Read The World Without Us by Alan Weisman Online


"On the day after humans disappear, nature takes over and immediately begins cleaning house - or houses, that is. Cleans them right off the face of the earth. They all go."What if mankind disappeared right now, forever ... what would happen to the Earth in a week, a year, a millennium? Could the planet's climate ever recover from human activity? How would nature destroy ou"On the day after humans disappear, nature takes over and immediately begins cleaning house - or houses, that is. Cleans them right off the face of the earth. They all go."What if mankind disappeared right now, forever ... what would happen to the Earth in a week, a year, a millennium? Could the planet's climate ever recover from human activity? How would nature destroy our huge cities and our myriad plastics? And what would our final legacy be?Speaking to experts in fields as diverse as oil production and ecology, and visiting the places that have escaped recent human activity to discover how they have adapted to life without us, Alan Weisman paints an intriguing picture of the future of Earth. Exploring key concerns of our time, this absorbing thought experiment reveals a powerful - and surprising - picture of our planet's future....

Title : The World Without Us
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9780753513576
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 287 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

The World Without Us Reviews

  • Stephanie *Very Stable Genius*
    2019-01-08 19:22

    If you are like me “The World Without Us” will cause you want to do one of two things. A: Find a remote wilderness and build a cabin. Add a few chickens, goats, cows ect. and live off the land with as much peace of mind you can muster until man destroys the planet. Or B. Say "AWWW F**K IT", and put all regular, old fashioned light bulbs in all your lamps and turn them on. Leave your house, with the air conditioner running, get in your Hummer, and drive across the country…..just because you can. Eat as much factory farmed meat as you can stand on the way…..’cause you are crazy like that! Steal a truck loaded with nuclear waste and drive it Thelma and Louise style into the Grand Canyon, committing a spectacular environmental suicide. I feel better now. This book is a very good book, but it is a tad, well, depressing. I recommend it because (not only do I want to drag you down with me) of its important information. We all need to be informed. The World Without Us examines what the earth would be like if man were to just disappear. How long would it take the earth to rid itself of all traces of us? Turns out not very long geologically, but bronze statues and Barbie and Ken in the landfill will stand the test of time. One point the author makes, our problems (well most of them) could be fixed, or greatly improved, if all women of child bearing age would agree to have just one child. I don’t see this happening but, I do think maybe we should stop glorifying women who have litters of children. That would be a start.

  • Mateo
    2018-12-24 16:27

    Yeah, what you've heard about this book is true: It really is very good, very scary, very depressing--AND it's written entirely in Spurdlish, a language I just made up that consists only of the letter 't'. If it only enabled fire ants to slowly liquify Dick Cheney, it would be perfect.Okay, I'm kidding about the Spurdlish, but, yeah, great book. Weisman doesn't just speculate on what happens to your house or the NYC subways or the pyramids once we've all been raptured off to Heaven. (Hint: That expensive kitchen remodel you did? Hopefully it's in a color that raptors enjoy.) The book is really about what we're doing to the planet, and how long our nefarious activities will outlast us. The news is both good and bad: nature tends to adapt to just about anything--think wildflowers blooming in Chernobyl--but there are still some future scenarios that are pretty hellish. Yes. More hellish than Boca Raton, Florida. Between the PCBs, the fluorocarbons, the dioxins, the plutonium, the global warming, and those uncounted zillions of plastic microparticles now gutting everything from krill to blue whales, the planet's in for a rough ride for a while, even if aliens appear in the skies tomorrow and suck us up through the galaxy's biggest straw.Weisman writes quite well and the panoply of places he visits is worth the price of admission: reserves in Kenya, the Korean DMZ, the Panama Canal, the American Southwest, Turkish caves, Pacific atolls, etc., etc. I'm glad someone could write about them before they're swallowed up in Pepsi bottles and plastic bags. It's tempting, when reading the book, to take the long view of things, that the Earth endures and that if we disappear from our own foolishness, it's no great loss. In fact, it's hard to escape the conclusion that we deserve extinction for all that we're doing. And yet that seems to me to be both simplistic and disingenuous. For all the evil we've done through our greed, our cruelty, and our shortsightedness, we have produced some real marvels, whether it's the Parthenon or a newborn child. We are a remarkable species, perhaps unreplaceable, and it will be a loss to the biosphere when we go. Of course, in the end all things must pass, as some Liverpool philosopher once put it, but the end is not yet here and there's still much to enjoy. (Do those who wish an end to humanity really believe what they say? Who amongst them is willing to commit suicide for the sake of a better planet?) Let's hope that we gain the wisdom to enjoy it all, and preserve it for a better future.

  • brian
    2019-01-09 21:26

    the world without us... would be a better place. well, not for the dogs. they'd die out pretty quickly. and since dogs are the greatest things on the planet, it gives one pause. but, no. the badness of all the bad shit we've done outweighs even the goodness of the dogs. the kanamits aren't gonna 'serve us' anytime soon, a virus probably couldn't take everyone out, war certainly won't... so here are two options:1) we simply stop procreating and peacefully die off, leaving behind a near (not total. remember the dog situation) paradise. www.vhemt.org2. we commit to the 'four pillars' of the church of euthanasia: suicide, abortion, cannibalism, sodomy. are some of my favorite people on the planet. 1. i'm pro-abortion.2. i'm vegetarian -- but could be convinced to eat a human way before a sweet, gentle cow or pig. 3. i'm pro-sodomy. 4. i don't really wanna kill myself. but i have no problem if you want to. in fact, you should. everyone should kill themselves except for me. and rosario dawson. we'd live out our lives with each other and the dogs. it'd be me, rosario, and five millions dogs traveling the globe, swimming in lakes climbing trees, rolling around on grassy fields... at night the dogs would ball up together and create the world's largest and warmest mattress for me & my girl. and then, after a few decades, we'd all run indian-chasing-bison-style off a cliff. finis.

