitalists, weak-kneed liberals, religious fundamentalists) have criticized him for a few predictions he made (on a few pages of his book) that did not come true.But those predictions were prevented from coming (immediately) true not only due to the (temporary) effects of the Green/Food Revolution, but also due to the success of the very movement Ehrlich helped to lead, a conscious effort to slow population growth.In the USA and much of the rest of the developed world, native population growth slowed considerably thereafter, partly due to people taking heed of Ehrlich's cautionary book.Legalized abortion and the Pill have also prevented many hundreds of millions of births around the world.In 1979, China instituted its famous "one child only" policy.It has caused serious social problems in China, but has prevented far more horrendous problems in China and the rest of the world.Without that policy, China today would have 400 million more people than it actually does.China today has a terrible system of sweatshop labor - virtual slave labor.But imagine the extent of the problem if China had 400 million more people to feed, in addition to its current 1.3 billion.

Another point: Does anyone believe that the Arab-Israeli conflict and all the other ethnic conflicts around the world will be peacefully resolved by the people in those warring regions having more and more children, creating more and more crowded conditions?

71% of the earth's surface is covered with water and is thus uninhabitable.Of the 29% that is land, the great majority of it is insect-infested jungle, oven-like desert, sub-arctic tundra, or desolate mountain ranges, all uninhabitable in the long term for any but a few hardy people.If a million of Ehrlich's many comfortable critics would kindly volunteer to play pioneer for a decade in the Yukon, the Congo, the Sahara, or the high Andes, as role models to us all of the glorious adaptability of humankind and the wonderful possibilities of modern technology, one could be more sympathetic toward their views (or at least respect their sincerity).Not until then.

The double edged sword
I think this guy was a little premature with some of his predictions but overall I agree that the world needs to be depopulated if you want avoid turning it into a total living hell for all who dwell here. The problem is the only group of people who they have been able to convince to stop having so many kids are white people, who are also the only people that at least a segment of care one way or another about the environment.

I know a lot of people read the stuff from the Club of Rome, think the global elites have this plan to depopulate the planet and think of this book as a propaganda piece to justify culling the herd. Well if this is the case excluding white people they sure aren't doing a very good job of it. I believe in the short term they do want to exterminate whites and in the long term they want to get rid of blacks but overall excluding killing off whitey they have other fish to fry in the short term. Of course this is not to say that they place any value whatsoever on the other human life that will be left. Your a commodity. The term "human resources" is called that for a reason. Also in spite of what that phony Al Gore is spouting off, they don't care about the ecology either. They just want all the so called "white" countries to pay a "global warming tax" into the central banks while conveniently neglecting to do anything about their slave plantations in China and India spewing out pollution.

We are more or less expendable to them but as long as the masses of humans are needed to consume and work as slaves to keep the machine chugging along they will be keeping at least some of us around just so long as we take our prozac, don't act up and allow ourselves to be microchipped. Enjoy your new world order!

What Is Wrong With These People?
I won't repeat what Alan Lewis said below, but I completely agree with him.It sounds, to me, as if the other reviewers are in denial of what's actually happening in the world.

Getting it wrong- big
When I first read this book I was somewhat skeptical, but nonethless tended to give considerable credence to the 'expert' on the subject. However the population bomb Ehrlich predicted would bring massive die- outs to the latter part of the twentieth- century did not happen. And Ehrlich and fellow travelers like the 'Club of Rome'are more subjects of ridicule than anything else.

This book was writen by a mad or a bigot?
I'm an (unemployed) agronomist, here in Brazil.I tried to read this bad book, available free on internet.This book is so bad, that I didn't finished it.
All bad things who are possible to exist in a book, this book has.This book is racist.This book, tries to cover this, but this book is so or more racist, then a KKK's book.If you try to read it, you will ever see that the "menaces" are EVER non arians:africans, asiatics, etc.This book claims that "Africa is overpopulated".In fact any african countries has even the half, of the population per square mile, as Belgium to exemple.
This book has hundreds of bogus and false theories.
This book has a lot of doomed and false prophecies, about future.All of then, a complete failure.To exemple, this book "predicts" that "hundreds of millions" of peoples will be exterminated by famine between 1970 and 1980.A fraud.
(...)In fact, eugenics = neomalthusianism = ecology.In fact eugenics, neo-malthusianism, marxism (leninism, stalinism, hitlerism, fascism, maoism, etc.) , are all godless religions.
The only good thing in Paul R. Ehrlich, is that he was born in USA.(...) ... Read more

