• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Alan Weisman: The World Without Us

beer good

Well-Known Member
After a decade or two, nature - first plants, then wild animals - will have taken over our cities. Much to the horror of those species that depend on us for their survival, both those we've domesticated and those we consider vermin. New York City will finally be free of cockroaches, that's something, right?

After a hundred years or two, our modern concrete-and-cardboard houses will have started falling apart (if they haven't already burned down or been flooded or knocked over by earthquakes.) Our domesticated animals and plants will for the most part be extinct, replaced by species that know how to survive in the wild; horses and cats will probably make it, cows and pigs may survive on isolated islands where we've gotten rid of predators and natural competition (Hawaii, Great Britain). Some of our most celebrated feats of engineering - the Panama canal, the skyscrapers, the subway systems - will probably be destroyed.

After a few thousand years, most of our artefacts will be as invisible as the Mayan cities were before they were rediscovered a few decades ago. Some of our more well-constructed buildings and artworks - the pyramids, the great cathedrals and temples, Mount Rushmore, the Channel Tunnel, every bronze statue ever made - may still be around, even if they've started falling apart with no one to maintain them. The forests will have slowly started to spread across the world again.

After a few hundred thousand years, microbes may have evolved to eat the plastic we've left behind. CO2 levels will probably have returned to pre-1800s levels. Much of the radiation from the 400 nuclear reactors that went Chernobyl with nobody to maintain them will have dissipated. There will still be traces of the human race - both in ancient caves and ruins and in the form of chromed, stainless-steel cookware - which in a million years or two may or may not puzzle some other species which may or may not slowly start to take our place.

If we were to disappear today.

That's the basic premise that makes up The World Without Us; the human race vanishes - either instantly (raptured by a deity, kidnapped by aliens) or within a generation or two (a virus, a voluntary extinction movement). The how and why isn't really important for the thought experiment; just assume that all ~7 billion of us were suddenly gone without destroying everything else in the process. What would happen to the rest of the world?

In order to answer the question Weisman has put together an impressive picture with the help of experts from multiple disciplines, looking at our history and our present to predict a future that doesn't have us in it. Naturally, his purpose isn't to wish for the death of the human race, but to put a perspective on how we live today. And for the most part, it's a fascinating read even if he's a little too fond of details at times and there's a couple of points which are based on slightly dodgy assumptions. Up until the somewhat preachy ending he rarely takes a moral stance, just describes the impact - for better or worse - that the human race has had on the planet since we first discovered fire, and will continue to have for some time to come, along with well-founded speculations of what might happen if we suddenly left it alone. The world would do fine without us, he concludes - illustrating it most poignantly with visits to some of he very few areas in the world which humans have left alone for a few decades (ironically, usually due to war - the DMZs in Korea and Cyprus, for instance) and have quickly been reclaimed by nature. It's survived a lot worse, after all. But as long as we're its guests, we should at least be aware of when we're tracking mud over the floor.

:star4:
 
Up until the somewhat preachy ending he rarely takes a moral stance,

:star4:
I'm more than a little interested in that preachy stance, since it seems to me that for man to live in the environment involves his pushing it, at least a little, and probably more than a little, away from the course it wants to take all by itself -- farming it, mining it, building on it, conserving water, finding energy, etc. So the question would seem to come down to how much is enough and what is too much impact? According to what/whose (frequently unstated) criteria?
The connection between his premise (no people) and his conclusion (us people) would seem to be far from obvious. :confused:
 
I'm more than a little interested in that preachy stance, since it seems to me that for man to live in the environment involves his pushing it, at least a little, and probably more than a little, away from the course it wants to take all by itself -- farming it, mining it, building on it, conserving water, finding energy, etc.

Exactly, which is pretty much the point he makes throughout. Which is also why I don't see why the difference between the premise and the conclusion should be confusing. Fact is, we're not going to disappear anytime soon unless we make ourselves (and most of everything else) disappear by violent means. And while we are here, we cannot not influence the environment - in fact, we would continue to do so for thousands of years even if we were to disappear; the way the world looks today, we might actually do more good simply by being around to clean up the mess we've made so far.

So the question would seem to come down to how much is enough and what is too much impact? According to what/whose (frequently unstated) criteria?

Well, that's where him and I part company. On the last few pages he suggests that one way of minimizing our negative influence both over ourselves and the world at large would be to introduce a global one-child-per-family rule, eventually scaling our population back to about 2 billion people by natural means... which I disagree with; that's taking his reductio ad absurdum to a rather absurd reduction. That doesn't make the rest of the book any less interesting, though.