  • Colin McKay Miller
    2019-01-12 15:19

    In The World Without Us, Alan Weisman attempts to answer the question of what would happen to the earth if, for whatever reason, humans were to completely disappear tomorrow. While it’s a fascinating premise, one that Weisman undoubtedly put a lot of time and effort into, the execution falters. Inevitably, it’s hard to stretch what was initially a short essay into a full book, but that’s how The World Without Us got going. Structurally, the book is broken down into four parts with chapters discussing what would happen to the earth, both in the manmade and in what man has altered in nature, including cities, power plants, nukes, art, farmland, bacteria, animals and creatures of the ocean. In reading this book it’s clear that Weisman realized that, a) that it’s strange to read a book without any people; and b) in order to predict the future, you must delve into the past. As a result of this, The World Without Us is more about history than the future. Weisman interviews a number of people from all walks of life/viewpoints and there’s a fat bibliography at the end. He strives for accuracy in his predictions, even though it’s based on what we currently know. It’s like when you see a science fiction movie: all the future computers are still based on the technology we have available now. Though Weisman succeeds in not being preachy, the theories he presents are still debatable. There are a few areas I’d argue with him and since time has gone by since publication, recent history is contending to debate with his theories, too. In certain parts though, as with the section on Galveston, TX (hit with a massive hurricane in 1900, then again in 2008, a year after the book was published), Weisman’s assertions remain true. So what’s the problem then? The World Without Us has a great premise, is well researched and historically accurate (depending on who you ask today), but it’s not all that interesting. It seems like Alan Weisman realized it, too, as the hook chapters to each part are far more interesting than the remainder of each section (save the terse final part which is fairly solid throughout). You get drawn in by a few fascinating chapters, then you have to wade through the meandering text until the next hook spikes interest. I’d find my mind wandering, wishing it were more of dystopian fiction based on environmentalism. Maybe that means I should just stay away from nonfiction science books where inevitably, after enough time has gone by and enough new data has popped up, it’ll be laughed off the shelf. Two stars. Barely.

  • Marcus
    2019-01-20 22:39

    I enjoyed the premise, but the execution was a snoozer. I'm not sure if it was the author's soporific style, or that I was let down by his overly repetitive rundown on floral succession: "asparagus and trumpet vine take hold as dingleberries and snorfle-weed provide shade..." Over and over; it felt like the author was attempting to display the fact that he did thorough investigation with environmental biologists and was flexing his bio street cred, After the first 4 times, the remaining 18 were overkill.I did learn that there's a voluntary human extinction movement, something I found interesting and hadn't heard of before. Of course, he only devoted 1 paragraph of the book to something that was actually novel and interesting. I also enjoyed the exploration of human works in a human-less scenario (what would happen to subways, oil wells, nuclear power plants, statues, domestic farms, dams, etc.) but felt that the author took few risks. For example, he might have investigated what the probabilities were for a human extinction scenario. I understand that that may not have been crucial to his discussion of a world already without humans, but without discussing what would bring about that scenario, the book is little more than one of those semi-drunk, "what-if" imagination games you play while sitting at a bar. "If you were trapped on a deserted island . . ."To say the book ended with a whimper would be an understatement. It felt like he was just tired of writing, or that his editor said he needed to put the thing to bed. Either way, it was mildly entertaining and mildly educational, meaning it was also mildly a waste of time.

  • Michael
    2018-12-25 18:32

    Well written and researched exploration of the premise of how the world would change if humans suddenly disappeared from the earth. This ostensible absurd premise turns out to be a very useful lens to view many important environmental and ecological issues. Several chapters, such as those on plastics and nuclear waste, are distressing as their impacts are incalculably long lasting. The ones on how fast pockets of biodiversity might spread or how quickly highly stressed areas might recover are reassuring. Weisman gets a lot of help from an army of experts and does well to make the focus of each chapter come from the first person perspectives of relevant field or laboratory scientists. The diverse riffs on urban sites include an abandoned city in the Turkish zone of Cyprus, which after a few decades appears to be disassembled surprisingly fast by the forces of nature. The virtual disappearance of great Mayan cities into the jungle is another fascinating example of the ephemeral quality of civilizations. The human-caused extinctions of so many species are obviously not reversible, but the fate of domestic animals, agricultural species, and alien species introduced far and wide make great subjects of his creative speculations from historical and evolutionary perspectives. A consideration of what human-made structures will last the longest turns up some surprises. The Panama Canal apparently won't last long, but many structures made of stone, bronze, or ceramic will persist until crumbled by another ice age or tectonic folding. A nice coda to the book is a reflection on how the examples of human literature and music sent out of the solar system with the Voyager spacecraft will likely outlast the sun.Update Weisman is back on the job pondering Earth's fate with a follow-up that puts people back into the picture. I look forward to reading his account of the challenge of overpopulation of our planet, published at the end of Sept. 2013: Our Last Best Hope for a Future on Earth?