Book Description
During the last half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, many brilliant doctors and scientists worked separately and together around the globe to find ways to cure terrible diseases. These diseases killed many children and made the life expectancy no more than 40 years. Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch were two who set about to solve the riddle of deadly microbes. Paul Ehrlich was also among the many dedicated German scientists who were successful in solving the mystery behind bacteria. Ehrlich's work with dyes helped develop modern drug therapy and lead him to a cure for syphilis. He had the uncanny ability to carry out hundreds of procedures that failed without ever becoming discouraged. ... Read more

Book Description

"Here, between the covers of one book, you can find out about the major problems facing the world today, and how to fix them. It all comes sprinkled with the deliciously surprising examples, and wrapped in the alternately gripping and humorous prose, for which Paul and Anne Ehrlich have long been famous. This is a book to savor and from which to learn."-JARED DIAMOND, AUTHOR OF COLLAPSE: HOW SOCIETIES CHOOSE TO FAIL OR SUCCEED AND GUNS, GERMS, AND STEEL

"Provocative and eminently readable...this is a direct and levelheaded presentation that should get, and deserves, wide readership."-PUBLISHERS WEEKLY

"The Ehrlichs have often been called the ultimate pessimists, but their book is, frankly, heartening. . . . The book is decidedly new and different."-NORMAN MYERS, NATURE

"If you simply want a great book, written by smart, forthright scientists, read One with Nineveh by Paul and Anne Ehrlich." -BOSTON GLOBE

"An urgent warning full of suggestions as to how things could be made better if individuals and businesses and nations cooperated."-THE WASHINGTON POST

"The Ehrlichs manage to be both meticulous and witty as they suggest reforms and remind us that ours is an astoundingly adaptive species capable of making radical change once we're motivated." -BOOKLIST

Named a Notable Book for 2005 by the American Library Association, One with Nineveh is a fresh synthesis of the major issues of our time, now brought up to date with an afterword for the paperback edition. Through lucid explanations, telling anecdotes, and incisive analysis, the book spotlights the three elephants in our global living room-rising consumption, still-growing world population, and unchecked political and economic inequity-that together are increasingly shaping today's politics and humankind's future. One with Nineveh brilliantly puts today's political and environmental debates in a larger context and offers some bold proposals for improving our future prospect.

Customer Reviews (24)

Come Nineveh, Come Tyre; Come "Hell and High Water"
This is an outstandingly wide-ranging intro to every aspect of the subject. If that's what you seek, this is your book. If you feel fairly well-informed about the bad news, perhaps you want instead Joseph Romm's book, "Hell and High Water" (subtitled "Global Warming -- the solution and the politics -- and what we should do").

A scan of Romm's intro and chapter one will let you know what you're in for. While the Ehrlichs' book ends on a downer and resists hopeful prescriptions -- and I respect such pessimism -- "Hell and High Water" springs from the conviction that now is the time to act and that enough renewed minds can spur action that will make a difference, perhaps even leading to more drastic action that will make more of a difference.

But for a truly amazing reference list and research that won't quit -- including scores of sources that are gold mines in themselves -- Ehrlichs' is a trove of solid data.

We're In Deep Doo Doo
Wow. What a ride. This book had me on the edge of my seat. I can see why other reviewers might find fault in this grand overview of ecological,socio-economic and political problems as not offering enough new information or covering too much ground. However, I personaly am thankful for such a comprehesive collection of troubles. "High Noon: Twenty Global Problems and Twenty Years to Solve Them" by J.F. Rischard is another fine book with similar intensity. There seems to be anumber of "oh boy are we in trouble look at what global doom is looming" kinds of books these days. Fact is however, these are scientists and if we can get all excited about new science that can make a quick buck and promises booming new industries, then we ought to also get motivated when scientists tell us we have some problems least we become a society of hypocrits. Many scientists these days are comparing our present era to Europe in the early 1930's, soothing and waiting for a period of consequences. Can humanity be smart and avoid these catastrophies (in this case ecological meltdown as global warming is just one super-disaster in a world of desertification, gross overpopulation, disease, resource wars, militerized gated communities for the wealthy and so on and on) or do we have to learn the hard way and just see who and what other plants and animals are still alive by 2100? Stressful indeed as I haven't even payed $100 yet on my student loan. I try to see books like this as a battle cry. We fought slavery once, we fought fascism once and now we must fight unsustainable, polluting and ..dare I say ignorant social orders. Perhaps that really is the enemy of Nineveh...ignorance, narrow self interests...and....a reluctance to change because of vested interests in the status quo. The unsustainable status quo must go.
Excellent book.

