This book is about the attack on Columbine High School by two of its students in 1999.
I barely remember Columbine happening - I was out of high school myself and not yet interested in current events. Before I read this book, I could identify Columbine as the location of a school shooting but I couldn't have told you where it was (it's near Denver, Colorado).
This background made me a member of the ideal audience for this book. Not only did the author give and incredibly detailed description of what actually happened, but he also addressed what didn't happen - all the false theories and misinformation that have shaped our thinking about school attacks. Pretty much everything I knew about Columbine was wrong. Examples: there was a loose group called the Trenchcoat Mafia, but it had nothing to do with the attack; the girl who was asked if she believed in God and responded "yes" was not shot (Cassie Bernall was killed instantly, without talking to the killers); the attack was intended to be a bombing with the gunmen picking off survivors, not a shooting, but the bombs never went off.
It's clear that the author has a journalistic background from his writing style. There are perhaps too many short sentences and short paragraphs - the single-sentence paragraph used for dramatic effect can get tired if it's used too much. I don't know if there's a term for that writing device but you see it all the time in news stories. Overall, though, the writing is easy to read and keeps the focus on the content.
Some of that content is a little too focused. The author includes many graphic details of the victims' injuries - not "he got shot" but, the bullet came in at this angle, traveled through these organs, causing such-and-such damage, etc. I got the impression that he was trying to make the event more real to a modern reader desensitized to violence, but it came across like one of those surgery shows on TV which I find disgusting. So I skipped over those paragraphs.
This book is important because it sets the record straight about a nationally important event. In doing so, it forces us to face our stereotypes about the dangers lurking in our schools - incorrect stereotypes that could cost lives if they cause us to overlook the next potential mass killer. The book also shows us how the media handed us these stereotypes pre-formed, disregarding the facts of the case. It's an object lesson in the power of the media to set the truth, shape our culture, ruin lives, and make an already tragic disaster even worse.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Out of Africa by Denisen/Blixen
I really enjoyed listening to this classic book, but it's been so long since I finished it that I can't write a meaningful post. Oops.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Monday, June 7, 2010
Concise History of Modern India by Metcalf and Metcalf
Personal life has made it immediately very important for me to know about India.
I would say that I currently know very little about the history of that part of the world. I will admit that before reading this book I didn't even know that Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh were one big region under British rule and were separated according to religion, or that Bangladesh was originally part of Pakistan. Or that Mohandas Gandhi and Mahatma Gandhi were the same person, and the Gandhis that were major in politics in later years are not related to him.
Since this is my introduction to this area of history, it was a bit overwhelming at times, though overall I felt like it gave me a good foundation to begin my study. I'll be adding many of the "further reading" titles to my list.
On a side note, I'm finding that a lot of the books I find recommended for history of India are not available on Kindle. So sad.
I would say that I currently know very little about the history of that part of the world. I will admit that before reading this book I didn't even know that Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh were one big region under British rule and were separated according to religion, or that Bangladesh was originally part of Pakistan. Or that Mohandas Gandhi and Mahatma Gandhi were the same person, and the Gandhis that were major in politics in later years are not related to him.
Since this is my introduction to this area of history, it was a bit overwhelming at times, though overall I felt like it gave me a good foundation to begin my study. I'll be adding many of the "further reading" titles to my list.
On a side note, I'm finding that a lot of the books I find recommended for history of India are not available on Kindle. So sad.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Getting Things Done by Allen
I picked this book because I have been feeling useless and overwhelmed at work and saw a glowing review online.
I'm implementing his system and I really think it's going to make a huge difference in my stress and productivity levels. I plan to reread the book after running the system for a month to make adjustments and reassess my situation; if I remember I'll edit this entry with more details.
I'm implementing his system and I really think it's going to make a huge difference in my stress and productivity levels. I plan to reread the book after running the system for a month to make adjustments and reassess my situation; if I remember I'll edit this entry with more details.
Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Brown
Native American/American Indian history is really interesting to me and one of my personal goals is to learn about what really happened and what is happening with these peoples. As part of a general push in my personal life to make some of my daydreams into reality, I've put a bunch of books about this topic into my reading list. This is the first for me to get to. It was published in 1970 and seems to have been widely acclaimed at the time.
Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee gives a history of the tribes of the “Indian Wars” of the American West from the American Indians' point of view. Personally, since my little previous reading had been about Eastern tribes,very little of this was previously known to me besides some of the famous names. (I have no idea how I knew the names of Sitting Bull, Geronimo, etc without knowing anything about the Indian Wars except that they occurred.) The bias is obvious, but the author made his intent clear – he wanted to give a side of the story that had not been told, not necessarily a fair and balanced account.
Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee gives a history of the tribes of the “Indian Wars” of the American West from the American Indians' point of view. Personally, since my little previous reading had been about Eastern tribes,very little of this was previously known to me besides some of the famous names. (I have no idea how I knew the names of Sitting Bull, Geronimo, etc without knowing anything about the Indian Wars except that they occurred.) The bias is obvious, but the author made his intent clear – he wanted to give a side of the story that had not been told, not necessarily a fair and balanced account.
To read this book as an American, it's heartbreaking to see a dark side of my country – blatantly lying and breaking treaties to get at land, denying that the American Indians were people until forced by law, “the only good Indian is a dead Indian”, etc. Even more heartbreaking is the fact that from my modern point of view with greater acceptance of high population density, there was no reason to take most of that land – even today it's still pretty sparsely populated. Before reading this book, I had some idea that the worst of the atrocities happened in the very early days of America and earlier. But to be confronted with dates nearing 1900 and Civil War heroes (which were the heroes of Foote's massive Civil War history which I listened to last summer) acting like savages made me reassess some things I had in mind about my country.
To read this book as someone with significant American Indian blood yet no personal interaction with that part of my heritage, I felt both awed and frustrated by the picture of their cultures given in this book. On the one hand, in general the chiefs had more honor and nobility than any white character that comes into play. What the Americans at the time saw as butchery was fair and just within the internal logic of their culture, and was clearly provoked. On the other hand, they showed little ability to be flexible and play the new political game that the white men brought with them. Perhaps this is an unfair criticism, because in our modern time people have to deal with major changes at rates unprecedented in human history. And racism at the time was stronger than I can truly believe. But still I feel that the American Indians could have preserved much more of themselves if they had gone about things differently.
Another thing that surprised me, especially after the aforementioned education on the civil war, was the small numbers involved. Where thousands were dying in single days of battle in the South, out west the casualties rarely numbered more than 50 on either side. Yet these relatively small battles had such a huge major effect on our society.
Overall I am very glad I listened to this book. It gave me a great foundation to continue my study of this topic. I would say, if you have an interest in learning about American history then this one should make it to your bookshelf/mp3 player sometime.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Dune Messiah (Dune Saga #2) by Herbert
I read this book quickly and it didn't give me any reason to think deeply about anything.
I will say, though, that it was much better than I thought it would be. It doesn't have the same depth as the first book, but it's still on OK read. After reading Dune I saw a quote from Herbert: "The bottom line of the Dune trilogy is: beware of heroes." The second book makes a little more sense if you keep that in mind.
I will say, though, that it was much better than I thought it would be. It doesn't have the same depth as the first book, but it's still on OK read. After reading Dune I saw a quote from Herbert: "The bottom line of the Dune trilogy is: beware of heroes." The second book makes a little more sense if you keep that in mind.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
The Ghost in Love by Carroll
This is a weird novel.
I guess you could say it's two stories at the same time - the story of a breakup and the story of man's interactions with his own self and life cycle.
It's hard to describe much without spoilers, because it is one heck of a weird story. There are ghosts, talking dogs, time travel, near-death experiences, and all manner of odd and cheesy-sounding characters and plots. But, for the most part it works.
The best reason I can give to recommend this book is that this is the type of book I usually hate but I finished it in an evening and was quite moved by it. The plot is kinda stupid, and the last 10% of the book feels utterly ridiculous while reading it. However, the way Carroll describes small things about people, the way they choose to express sadness and the way they store and talk about their memories, was great. I really felt like I could feel the heartbreak or joy of the characters. For that reason alone it's worth a read, as long as one isn't expecting anything else.
I guess you could say it's two stories at the same time - the story of a breakup and the story of man's interactions with his own self and life cycle.
It's hard to describe much without spoilers, because it is one heck of a weird story. There are ghosts, talking dogs, time travel, near-death experiences, and all manner of odd and cheesy-sounding characters and plots. But, for the most part it works.
The best reason I can give to recommend this book is that this is the type of book I usually hate but I finished it in an evening and was quite moved by it. The plot is kinda stupid, and the last 10% of the book feels utterly ridiculous while reading it. However, the way Carroll describes small things about people, the way they choose to express sadness and the way they store and talk about their memories, was great. I really felt like I could feel the heartbreak or joy of the characters. For that reason alone it's worth a read, as long as one isn't expecting anything else.
Religious Literacy by Prothero
I really enjoyed this book because it had a significant effect on my understanding of US history.
This book is divided into three sections. The first part, "The Problem" gives data and anecdotes to support the author's claim that Americans have no clue about religion. It had a bit of a "preaching to the choir" feel to it.