  • Jim
    2019-01-13 17:18

    The Coda (last chapter) should probably be read first as it sums up the thrust of the book & it's not what the description & title suggest. It started out as billed, a look at what the world would look like if we disappeared, but devolved into a platform for an environmental rant with some snide political remarks thrown in. If it was a little better balanced & thorough or if it offered any solutions, I'd like it more since I'm a tree hugger, too. It's generally negative, though. He doesn't seem to like the human race much. It was great that his examples are drawn from all around the world, but if this wasn't an audio book, I would have abandoned it by the half mark. Weisman obviously isn't a scientist, although he spent time with some fascinating ones in preparing this book. Too many of his statements are poorly phrased & his presentation shows far too much bias. I'm not a scientist either, but I knew enough about several topics to catch him & did a bit of research several other times his logic seemed strained. Both literally & figuratively, he often can't see the forest for the trees. Worse, he often doesn't try, but anyone with a modicum of curiosity will find a variety of interesting ideas to research more on their own.He does a great job in showing that many of our large works are not as permanent as they seem. Most exist only because of continual, often massive maintenance. Perhaps the best example of this is the Panama Canal. He devotes a fair amount of space to discussing just how quickly the rain & jungle would wash it away. Unfortunately, the entire section is weakened by his snide outline of U.S. foreign policy, a topic he had no business addressing in this book, especially in such a cavalier fashion. It simply proved his bias.Some of our changes to the environment are obvious & horrible, the best example being the ocean sinks & coral beds that are choked with plastics & other polymers. Some are invisible, but just as or more deadly, & will last practically forever, such as in the case of dioxins & PCBs. Others may make radical changes that will last for centuries, such as lime or other changes to the soil that change the order & types of regrowth, if we were to disappear. These he condemns without fully discussing how much the exact composition really matters from the larger perspective, though.I'm no happier than he is about the extinction of the American Chestnut or Passenger Pigeon, but other species have taken their ecological niches, for better or worse. I doubt the squirrels are upset over having to eat more acorns & hickory nuts rather than chestnuts, though. Rock doves & starlings have filled in for the Passenger Pigeon, haven't they? If not, what is still out of balance? I wish he would have addressed this more fully, but much of it is guess work & he tended to just write it off as bad. I was intrigued by his examples of how much man changed nature even before the Industrial Revolution. For instance, each wave of immigrants to the Americas has made huge changes. Clovis Man (first wave) may well be the cause of the extinction of the mega-mammals either through hunting or disease, a rather interesting parallel with our (fourth wave) immigration & its effects on the second & third wave immigrants (AKA Native Americans), although he only vaguely alludes to it. He also points out some other fallacies in our current perceptions about what 'natural' ecosystems were like over the ages. He didn't go into enough detail on some. For instance, it would have been nice if he had researched desertification a bit more. He points out the most obvious causes, but missed others. He especially missed all the efforts aimed at eradicating it which is far more instructive for a natural recovery.Unfortunately, his agenda continually skews & limits his facts. For instance, his distaste for electrical generation disrupting the natural environment is obvious. Coal & nuclear plants are targeted many times over the course of the book. He never mentions what the alternatives are besides doing without, though. Hydro-electric dams & wind turbines are never mentioned at all, yet he spends a lot of time pointing out that radio & cell towers kill possibly a billion birds each year with their flashing red lights, electromagnetic radiation, & guy wires. Wind turbines combine not only all the hazards of the others, but add in spinning blades. Unlike the other towers where dead birds are usually quickly cleaned up by scavengers, wind turbines often have so many piled up that crews have to remove them. I can only conclude that he likes them because they're 'clean' energy & thus he again proves his bias.Many of his opinions on the survival of species don't make sense to me. In the beginning he says our cattle, goats, horses, & dogs will probably die out once we are gone yet there are plenty of examples of all of these species going feral successfully. He doesn't mention pigs or sheep at all, but they are two of the most extreme examples. Feral hogs are notoriously capable & destructive (Now a real problem in my area.) while most sheep would die immediately. He does discuss the dangers of the common house cat to the environment, although they are in a different section, one dealing with his love of birds. (Toward the end he changed this somewhat & briefly mentioned pigs.)So overall, I can't give this book the high rating some of the facts & research deserve. They're just too badly skewed. As food for thought, it has some points of interest, but most facts & every opinion should be taken with a large dose of salts. It's certainly not definitive, but could serve as a springboard for more thorough research on any topics of interest.

  • Riku Sayuj
    2018-12-26 20:18

    I am disappointed that in spite of the tremendous scope, the book never manages to rise beyond the past and the present and truly explore its potential - that of imagining a post-human world, far into the future. Most of the book was about the world before humans and about how we have changed it. This was interesting and informative, but was not really the reason I started the book and was not what the dust jacket promised.But, despite the shortcomings or rather the under delivery, it still manages simultaneously to be a celebration of our existence, a warning about our imminent departure, a swan song for humanity, a warning for a world on the brink and also an evocative and imaginative pointer on our place in this world. And for that, this book is worth reading.If all mankind were to disappear, the world would regenerate back to the rich state of equilibrium that existed ten thousand years ago. If insects were to vanish, the environment would collapse into chaos.~ E. O. Wilson

  • Glenn
    2019-01-07 20:24

    I came across this book on a jaunt around the web, and, I suspect like most people, thought “what an amazing idea!” The only question I had in hearing about it was whether the writing in the book would live up to its premise.It does, effortlessly. There is real, unforced poetry in Alan's writing, lines like “Rills lined with yellow asters flow soundlessly across spongy, hummocked meadows, so rain-logged that streams appear to float,” and, in a wonderful description of a famous mountain, he unfurls the lines “an hour southeast of Nairobi, Kilimanjaro appears, its shrinking snowcap dripping butterscotch under the rising sun.” These evocative, writerly lines contrast beautifully with the “just-the-facts, ma'am” approach of so much of the book--where Alan, having spoken with experts in various fields, lays out simply how events will transpire once we are gone, the full impact of what he lays out before us amplified by being presenting so cleanly, with such clarity.. And he does something remarkable in this book, considering the subject matter. He gives the reader a vivid sense of wonder at the doings of the natural world, a palpable sense of awe at how our little detour on the course of history will be covered and gone, no matter what we wreak upon the planet. Well, not entirely covered....Because there's also the horror at what we have done. At the poisons we have placed into the environment, seemingly forgetting that we are participants in the very environment we sicken, and at the short-sightedness of so much that goes into what we call “progress.” There are many moments in the book where a reader may need to close the cover, to gather themselves, in order to continue. For me, one of those moments was where the University of Plymouth marine biologist explained what he found while browsing in a pharmacy; for you there will surely be others. The fact is, there is much included in “The World Without Us” that goes far toward explaining how discussion provoked by this book will surely feel like it is concerning an eventuality not quite as far away as might feel comfortable. This book asks, over and over again, literally and philosophically, what will we leave behind? When it no longer matters what happens to us because of extinction, what will endure? Alan quotes Doug Irwin, who says “Humans are going extinct eventually…but life will continue…I figure it's interesting to be here now; I'm not going to get all upset about it.” And perhaps in Irwin's matter of fact acceptance of simply “being here now” lies some salvation. Perhaps we, as a species, could recognize our fleeting time on this earth, and cherish both that short time and the place, and each, in our own small way, make the place one worth living in, and our effect on it worth celebrating beyond our stay.

  • 4triplezed
    2019-01-05 20:39

    For a science duffer like me this was easy to read and I would recommend it. So us westerners have left depleted uranium with a half life of 4.5 billion years all over Iraq and expect them to like us? Ha! I had no idea of the ramifications of depleted uranium, heck the science side of this has passed me by. Stupid me. How could I have not given thought to armour piecing weaponry that leaves radiation traces of a half life of 4.5 billion years. Depending on who one wants to believe all that for either getting rid of weapons of mass destruction and/or getting hold of all that oil. Did I mention a half life of 4.5 billion years? Oh I did? Well according to this there is half a million tons of the stuff still lying around the US alone. Is it/was it worth it? Going to take a lot of convincing for this little black duck. But lets not worry about that and look at all those nice buildings and monuments and various other man-made items that our species is so proud of. Once we are gone? They all go except maybe Mount Rushmore. That Panama Canal. Did I say that those weapons we have been using in the middle east leave radiation with a half life of 4.5 billion years? Oh yeah I did. Oh well at least a really nice ditch we have dug will fall over after only about 100 years if there is no one around to look after it and not long after no one will ever know of it's existence. Yeah good book but pity about that last chapter and it's mystical electro magmatic brain wave stuff. I am sure the author meant well.

