Scan barcode
seclement's review against another edition
2.0
I agree with the premise of this book. Austerity ecology isn't helping anyone. some people can have an entirely white, liberal, Western bias when they talk about solutions to the earth's problems. But this book? It is a massive straw man... a parody or a caricature of what environmentalists believe. With no sense that he is essentially taking the equivalent of a message board troll, his examples he seeks to disprove are Derrick Jensen and Naomi Klein. This is not difficult. Environmentalists, as a whole, are not arguing that poor people are consuming too much. They are suggesting that middle class Westerners consume more than they need, and we can Iearn to live more modestly...no sacrifice of "progress", however defined, required. And this denies nothing to the world's poor. To claim they want poor people to suffer is a sad tactic that the author fails to back with evidence. It would be like a book arguing that atheists are evil because...Hitler. I was really looking for evidence in favour of the cornucopian view, but the book simply fails to deliver any evidence at all. This book is a rant, and despite the reasonableness of its thesis, it fails to prove it.
catspajamas09's review against another edition
2.0
Evidently, Leigh Phillips wrote a 300-page takedown of degrowth without ever having spoken to one of its intelligible advocates. He awkwardly assumes that societal advancement must intensify individual consumption, which leads to arguments like “the steady-state economy must by definition refuse most technological advance, and even most new knowledge as well.” (Under Phillips’s definition of technological advance, public transportation and other shared services clearly don’t count.) Several pages later, in an attempt to universalize ecological conquest, Phillips deftly implies that indigenous resource management practices were comparable to the devastating practices wrought by European imperialists. Regrettably, Phillips invokes a rejection of the “Ecological Indian” trope to make this point—the worst of many bad moments in this book.
I nearly lost my ability to continue in Chapter Four, where Phillips argues that ecological balance is an empty concept because species extinctions occur in the absence of humans, too. With astonishing confidence and a “gotcha” attitude, he rides this wave all the way to a refutation of Evo Morales and the Bolivian Constitution.
From this point forward, the book began to improve. There were two critiques that I found especially valuable: First, Phillips's climate rebuttal of "localist" food, labor, and consumer movements, which he argues "fit within and contribute to a broader mood of abandonment of the possibility of any type of post-capitalist society." There is a strong argument that progressive movements focus too much of a critique on scale (e.g., corporation vs. small business) and not enough on the relations of production. Second, Phillips's criticism of "expert" consensus-based (i.e., post-democratic) governance, which he argues are actually less capable of catalyzing the transformative changes needed to halt the climate crisis than democracy. Instead, Phillips calls for "genuine transnational democracy [which] means an abandonment of polite but undemocratic stakeholder negotiations between bureaucrats, diplomats, and their experts, and the welcome return of robust ideological antagonism" to tackle 21st century global crises.
I tried with this book, and I was legitimately excited to engage with a purportedly “progressive” rebuttal to degrowth. Overall, I'm disappointed. Occasionally, Phillips does offer interesting and important views, but they are far outweighed by narrow-minded—and at times, flat out ignorant—"hot takes."
I nearly lost my ability to continue in Chapter Four, where Phillips argues that ecological balance is an empty concept because species extinctions occur in the absence of humans, too. With astonishing confidence and a “gotcha” attitude, he rides this wave all the way to a refutation of Evo Morales and the Bolivian Constitution.
From this point forward, the book began to improve. There were two critiques that I found especially valuable: First, Phillips's climate rebuttal of "localist" food, labor, and consumer movements, which he argues "fit within and contribute to a broader mood of abandonment of the possibility of any type of post-capitalist society." There is a strong argument that progressive movements focus too much of a critique on scale (e.g., corporation vs. small business) and not enough on the relations of production. Second, Phillips's criticism of "expert" consensus-based (i.e., post-democratic) governance, which he argues are actually less capable of catalyzing the transformative changes needed to halt the climate crisis than democracy. Instead, Phillips calls for "genuine transnational democracy [which] means an abandonment of polite but undemocratic stakeholder negotiations between bureaucrats, diplomats, and their experts, and the welcome return of robust ideological antagonism" to tackle 21st century global crises.
I tried with this book, and I was legitimately excited to engage with a purportedly “progressive” rebuttal to degrowth. Overall, I'm disappointed. Occasionally, Phillips does offer interesting and important views, but they are far outweighed by narrow-minded—and at times, flat out ignorant—"hot takes."
sillypunk's review against another edition
5.0
Great read, I hope it's taken to heart by lots of people: https://blogendorff.ghost.io/book-review-austerity-ecology-and-the-collapse-porn-addicts/
beepbeepbooks's review against another edition
4.0
I liked this a lot. Phillips succinctly breaks down many of the myths that continue to harp the left in the distinction between progress and capitalism. In fighting capitalism, the moralizing tendencies of some on the left to push back against consumption and blame consumers or working class folk for their habits and lifestyles sometimes seems to stifle genuine solidarity, but Phillips points to a new agenda for the left to navigate the future.
That is to say though, that Phillips has quite the tone. It's sardonic and caustic, and even when he may be correct, the way he says it continues to hamper me giving him full support. But a fine view of of how to make this full automated luxury communism dream realized.
That is to say though, that Phillips has quite the tone. It's sardonic and caustic, and even when he may be correct, the way he says it continues to hamper me giving him full support. But a fine view of of how to make this full automated luxury communism dream realized.
narwhal's review
4.0
Contains interesting ideas. Good ideas, even. This book critiques the green-left movement and suggests ways to adapt to climate crisis in ways that use technological strengths instead of shunning them, and that increase public good instead of private reward. I'm all for it. The writing is blunt, jolting, and often entertaining; it's like a cup of cold water in the face, especially if you are familiar with and support the work of environmentalists like Naomi Klein and Bill McKibben.
This guy challenges some of the squishier ideas of the eco-movement by saying, with supporting research, that fears of genetically modified crops, nuclear power, and economic growth might be unfounded and worth revisiting. It's great food for thought. But the book often feels like a long rant against Naomi Klein. It's strangely specific that way in many chapters. I get that she's a major figure with a slightly differing philosophy, but his arguments get weaker when they narrow down to Klein so often.
Overall, though, this book helped me sharpen my thinking on climate, so I'm glad I read it. 4/5
This guy challenges some of the squishier ideas of the eco-movement by saying, with supporting research, that fears of genetically modified crops, nuclear power, and economic growth might be unfounded and worth revisiting. It's great food for thought. But the book often feels like a long rant against Naomi Klein. It's strangely specific that way in many chapters. I get that she's a major figure with a slightly differing philosophy, but his arguments get weaker when they narrow down to Klein so often.
Overall, though, this book helped me sharpen my thinking on climate, so I'm glad I read it. 4/5
More...