One With Nineveh:More Bad News and Nothing Concrete to do about It
One With Nineveh would be a good read for someone who hasn't heard about global warming or other problems encompassing the planet. The first chapter was interesting...the comparison between the lost civilization of Nineveh with today's world, but there was really no new information that hasn't been talked about since the early 1970's.
The biggest disapointment was that there were no clear suggestions for people to do to live a simpler life, cut back on consumption, and in general quit being a pain in the back to the planet earth.
One very good chapter towards the end talked about economics.....why societies do not have to have growing economies (production increasing every year, consumption increasing every year ect.). That chapter needs to be explored in greater detail by the authors as it was the most compellingidea in the book.

An expert summarizes a critical subject in a humane manner
Paul Ehrlich has had more than 40 years of experience researching and writing about the environment.This experience is obvious in his latest book, which provides a concise summary of today's state of the environment. I don't understand how it could be labeled "alarmist" since it is backed by the author's experience and substantial academic research. This is a renown Stanford professor, not just a pundit perpetuating his personal views.

It is true that the information presented in the first half of the book may sound repetitive to those well-versed in environmental issues.However, the summary of issues like climate change, carrying capacity, and consumption was well written and flowed smoothly.The most substantial part of this book was Ehrlich's recommendations to help reverse or change trends that negatively affect the environment.These recommendations were realistic - integrating the social and political aspects to the science.

Readable, entertaining, and important is how I would describe this book.It belongs on the the required reading list for anyone who believes the environment is worth preserving.

No new information
This book offers nothing to someone remotely familiar with environmental issues.It might be a mediocre read for a beginner, but if you're already familiar with overpopulation, mismanagement of resources, etc, you will get NOTHING out of this book.It is incredibly repetitive and it lacks insight and depth.Don't waste your time. ... Read more

Amazon.com
If there is an intelligence to the design of nature, an old question has it, then how could mosquitoes ever have come into being? Andrew Beattie and Paul Ehrlich have an answer: adult mosquitoes are an important source of food for birds, while their larvae are a major part of the diet of many species of fish. Moreover, mosquitoes pollinate some orchid species, and even their role in the spread of certain diseases appears to have a function in nature. Though it poses an annoyance and hazard, then, the mosquito has its place in the world, a world that is constantly impoverished by the destruction of species.

We humans, Beattie and Ehrlich suggest, are only beginning to understand that ecological health depends on the diversity of nature, a diversity that embraces mosquitoes. By way of illustration, they cite an experiment in which scientists created a sealed environment that was meant to approximate conditions in a self-supporting extraterrestrial colony--and that failed, in the end, because the scientists neglected to introduce easily overlooked but nonetheless critical microorganisms. "We are dependent in the short term," they write, "on many more kinds of organisms than it would seem at first glance." And, they add, humans directly benefit from the services that millions of species provide, whether appreciated or not. To remove those species, the authors argue, is akin to squandering a carefully built and irreplaceable fortune, "our biological wealth, our biological capital." Their thoughtful essay offers many reasons for curbing this spending spree. --Gregory McNameeBook Description

Customer Reviews (6)

Not for the well informed
As mentioned in another review the first edition read like a childrens book. Even more insulting was the cartoonish scribbles used as illustrations. It is honestly not appropriate for anything more than an introduction to the subject for teenagers. In that role it would suit its purpose fairly well, unfortunately that is not the type of book the cover and title suggest.