Of course, one could always go the other path and, like Lee Iacocca, "pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we need?" That worked out well for GM, as I recall. ;)
 
Thanks for you reply.
It still doesn't sound to me like a world whose man-made features are naturally rotting their way back to a tree-covered natural state makes much of an argument one way or the other for anything we do in the meantime, if in the end it is all going to be the same.

However it does sound like an interesting book to look at when I get to a bookstore again.

2 billion by natural means? :lol:
 
It still doesn't sound to me like a world whose man-made features are naturally rotting their way back to a tree-covered natural state makes much of an argument one way or the other for anything we do in the meantime, if in the end it is all going to be the same.

After a few hundred thousand years, microbes may have evolved to eat the plastic we've left behind. CO2 levels will probably have returned to pre-1800s levels. Much of the radiation from the 400 nuclear reactors that went Chernobyl with nobody to maintain them will have dissipated.
Not to mention that personally, I kind of like the idea of living in a world that wouldn't need thousands of years to start recovering. Because obviously, like I said, we're not going to disappear overnight, so we might as well try and make the best of it while we're here, no?

2 billion by natural means? :lol:

I don't think it's unrealistic from a purely biological/mathematical POV - we crossed the 2 billion mark as recently as 1927, after all. If we were to cut back on childbirth - not just officially, but in fact enforce it - our numbers would drop in a couple of generations. Whether it's politically realistic and morally correct is another question, of course.
 
This was a fascinating book full of disturibing, surprising information. Not being a fan of people, I also loved the chapter about the voluntary extinction of mankind. As someone who never intends to have children, I already subscribe to this idea. I just had no idea there was an actual organised movement trying to make it happen.
 
Heteronym,
Hmm. Even ignoring the eventual outcome, a world without children in the meantime sounds rather bleak and cheerless. While not taking any issue with your own personal decision, might I ask the benefit of that for the world at large?
Or you can just tell me to read the book.
Or browse the chapter at the library.
Just curious.
:flowers:
 
First i will blame BG for his too good summary of the book.You really make it sound very appealing and so maybe i was expecting too much.
My main critic is that it is more a ecological statement of our world today(which is obviously the base of any pronostic) than a real projection of what might happen if we disapeared.
I tought the title was a bit of a commercial catch.
The segond critic is the very americano-centrist(does this world exist?)point of view of the author.Felt a bit like "the US without us" at limes.
In the most interesting part, which is the slow desapearence of our cities,his near sole exemple is New York.A parralle with Rome,London or Paris,old cities with sturdier structures would have been good.
The all part about panama canal seem artificial,it is quite obvious that it would be gone fast,just look at the suronding!.Plus the violin about the work of Teddy been erased but his sharp looks been here forever in Monument valley ....
The conclusion about the overpopulation is also a bit biased.Nowhere is taken in fact that most country reaching a state of oppulance sees it rate decreasing,children are retirement of the poors.
In short,no much surprises in there and not very original.
Even if it is globaly quite interesting,i spent my time been frustrated by long overdetailed part when not needed and some place cut short it was starting to be good.
:star3:and not very shiny ones.
 
I see you points, but I'm not sure I agree completely.

My main critic is that it is more a ecological statement of our world today(which is obviously the base of any pronostic) than a real projection of what might happen if we disapeared.
I'm pretty sure that's the point, though I do think it managed to be both. What about the projection didn't you think worked?

I tought the title was a bit of a commercial catch.
Oh, absolutely. Reminds me of this post:
Book titles, if they were written today

In the most interesting part, which is the slow desapearence of our cities,his near sole exemple is New York.A parralle with Rome,London or Paris,old cities with sturdier structures would have been good.
Actually, given that it's an American book, he spent a lot more on buildings like the Haga Sofia and the Channel Tunnel than I expected.
 
I'm pretty sure that's the point, though I do think it managed to be both. What about the projection didn't you think worked?

They all were good,it was mostly in relation with the title.More an ecological statement,with or without us does not really matter(unless the dubious "we desapear so suddenly their is not time to switch of thing...")


The part about Istanbul is scarry.I heard a few times those catastrophic prediction by seismologist,one saying"if i ever go back to Istambul,i'll be staying in a camping,the only safe place".Knowing the veracity of it all,i certainly would to.

I'm a bit unfair,really,the part about Cyprus was very good,i'd love to visit.I just which more was said about older cities.
 
Back
Top