  • Shannon (Giraffe Days)
    2019-01-19 16:32

    This is one of the most amazing books I've ever read. I simply can't get over how fantastic, informative, well-written, and mind-opening it is. Wow, where do I start?The book revolves around the hypothetical question: What would happen if all humans disappeared tomorrow? Would anything we created survive? Would anything miss us?The short answer is: very little, not really. It's a blow to our ego perhaps, but true nevertheless. The only creatures who are dependent on us for survival are the miniscule mites that live on and in our bodies, eating our dead skin cells before we suffocate in them, and nasty bacterias.This is not a doomsday book. It's actually playfully optimistic, and is more of a history and science lesson than a judgement on our sins. Though the evidence is plentiful that we are in fact killing the planet that sustains us.Weisman covers everything from our leaky homes - describing in detail exactly how they would fall apart without our constant care - to the early years of home sapiens and our impact on wildlife; from art to nuclear power to the oceans. I learnt so much, my head is literally buzzing. Some of it is downright scary, but I'm not one to put my head in the sand and expect someone else to take care of it all.If you're interested in history, science, environmentalism, impressing people at dinner parties with your knowledge or just plain interested: this is the book for you!

  • Carlos
    2019-01-18 20:42

    This book was very informative but a little bit naive in it approach. I don't think that humans are going anywhere in the near future so drawing conclusions from an scenario that will likely never happen seems a little bit masturbatory but at least among all the information in this book , there is some usefulness. It is also very good to gain knowledge about the fauna and flora that went extinct because of human involvement. And I was surprised by the conclusion of the book where it stated that the one solution that would work both for nature an humanity is to restrict all females in the world to just one offspring. A conclusion that while it would work pragmatically, I think it is at best a pipe dream .

  • Leonard Gaya
    2019-01-01 20:41

    This is a worldwide exploration documentary book, in the fashion of Jacques Cousteau, or more recently a few BBC programs. The inciting question is a bit strange: what would happen, should the whole of the human race suddenly vanish from the face of the Earth? Of course, even if entire populations could be decimated by war or natural catastrophes, an utter extinction of the human race is a highly improbable event. Still, this odd hypothesis is a way of exploring how much humanity’s footprint has changed and is still changing this planet, and reflect about the possible legacy of our current global civilisation.Weisman, a journalist and nonfiction writer, investigates different aspects of this question. He starts off pointing out how much human beings, since they left their African cradle, have changed their environment; one illustration being the mass animal extinctions, due to human development, that have already taken place since prehistorical times (e.g. the giant proboscideans of the Holocene). These extinctions have been going on, presumably at an ever increasing pace, up to the present time. But if human beings disappeared, what would happen in the immediate aftermath or in the farthest future? What would become of our houses, our sometimes massive megalopolis? What would become of the unfathomable amount of waste (especially plastic waste) that we are continually dumping into the soil and into the ocean? What would become of our highly hazardous petrochemical and nuclear facilities? What would become of our major achievements to transform the environment? What would become of the climate of our planet, that (despite the outrageous and deceitful denial of some politicians in recent times) we are contributing to change in radical ways? What will become of our intellectual and artistic legacy?Weisman has travelled the world to find some answers, from New-York to the Panama Canal, from Korea to Cyprus and from Houston to the atolls of the Pacific Ocean, and overall his research is well documented albeit easy to read… What I take away from this book is that, should we suddenly depart, we would leave the Earth in a pretty disastrous state. But in time, perhaps a very long time (possibly millions of years), wild nature would wipe away almost all memory of our presence on this planet. The hitch is that, for now, we are still around and more and more so: what calamity we might well leave behind will sadly be for our descendants to live or die with and, hopefully, mend. It seems Weisman's more recent book advocates some form of demographic decline, as a solution to this massive issue…

  • Sarah ~
    2018-12-27 14:25

    The World Without Us - Alan Weismanماذا لو انقرض البشر يومًا ما؟كيف ستتعامل الطبيعة مع هذا؟ كيف ستعيش باقي المخلوقات في عالم يخلو من البشر ؟ماذا سيبقى من البشر، ماذا سيبقى من حضارتهم، مدنهم وحياتهم اليومية؟هذا جزء بسيط من الأسئلة التي يطرحها ويجيب عليها هذا الكتاب، وعلى ما يبدو أن مدننا ستندثر خلال 500 عام إذا كانت الجو معتدلًا والأمطار متوسطة وفي النهاية قد لا يتبقى سوى الصلب الخام وبعض الأطلال.قد يكون الإنسان "الكائن الذكى والمهيمن على الكوكب" ولكنه ليس الأقوى بل هو ضعيف وإذا فكرنا قليلًا بكل نقاط ضعفه وهشاشته فإن احتمالات انقراضه ليست بتلك الإستحالة، وأيضًا فكرة أن ينقرض البشر (وحدهم) دون غيرهم من المخلوقات قد تكون مستبعده، لكنها ليسَت مستحيلة ..فد يبدو من قراءة أولية للكتاب أن الطبيعة قد تبلي حسنًا من دوننا، ولكن بعد نظرة معمقة لن يكون هذا سهلًا بسبب ما سنتركه ورائنا أو تبعات ما سيحدث مثلًا بسبب عدم وجود أيادي بشرية لإطفاء الحرائق التي قد تندلع في أبار النفط ومحطات الوقود أو اختفاء البشر الذين كانوا يقومون بـ سقي النباتات واطعام الحيوانات الداجنة والتي لا تستطيع العيش لوحدها بعد الآن ، تلك الحيوانات والنباتات لن تنجو لوقت طويل بدون البشر، والتلوث سيفرض على الحيوانات وعلى الطبيعة القيام بتغييرات جذرية من أجل التكيف وهكذا لن يعود العالم كما كنّا نعرفه.وإذا لم نهتم بالبيئة بشكل جدي وليس كشعارات رنانة كما يحدث، وحل مشاكل الاحتباس الحراري (وهي مشكلة كبيرة لا يعترف البعض حتى بحقيقة وجودها) ووقف الاساءة للبيئة بكل أشكالها، من رمي النفايات بدل تدويرها والاستهلاك المفرط للبلاستيك (خاصة بشكله الحالي) ووقف الصيد الجائر بكل أنواعه، وإذا لم يحدث كلّ هذا وفي المستقبل القريب إذا لم نقل بدءً من اليوم، فإن البشر ليسوا فقط من سيتعرضون للإنقراض بل الطبيعة أيضًا بكل تنوعها الحيوي وعلينا وبشكل سريع إيجاد مكان نخزن فيه ذاكرتنا ومعرفتنا حتى يبقى شيء منَ الجنس البشري غير الأكياس البلاستيكية والمواد المشّعة .