Brilliant!
This small volume is a compact introduction to biological systems thinking. Profusely illustrated, it brings numerous concepts into clear focus. Excellent science writing for the general reader!

We need more books like this which clearly communicate the beauty and intelligence of the natural world. This is essential information to inform our designs and decisions.

A HUGE disappointment.
The book is really great if you are a six-year-old. The mature readers however, should steer clear of this disaster of an attempt at non-fiction writing. Just goes to show you that two heads are not necessarily better than one. Abundant illustrations (but of no practical use whatsoever) are scattered all over the book, emphasizing the first point I made. I could not get past the first few chapters, and finally decided to put it down when the authors decided to include human beings, on several occasions, into the dietary chain of lions and tigers.
A horrible read. A HUGE disappointment. Big waste of money. Ages 15 and below only.

Educating the general public on the value of natural systems
This book is an attempt to bring to a general readership the idea that solutions to any number of human problems can, and are being, found in the wild.Thus farmers might discover naturally occurring pesticides, perhaps from the leaves of trees; doctors might use antibiotics manufactured by microbes or ants; and engineers, builders and manufacturers might learn how to make the super strong but light weight materials spun out by spiders and worms or secreted by mollusks.

(Or, more realistically, chemical conglomerates, pharmaceutical giants, and construction multinationals might better their bottom line and reduce pollution and the destruction of the environment through the use of ecologically viable solutions.)

The text, written by Australian biologist Andrew Beattie with perhaps more than symbolic assistance from famed population biologist Paul Ehrlich, is unpretentious enough to be accessible to high school students; indeed it seems in some respects, by using a minimum of jargon and technical language, to be aimed at young people.There is an emphasis on the positive aspects of bioremediation and biotechnology rather than sounding any alarm bells about our misuse of the environment.Thus when animals are to be employed as biological monitors of pollution (as the canary is used in the coal mine) the text assures us that rare or endangered species will not be used.Or when pigs are employed (on islands north of Australia) as sentinel animals that might warn of disease traveling south, we are told that they live in pens under "palm trees that rustle in the balmy sea breezes" and that the pigs "snooze or root about in the sand and coconut husks" and are tossed leftovers by passing villagers several times a day "from the family meal or some other delicacy." (p. 160)

The authors follow the introduction with these important words, "The majority of species on Earth have yet to be discovered." (By the way, those who think that the identification of species is like glorified stamp collecting, as I recently read in some book, are very much mistaken.An accounting of life forms, at the very least, will give us a basis for examining change.)Beattie and Ehrlich follow this up with an exploration of how species live in, on, and with one another, laying the groundwork for an understanding of biodiversity and ecology while showing how dependent we are on the smallest creatures for our survival.They recall the failed Biosphere 2 experiment some years ago in Arizona and use a thought experiment on what we might take to the moon to establish and maintain a natural community, thereby demonstrating beyond any doubt just how complex and connected and dependent are all forms of life.They evoke the concept "the natural internet" to illustrate this interconnectedness and to show how natural cycles, food chains, water and nitrogen cycles, etc., work.Particularly interesting was the chapter on garbage and how the myriad creatures of the soil break down waste and return it to use.The remainder of the book suggests ways that humans can work within natural systems to both our advantage and the advantage of the planet as a whole.It is sorely hoped that this message reaches a lot of people, which is obviously the intent of the authors.

The text is enhanced by appealing black and white illustrations of insects, worms, spiders, microbes, fungi and other living things by Christine Turnbull, done in a way that makes the creatures look almost lovable.Turnbull combines a serious attention to detail with the light touch of a cartoonist.Or at least this is my impression.I imagined, for example, that the immobilized ant on the title page with a fungus growing out of its body had an cartoonist's "x" in its eye; but that was merely a misapprehension; there was no "x."Yet the death of this ant eaten from the inside by a fungus seemed almost benign.Perhaps this is a felicitous way of understanding "nature red in tooth and claw."Furthermore, (and I mean this seriously) maybe if people in general saw ecology in something like the rosy way Disney depicted it in Bambi (but without the distortion) we might be the better for it.