  • Ram
    2019-01-13 15:36

    Since reading The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History , I have been playing with this idea in my head. What would we humans leave behind us after we are gone? What would inhabitants of earth in 500 million years find to indicate that a sentient, technological species inhabited this planet? The answer, according to that book was that the main, and probably only long lasting, detectable impact that humans will have on earth, is the species that went extinct due to humans. This led to My second question at the time: Could it be possible that any of the previous large scale extinctions were due to a technological species that existed at the time. This book gave me an answer concerning the long term impact of humans on earth. While we are (fully justified) concerned about the impact we have on the planet, it's weather, life and environment, after we are gone, everything will be erased, and nature will repossess the planet. The weather, the atmosphere, the diversity of species and much more, will return to a new balance that will be very close to what it was before humans. We would be less than a blip on the geological radar that would be very hard to detect.What would happen to the Panama Canal if there were no humans to maintain it?What would happen to all the subway tunnels when there won't be any humans to constantly pump water out of them? What would happen to all our nuclear plants? Our toxic factories? Our cities? Our agricultural lands?What man made buildings and monuments would last longest?This was an interesting read, that on one hand emphasized all the damage we humans have done to the environment, and on the other hand, how quickly and with what power, nature will repossess areas where humans leave.

  • David
    2019-01-05 18:18

    On the surface, this clever book describes what the world would be like if humans were to suddenly disappear from the face of the earth. Alan Weisman begins the book by describing the probable fate of man's buildings, structures--above and below ground, and cultural artifacts. For example, New York subways would completely flood within days. Interestingly, our longest-lasting legacy will probably be the radio signals transmitted into space.But the majority of this engaging book is really about ecology. The earth's natural ecology would heal much of the damage wrought by humans. Many species of plants and animals may increase in numbers, while some--like cockroaches and rats--will decrease. But certain types of damage will be difficult to heal; the oceanic spread of plastics will take geologic time scales to disperse. And the scariest of all is the nuclear by-products, some of which will stick around even over geologic time scales.

  • Ahmed
    2019-01-10 21:21

    هل تخيلت يوما العالم من دون دوننا؟يساعدك هذا الكتاب علي تخيل ذلك بصورة علمية؟هل تستطيع الطبيعة القيام بعملية استشفاء مما اصابها علي يد الانسان؟هل كل ما خلفه الانسان ورائه قابل للزوال؟للأسف بعض مخلفات الانسان قد تحتاج لعشرات الالاف من السنين وربما مئات الالاف لتتخلص منها الطبيعة فهي كما قال الكاتب وجدت لتبقي.الكتاب عبارة عن رحلة في انحاء العالم لاستكشاف مصير الارض بعد رحيل البشر،من غابات اوروبا الي نيويورك الي صحراء افريقيا.ما الذي سيحدث للمدينة بأبنيتها المرتفعة والعملاقة؟ما الذي سيحذث لمنازلنا وكيف ستقضي الطبيعة عليها؟الغابات التي انكمشت هل ستعود وتتمدد من جديد؟الطيور والحيوانات التي في طريقها للإنقراض هل ستجد الحل في رحيل البشر؟لكم من الوقت يستطيع الهرم الاكبر في مصر الصمود؟عشرات التساؤلات التي يجيب عنها الكتاب بالتفصيل.الكتاب رائع وممتع رغم كثر ة المعلومات والتفاصبل العلمية وما يصاحبها احيانا من ملل إلا اني استمتعت بقرائته.

  • Felicia
    2019-01-06 21:17

    Fascinating. Just amazing and scary.

  • Becky
    2019-01-01 20:31

    This book has been on my wishlist for quite a while, so when I was able to get the audio edition, I didn't hesitate to dive right in. I will say that this is not the best audiobook I've ever heard. The reader, Adam Grupper, was a bit stiff at times, but that's really my only complaint. I think that this is one that I will have to read again myself at some point, because I feel like it's one that I would need to really take my time with, and absorb. This was so fascinating to me, and too often I would find myself getting caught up in imagining for myself what a scene of desolation or regrowth or whatever would look like, or pondering a point or thought, that I would miss some of what would come next and have to back up the audio and listen again. This book kind of had me all over the map emotionwise. I kind of already think that people are jerks, and this book did nothing to dispel that notion. In fact, it illustrated ways that we're jerks that I'd never even thought of before. Like the fact that we produce plastic exfoliants: miniscule little plastic particles in soaps or bodywashes that scrub us for about 2.3 seconds and then get whisked down the drain to eventually end up in the belly of a fish who mistook them for another fish's eggs. Plastic particles that don't break down for thousands of years... And that's just one example. Hunting is another. Now, I know all about hunting for food and population control. Food, fine, but I do have a problem with hunting for population control because we continue to encroach on land that was once the habitat of animals, and then when they have nowhere to go, when they are in our gardens trying to find food to survive, then there are too many, then they have to be thinned out. And hunting for sport or profit is a different matter entirely and honestly just makes me sick and angry and makes me want to hit things. OK people. It makes me want to hit people. With my car. Twice. ...Three times. Anyway. Parts of this book were just so mind-blowing to me that I feel ashamed of humanity. The Global Warming debate aside, we have done so much harm to this planet it's insane, and it will likely never be the same again. Maybe that's the way of things, I mean the Earth is continually evolving and changing, but somehow I just can't see the amount of radioactive waste that we will be leaving, stuff that will last for millions of years, as in any way good or normal. I just could not wrap my mind around the staggering time that some of these substances will be around. And Weisman usually talked in terms of the half-life of the substance, which is the period of time it takes for a substance undergoing decay to decrease by half. HALF. Millions and millions of years to decrease by HALF. And the average human lifespan is about 70 years. Just the thought of the ways that what we leave behind will affect whatever is left after we're gone is heartbreaking, and I'm immensely glad that I will not be around to see it. I sincerely hope that people read this book, and think about it. We have an obligation to future generations to leave them an inhabitable world, and we're going well out of our way to do just the opposite. I'm not a religious person. I don't know if there is anything out there, but I can't help but wonder if any god could possibly forgive causing such lasting damage to the planet and everything that shares it with us...

  • Richard
    2019-01-10 21:44

    The conception of this book was brilliant, but while writing, the author—or at least his editor—should have realized that the execution was muddled.Imagine several of your favorite foods. Perhaps Kung Pao chicken, a spinach salad, blueberry pie, beer and peanuts, coffee and biscotti, shrimp etouffee. Very nice individually, some might be made even better with artful blending. Now toss them all in a big bowl and mix thoroughly. Appetizing?Weisman’s title teases us with a singular view of human existence. Like me, you may have heard fascinating highlights regarding how quickly New York’s transit system would be flooded, or what combination of factors would take down a highrise. Or perhaps that our pets would suffer very different fates: our pet dogs would all be killed by real predators, whereas housecats would be successful by staying in the trees and preying on birds.It is certainly true that almost every nugget here is intriguing—just as that goulash consists of individually tasty bits. But it doesn’t hold together, mostly because the author wasn’t able to firmly keep in mind what book he was writing.The best parts are those that follow the title, such as the tales urban decay. How nature has taken hold of the DMZ in Korea is good; even better was the unexpected equivalent in Cyprus, where the description of suddenly abandoned buildings is haunting.Some portions would better be described by the title The World We’ve Really Screwed Up. It is understandable, of course: while researching how things will be after we’re gone, the author must have done a great deal of research into how things got that way, and some of those stories are juicy. For example, Chernobyl’s history and the fate of the world’s other nuclear power plant is mostly treated as a tragedy waiting to happen. But at the same time, nature seems to be thriving amidst the radiation. While it is clear that we’ll leave behind plutonium wastes that will last forever, it isn’t at all clear to what extent nature would shrug this off as an irrelevancy.A notable problem the book fails to address is hinted at in the words of Doug Erwin, when Weisman looks back at the geological record. Displaying a chunk of limestone that shows evidence of prolific life on one side and nothing on the other, Erwin points to the faint white line of ash between them and explains that this is the P–T boundary, when the vast majority of the world’s species were snuffed out. Erwin shrugs and says “Life here was good. Life here got really bad. It then took a long time for life to get better.”Without us, the planet would revert to its timeless ways of spawning and destroying life. Without a sentient species to observe, the pace at which this happens becomes irrelevant. Without a sentient species to evaluate and judge, “biodiversity” and “beauty” become meaningless sounds.Weisman has a lot of great material here. With a different presentation, it might have been made into a better book. Or, better yet, as a continuing series of essays in a magazine such as Scientific American. But as a coherent book, it just doesn’t work.(Selected reading for Drinks and Dystopia (a post apocalyptic book club) for 6 December 2009.)­

  • Matthew
    2019-01-09 14:43

    I had to stop several times in the middle of reading this, to digest the chapters and pick something lighter up temporarily. Its not depressing in the way a sad novel is, but its upsetting in the way it really drives home how much humans have fucked the world up. The sacry thing about the book is that when reading about how humans have dissappeared and nature reclaims her property, I'm not thinking 'how terrible', I'm thinking 'how wonderful'. I've pulled back from the brink of thinking of humans as a disease and better off not existing - we are, after all, probably still the most imaginative and alive organisms on this planet', and so much that is beautiful would not exist or be thought of as beautiful without us - but still, if there is a way to eliminate a large proportion of humans in an ethical, painless manner (which will never happen), I'd vote for it. About the book itself: its extremely well researched. Weisman delves into many scientific areas and talks to extremely interesting and truly specialized people to explore questions ranging from: what happens to major cities like New York, to what happens to wildlife like birds or farm animals, what happens to nuclear plants and waste, what happens to our artifacts, like art, plastics, heavy metals, piping systems, bridges, petrochemical plants, etc, etc.The scariest fact: did you know that the wind and waves erode plastic like it does rocks, ie, into little bits of silicon or plastic sand? As the bits get smaller and smaller, they get ingested by smaller and smaller organisms. Birds were found dead with enough plastic accumulated in their intestines that equates to several pounds if in a human being. Staggeringly, there is six times more plastic in the oceans, by weight, than plankton.

  • Jennifer (aka EM)
    2019-01-14 22:41

    An astonishing book, and the first piece of non-fiction that I've read in quite some time that has had the emotional power of a novel. The first comment I'll make has to do with that: Weisman's voice is a powerful one. He knows how to marshall the facts but also how to keep the story moving, and most importantly, get the reader engaged at an emotional as well as intellectual level. Weisman's research seemed incredibly solid, but the book never felt plodding or laden down with eye-glazing data, as is so often the case with environmental treatises where the (defensive) author feels compelled to justify his or her conclusions against the nay-sayers with endless reams of facts and figures. Instead, Weisman uses the device of the "thought experiment": what would happen to the planet if humans *poof* simply disappeared. How long would it take to revert to a natural state, recovering from the damage we've done to our home planet? What would live, what would die, and would we be "remembered"?The enormity of the problem--climate change and global warming, deforestation and species extinction, the unsolved issues of nuclear waste, carbon emissions and ozone depletion--can so easily overwhelm us. Weisman tells the story by jumping from topic to topic; era to era; location to location. Since we’re often dealing in geologic time, it could have been disorienting. Instead, it forces the reader to seek patterns in trends and events across time and invest them with meaning that might not occur if she was led down a straight, chronological path. There is much that is new to learn, and even what we already know (or think we know) is shown in a new light.In short, it was a very, very effective way to let the complexities of the problem reveal themselves through the various scenarios, all well-documented, presented. Weisman leads us where he wants us to go: not merely to an acknowledgement that environmental destruction is occurring by our own hands, but to a renewed sense of commitment to what might be done to stop it.If I have any trouble with the book, it is: a) in the premise that sets it up; and b) in the final conclusion. Weisman overtly says that the premise is not to speculate on what ends humanity, only that it ends quickly and completely–-all at once, everywhere. Unfortunately, I couldn't get my head round the fact that it won't actually happen that way, will it? Even a massive asteroid hit, a broadscale nuclear war, biological warfare or the outbreak of a world-wide plague will have human life petering out slowly, unevenly, inconsistently. There will be no quiet overtaking of our cities by kudzu, birch and aspen. Instead, as human beings slowly and agonizingly die off, those small bands of survivors who’re left will not go gently into that good night. As resources dwindle, as infrastructure fails, as hope fades...human nature and, never mind that, our basic will to survive, will remain intact and grow ever more desperate. The will to survive is an individual, not collective, one. People will fight for the basic necessities of life: food, water, shelter. Civilization, government, order and what we construe as morality and humanity will cease to exist to any meaningful degree.It won’t be pretty.Perhaps I am a pessimist about human nature, informed by my study of social psychology, and more recently, my reading of The Road and Blindness, which foretell gruesome, cruel and barbaric acts perpetrated by humans on humans in the face of just such doomsday scenarios. There has never been a situation where–especially in the face of annihilation–those with power and resources have not wielded them to their own advantage, to the extent of overtaking and enslaving those without.So, I struggled with the premise, and before humans are wiped from the face of the earth, I wonder how much more damage we will do, not just to each other but to our home planet. And if preventing more damage requires universal cooperation, as it surely does, I despair that we have the individual or collective will to achieve it.The conclusion and suggestion Weisman leaves us with, that we should limit reproduction to one child per woman, is laughably simplistic not to mention politically impractical. It's not that I was looking for an "answer" from the book, but far better to leave the questions it raises unanswered, I think, than to undermine the careful and detailed picture drawn of the problem by offering a poorly conceived solution. Better instead to send people off, galvanized into action and inspired by hope in what might be possible, to seek those solutions. Which (in my more optimistic hours), is exactly what I think this book can do and likely has done.