Anyway I admire the attempt by the authors to show how the use of natural products and processes are preferable to the use of artificial and man-made ones whenever possible, and for suggesting the incredible range of what is possible.I wish that all high school students and CEOs of multinational corporations would read this book.Or better yet, heads of state (even dictators and ruling theocrats) and elected representatives whose education has been primarily in law, business and the military, should read this book.Maybe we ought to buy an extra copy and send it to our representative in Washington.Couldn't hurt.

Bottom line: the text is a little pollyannaish at times and the material is familiar to those trained in the life sciences, but the message is an important one, and that message is expressed in a vivid and easily assimilated way.The drawings by Turnbull are wonderful.

An Outstanding Argument for Conservation
Wild Solutions is a beautifully written little book containing a well-reasoned, passionate argument for the conservation of all the creatures in the natural world, not just the ones that look cute on T-shirts or postcards.The over riding theme of this book is not that we should save nature because we can make a quick buck off of it; rather, we should save nature because the natural world is one big laboratory, available to humanity free of charge, that not only supports us with a variety of ecosystem services but also continuously shows us new and better ways of living.The message is that species must be conserved because it is impossible to determine which will be vitally important in the future.Humanity tends to judge the worth of a species based on its value to us now without knowing fully or even considering the role the species may play in nature.We really do not know what species will be important in the future.Moreover, we do not know yet to what extent how important the known species are in ecosystem processes.Too often we learn of the organism's role and importance in ecosystems only after it is gone.One important point of the book is that we do not realize or even appreciate the extent to which we are dependent on the natural world.

As the case of Biosphere Two clearly showed the world, placing a value on the importance of a species without knowing its role in ecosystems and food chains, merely based on arrogant and selfish notions of whether or not we derive some value from it is foolhardy.Biosphere Two also showed us that humanity can not do without Nature, but Nature, given its multi-billion year history, can and has done without us.The authors liken the world's creatures to a natural internet that is responsible for the air that we breathe, the water that we drink, and the rich fertile soil that we depend upon for the food that we eat.All of these gifts from Nature, unfortunately, are being tainted, damaged and destroyed by the greedy and selfish actions of humanity.Although many of the example organisms may not be new to some readers, the way in which these organisms interact, and the way in which Humanity has taken advantage of these interactions to enrich our lives gives all a deeper understanding of the importance of these and other organisms.

While some may criticize the call to save the natural world for economic gain, no one can argue with the authors' assertion that the natural world has served and will continue to serve as a basis for the development of new industries.Nor can it be argued that the natural world will become more important as a springboard for the solution to some of mankind's most pressing problems.While I firmly believe that the preservation of species and habitats solely for present or future economic exploitation is both arrogant and shortsighted, it tends to remain the only way to convince the world powers and corporate sultans to tread lightly around environments and habitats.Such a state of affairs is at once both deplorable and depressing, but I am optimistic that sane minds will rise above the current economically inspired rapacious environmental pillage and eventually prevail.

I fully acknowledge that our callous interference in natural evolutionary processes is a foolish gamble, and this book serves as indisputable proof.Many lifetimes of benefits are waiting to be discovered among Nature's bountiful gifts, and this book inspires me to find a few of them. ... Read more

Book Description
Bridging the gap between modern differential geometry and the mathematical physics of general relativity, this text, in its second edition, includes new and expanded material on topics such as the instability of both geodesic completeness and geodesic incompleteness for general space-times, geodesic connectibility, the generic condition, the sectional curvature function in a neighbourhood of degenerate two-plane, and proof of the Lorentzian Splitting Theorem.;Five or more copies may be ordered by college or university stores at a special student price, available on request. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Essential for an advanced student of relativity
My review is based on a previous edition of this text.I have seen the new (2nd) edition and it appears that several chapters have been added but the old chapters are essentially the same.

As of the time of this writing, I have only made it to the 2nd chapter (again, of the 1st edition).Nevertheless, I've read the introductory material in the introductory (1st) chapter several times, because it is so rich.

This text is perhaps most useful to a student who knows a few things about differential, to be more precise, Riemannian geometry (and is interested in general relativity).There are many differences between a Riemannian manifold and a Lorentzian manifold, where the latter metric is not positive definite in that the metric gives one negative eigenvalue.This text is quick to point out the differences, which is a great aid in understanding the new material.