  • Mike
    2019-01-14 16:16

    I've been reading this for a few months, a few pages at a time. It was simultaneously uplifting and depressing, and I really learned some things.Life pro tip: in the event of the Rapture, don't try to get to New York. The subway tunnels will be flooded in a day or two, and it won't take that long for things to come crashing down.And a lot depends on whether the guys at all the refineries on the Gulf Coast have time to turn things off or not.

  • Arun Divakar
    2019-01-18 20:32

    When your species is 7.5 billion strong on this planet and still counting you may permit yourselves a few moments and think ’We are THE real deal, aren’t we ?’ The fact that there are more number of microbes living inside a single human being than the overall human population is again beside the point here. Alan Weisman wants us to go a few steps further and imagine what would happen if we were to vanish from the earth suddenly and inexplicably. The premise and the ‘what-if’ scenario is extremely amusing to ponder over but I have my reservations on the execution of it all.What it sets out to beFor a species whose entire lifetime does not span even a blink for the planet’s timelines, mankind has reshaped the earth in unimaginable ways. Wiping out this invasive and disruptive organism would bring out immense changes all over the place. With the disappearance of human presence the time taken for flora and fauna to reclaim the land would be minimal. A few centuries down the line the planet would be an unrecognizable place and yet if you have in mind a lush, green Eden then think again ! There are enough indestructible plastic detritus, nuclear material, pesticides and CFC to damn all things living for ages to come. Also with our proliferation as a species, there are many organisms that have disappeared and most of them if not all of them are not coming back again. A world without humans from a natural standpoint will be a different one from what we leave behind. It is true that there will be the return of nature post the exit of man but it would an unrecognizable world for any stray human being that stays behind. There are conversations with multiple experts – ecologists, biologists, nuclear scientists, engineers in the book all of whom agree to the fact that nature and its denizens might not notice our disappearance as much as we hope they would. Barring the animals, plants and microbes dependent on humans for their daily life there wouldn’t be many who will mourn the passing of the lords of the earth. Borrowing from that favourite sci-fi cliché, an alien arriving on earth might need to spend some serious time unravelling the exploits of homo sapiens.What it ends up beingOne of the downsides of getting old is that we look down on younger generations (I think there was mention of this elsewhere in my reviews too). This is forever punctuated by the phrase ’In our times’ which is leaning too much on the past with a blind eye turned towards the future. The book suffers a similar fate that it dwells on the past in fantastic passages meant to evoke the lushness of earth but at places it paints itself to a corner. It is true that disasters like Chernobyl happened and we scarred the land for a long time into the future and yet while the present offers bleak hopes, Weisman does not dwell for long on the future. Considering that the scope of his book is almost completely futuristic, I found this to be a serious shortcoming. The past was wondrous, the present is grim but the future ? Weisman offers half-hearted attempts at answering this scenario and that is where the execution lags. Another nagging point is that Weisman does not really explain how we would disappear. Would it be pestilence, drought or war that would finally get our goose ? Each of these might have their own impact on the biosphere and an examination of the fallout of these might have made a lot more value add to the whole set of scenarios. Also, at a time when 2016 has been titled as the hottest year in recorded history it is rather farfetched to imagine the earth as a green paradise in the future.What it might have beenIn the broader scheme of things human beings are immaterial to this planet. There is only the here and now and all of our so called pretences are futile in the long run. I would have adored this book if Weisman began with an extrapolation of the points he understands from the experts and recreated a vision of the world a few centuries from now. With this vision, he could have then worked his way backwards on how it would all come into being. His descriptions of the Puszcza Białowieska in Poland gave me ample hope that he would have been able to conjure a fantastic vision of a future sans human beings.Well written and yet poorly executed.

  • Nikki
    2019-01-06 18:24

    This book tries to imagine what the world would be like if we were just raptured away or abducted by aliens, with little or no warning. Despite being ostensibly a book about the world without us, it turns out to mostly be a book about us. Or, more accurately, what we’ve done to the world, which the world will have to cope with whether we’re here and part of that or not. If you’re science-aware, there’s probably not much to learn — in fact, if you’re up on your climate science, what’s here is very basic when it comes to that. It does muse interestingly on certain specific animals and habitats which would benefit from a world without humans. There’s some good stuff on places where humans don’t go, which are proving to be wildlife sanctuaries even when they’re utterly radioactive.But mostly, I think I hoped for a bit more of the future, and a bit less of the past and present. Of course, the past can tell us what some environments used to be like without human intervention, or after specific types of human intervention. And of course, the present shapes what will come. And we can’t really predict evolution — look at the differences between the stuff in the Burgess shale and later forms, for example. Or even the way that mammals succeeded the dinosaurs. But I still hoped for a bit more about the future, what kinds of animals might thrive, what it might look like.If you’re already depressed by what humans have been up to, this will make you feel worse. A lot worse. None of it was news to me, but still… Yeesh, we’ve messed up.Originally reviewed on my blog.