I have some background in general relativity and from my experience in the subject there were many questions I had unanswered.This book is a blessing to me in that it has uncovered for me some of the mystery of Lorentzian manifolds, in particular space-times.There are still many things I do not understand but I am confident this text will aid me in getting a clearer picture.

I highly recommend this text to student of relativity theory who has an understanding of mathematical reasoning, and yearns for a stronger mathematical understanding of the Lorentzian manifold.The current edition is a bit expensive but even if you do not think it is worth it there are still some 1st editions floating around (#67 in the Dekker Pure & Applied Math Series) which are much cheaper.I may eventually buy the 2nd edition if I find the additional chapters make the book worth the price. ... Read more

Product Description
la bombe p ... Read more

Customer Reviews (6)

The Machinery of Nature
I used this book as one in a comparison of ecological books for different user populations. It is such a great read, due to author's amazing skills and knowledge on the subjects plus writing skills.The reader can learn ecological principles without even realizing it! However, the interest needs to still be there. And it may not be a substitute for a class room text book.

Hurry, Hurry- Read All About It!
The Machinery of Nature is for those who are interested in environmental management, its politics, development and business side OR for those who just want to read something.This book is full of information about the world around us and how everything, from abiotic to biotic, functions together.Paul Ehrlich really made me realize how much I want to protect our precious environment, in which life depends on, from wasteful resources.Ehrlich states in this book, "Each individual organism is constructed so that it can grow and reproduce in a given set of environmental conditions.If it finds itself outside the boundaries of that set of conditions, its chemical life processes grind to a halt.Too much cold or too little water will often take plants or animals beyond the limits of survival" (20).Human influence on the earth's environment has become a matter of public concern to most people because everyday we are losing a species from what humans do, even the little things, such as flick a cigarette bud out the window, or toss a gum wrapper in the bushes.Clean water resources and habitat quality are essential for the health of all living organisms.So let's not take this world for granted.My closing comment regarding this book to everyone is READ IT, LIVE IT, AND LEARN!

Hurry Hurry, Read All About It!
The Machinery of Nature is for those who are interested in environmental management, its politics, development and business side OR for those who just want to read something.This book is full of information about the world around us and how everything, from abiotic to biotic, functions together.Paul Ehrlich really made me realize how much I want to protect our precious environment, in which life depends on, from wasteful resources.Ehrlich states in this book, "Each individual organism is constructed so that it can grow and reproduce in a given set of environmental conditions.If it finds itself outside the boundaries of that set of conditions, its chemical life processes grind to a halt.Too much cold or too little water will often take plants or animals beyond the limits of survival" (20).Human influence on the earth's environment has become a matter of public concern to most people because everyday we are losing a species from what humans do, even the little things, such as flick a cigarette bud out the window, or toss a gum wrapper in the bushes.Clean water resources and habitat quality are essential for the health of all living organisms.So let's not take this world for granted.My closing comment regarding this book to everyone is READ IT, LIVE IT, AND LEARN!

The Machinery of Nature
This book is well-explained about the "machinery" of nature. The writer, Paul R. Ehrlich strongly insist that it is significant for us to understand how nature works to us human beings today. He issued many principles of physiological ecology, that how the relationship works with us and our surroundings. He mentioned why population sizes change and how . He gave us many detailed knowledge of examples of how nature goes in this world. He observed carefully toward each sex in the society, and defined who tend to live in a appropriate place, and how they live together. And at the end, the writer expound why we should upkeep our own life support system that maintain our ecosystem exology. I found out this book is very useful general study about our ilving system in Nature. And, Ehrlich is really concern at our natural environment.

The Machinery of Nature
This book is well-explained about the "machinery" of nature. The writer, Paul R. Ehrlich strongly insist that it is significant for us to understand how nature works to us human beings today. He issued many principles of physiological ecology, that how the relationship works with us and our surroundings. He mentioned why population sizes change and how . He gave us many detailed knowledge of examples of how nature goes in this world. He observed carefully toward each sex in the society, and defined who tend to live in a appropriate place, and how they live together. And at the end, the writer expound why we should upkeep our own life support system that maintain our ecosystem exology. I found out this book is very useful general study about our ilving system in Nature. And, Ehrlich is really concern at our natural environment. ... Read more