  • Sarah
    2019-01-02 16:27

    I just demoted this book from four-star status to three-star status. I started reading it and then had to give it back to the library before I was done and then I had to get it back to read the last chapter. At the risk of being platitudinous, this book is no fine wine.The literary world is definitely instep with our current go-green zeitgeist and, as past president of Earlham's Environmental Action Committee and as someone whose economic footprint is minimal, I am quite pleased. That being said, there are a handful of books in the green vein with which I actually can interface with pleasure--the best among them being Jared Diamond's wonderful novel, "Collapse".Weisman has done what so many before him have done: He went out into the field and gathered opinions from experts instead of overtly forming an opinion himself. Then the challenge is to present these findings and conversations in a manner that engages and interacts with the reader. Instead, I felt like I was constantly sifting through Weisman's raw data. Occasionally he gives us a few choice phrases or descriptions, but mostly he just plods along--recounting. I wish this book were so much more than it was. The rub is that I can't think of any specific examples to buttress my statements.

  • P.
    2019-01-11 17:16

    I wanted to like this book, I really did. Not only was it given to me by my new uncle, but it ostensibly dealt with a subject that I have spent some time thinking about (usually during periods of outdoor solitude such as when walking to or from work) -- the decay of human structures and how they might be co-opted by nature if they were abandoned. Unfortunately, rather than dealing primarily with scientific, archaeological or anthropological observations about the resilience of human architectural methods and materials or the observed condition of previously abandoned human settlements over time, this book ends up being primarily a pantheistic paean to Mother Gaia as an unchanging deity somehow compromised by a parasitic humanity upon her. As a religious or philosophical text, I suppose it is timely, as it does document with some clarity the belief system that is common among a certain social strata in the present day. Of course, I would suggest that a critical reading of this book would illuminate some of the holes in post modern anti-human environmentalism, so it may be a useful work in that regard.

  • Jeanette
    2019-01-08 14:19

    Even if you took out all the stuff about what will happen to the world when we are gone, this would still be a fantastic book. It is filled with fascinating information about the natural sciences and about the ways ancient and modern societies have altered the planet. I'm glad the author didn't tiptoe around the overpopulation issue. So many people are afraid of stepping on toes with this topic, but population growth is exponential, folks!! By the time people recognize crisis, it may be too late. This guy is an excellent writer. He makes complicated things enjoyable to read about, without dumbing it down at all. The amount of travel and research he did for this book is truly impressive. I'm glad I got my own copy so I didn't have to race through a library book. So much to think about.

  • David
    2018-12-31 17:45

    It's located on the 'mind-numbingly-boring' shelf for a reason. Whatever point the author is trying to make certainly doesn't support 300 pages of impenetrable prose. After five false starts I managed to get to page 50 before finally giving up in disgust.All the people who have made this a best-seller? I don't believe for a moment that they have actually read it. This is not a book to read, though it may be one to impress your friends with by pretending to have read it. Don't waste your time. Read a book about people, why don'tcha?

  • Dvd (polemologico e pantoclastico)
    2018-12-26 14:35

    Pensavo meglio.Innanzitutto, la struttura: il libro non segue (come credevo, e come anche la copertina lascia intendere) un percorso cronologico, con punto di partenza l'oggi - o almeno il momento in cui l'umanità cessasse di esistere di colpo, per un qualsiasi motivo - e illustrato poi per step temporali cronogicamente successivi, illustrando contemporaneamente come l'ambiente (urbano e rurale soprattutto, ma anche selvaggio e marino) reagirebbe alla cosa.La narrazione è invece costruita per capitoli tematici, saltando da una zona all'altra del mondo, in luoghi singolari che più di altri possono mostrare se e come la natura può riprendere vigore e predominio appena gli uomini se ne vanno, nonostante le catastrofi che hanno portato. Questo ha dei pro (illustrare nel dettaglio specifici problemi, quali ad esempio l'impatto a lungo termine dell'inquinamento o della radioattività) ma anche dei contro (il libro perde mordente, si dilunga in tecnicismi forse eccessivi per questo livello di divulgazione).L'altra cosa che lascia perplessi è il refrain di tutta l'opera, ossia l'asserzione dell'autore secondo il quale l'uomo ovunque vada crei disastri. Sempre e solo disastri, più o meno gravi. La natura subisce, ogni tanto si incazza (anche giustamente) ma subisce sempre, aspettando solo la nostra uscita di scena per riprendersi quello che rimarrà.Si resta perplessi perché, colti dal senso di colpa, non si vede cosa dovremo fare, se non sparire veramente, dato che inevitabilmente qualunque nostra azione finisce per alterare la biosfera: è così da sempre, beninteso, ma da quando l'uomo ha sviluppato forze tali da diventare esso stesso demiurgo l'impatto umano sulla Terra è diventato opprimente e di proporzioni gigantesche.La soluzione dell'autore è semplice, e arriva nella coda del libro: far diminuire la pressione antropica diminuendo la popolazione umana, obbligando ogni donna a procreare un solo figlio (funzionerebbe? In Italia la popolazione sarebbe praticamente stabile di suo se non ci fosse stata, negli ultimi anni, l'enorme travaso di popolazione non autoctona da fuori - coi risultati che vediamo, en passanti. E i problemi di inquinamento sono solo aumentati, anche negli anni di crescita quasi zero). Tutto il libro è sostanzialmente un continuo atto d'accusa contro l'uomo. Alla lunga,la cosa stufa. Perchè cozza contro un dato incontrovertibile: qui siamo, noi omuncoli, e qui cerchiamo di vivere al meglio delle nostre possibilità. Ora come sempre. Tornare all'età della pietra, che sicuramente era un'epoca assai più ecocompatibile di quella odierna (ma che non ha impedito ai nostri antenati di massacrare fino all'estinzione intere specie animali), non mi pare una soluzione intelligente. Né fattibile.E vivere al meglio delle nostre possibilità significa avere corrente elettrica, cibo, acqua corrente possibilmente in casa, ecc ecc. Persino Internet e il computer. E' ovvio che tutte queste cose implicano un impatto ecologico. Così come la nostra stessa presenza.Avere chiara la cosa e mitigarla è già molto, se pensiamo quali erano le ideologie in merito 50 anni fa. Togliere il superfluo, anche sarebbe auspicabile. Ma un impatto, un'impronta ecologica (come va di moda dire oggi) c'è e ci sarà sempre.Molto interessanti, da tecnico, i primi capitoli sull'impatto che l'abbandono umano avrebbe sulle strutture edilizie e ingegneristiche: la parte migliore. Poi parecchie parti noiose, soprattutto quelle sullo spazio.Nel complesso godibile, un pò fastidioso l'impeto dell'autore e un pò deludente l'impostazione usata.