The second part, "The Past", was the most interesting for me. It lays out a brief history of how religion and religious education has changed in the US over time. I had no idea about a lot of it, and it explained a lot of things about American Christianity that confused me.
The third part, "The Proposal", gives the author's plan for reversing the effect of history along with a short dictionary of religious terms that one should be familiar with as an American citizen. I found the dictionary interesting to read through (this coming from a girl who used to read the encyclopedia for fun as a child), and I liked how Prothero explained why the term was important to American politics/society.
All in all I'm glad I read it, though I could have done without most of it. Anyway, I plan on checking out some of the references for more in-depth explanations.
This book is divided into three sections. The first part, "The Problem" gives data and anecdotes to support the author's claim that Americans have no clue about religion. It had a bit of a "preaching to the choir" feel to it.
The second part, "The Past", was the most interesting for me. It lays out a brief history of how religion and religious education has changed in the US over time. I had no idea about a lot of it, and it explained a lot of things about American Christianity that confused me.
The third part, "The Proposal", gives the author's plan for reversing the effect of history along with a short dictionary of religious terms that one should be familiar with as an American citizen. I found the dictionary interesting to read through (this coming from a girl who used to read the encyclopedia for fun as a child), and I liked how Prothero explained why the term was important to American politics/society.
All in all I'm glad I read it, though I could have done without most of it. Anyway, I plan on checking out some of the references for more in-depth explanations.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Dune by Herbert
I read this book before, maybe ten years ago, and have counted it among my favorites ever since. Reading through a second time, I realized how many things I missed in my first reading and that this book is a lot more interesting than I thought. In my younger years, my skills as a reader and a thinker were not as good, and rereading Dune reminds me of my desire to reread many of the books I read in my teen years. Also, it supports my belief that young people shouldn't be urged to ingest literature before they are capable of getting something out of it. (Even better example: The Scarlet Letter.)
One thing that is done very well in this book is the balance between plot and description. This is one of my personal pet peeves about so many writers, that they provide so many details to set a scene or establish a mood but I as a reader don't feel convinced that they are worth my time and energy to take in. Also I feel that the reader should be given the freedom of a little wiggle room for the imagination; if the details are not relevant, then the author does the reader a disservice by fixing them. In many books I skip/skim a paragraph if I realize that it's describing a character looking at a fence, or describing the room in which a meeting takes place, or some other stupid little thing. In Dune, I really felt like I received a rich setting, and I could easily imagine in my mind the places and people in the novel, but I wasn't bogged down. Somehow the writer earned my trust that each paragraph was worth reading, and I did very little skimming.
I also enjoyed the subtle politics and relationships that are a central part of this book. What does it take to deceive someone? What does it take to inspire perfect loyalty? When does logical reaction to the odds turn into treachery? When does a man stop being a son, lover, warrior and start being his own legend?
A couple negative things: the book is very heavy on its internal system of religion, legend, and prophecy, which can be a bit tedious at times. The end was not satisfying, it seems clear that Herbert had the sequels in mind when he finished this book. I haven't read the sequels before, but I will, even though I'm always a little afraid of reading sequels. If I like the first book enough to want to read the second, I don't want to have my experience of it ruined by a crappy follow-up.
A small note: I noticed he took some things from real existing religions of course, but I wonder how my reaction to his using the word jihad for something in the book is different from the reaction he intended back in the 60s?
One thing that is done very well in this book is the balance between plot and description. This is one of my personal pet peeves about so many writers, that they provide so many details to set a scene or establish a mood but I as a reader don't feel convinced that they are worth my time and energy to take in. Also I feel that the reader should be given the freedom of a little wiggle room for the imagination; if the details are not relevant, then the author does the reader a disservice by fixing them. In many books I skip/skim a paragraph if I realize that it's describing a character looking at a fence, or describing the room in which a meeting takes place, or some other stupid little thing. In Dune, I really felt like I received a rich setting, and I could easily imagine in my mind the places and people in the novel, but I wasn't bogged down. Somehow the writer earned my trust that each paragraph was worth reading, and I did very little skimming.
I also enjoyed the subtle politics and relationships that are a central part of this book. What does it take to deceive someone? What does it take to inspire perfect loyalty? When does logical reaction to the odds turn into treachery? When does a man stop being a son, lover, warrior and start being his own legend?
A couple negative things: the book is very heavy on its internal system of religion, legend, and prophecy, which can be a bit tedious at times. The end was not satisfying, it seems clear that Herbert had the sequels in mind when he finished this book. I haven't read the sequels before, but I will, even though I'm always a little afraid of reading sequels. If I like the first book enough to want to read the second, I don't want to have my experience of it ruined by a crappy follow-up.
A small note: I noticed he took some things from real existing religions of course, but I wonder how my reaction to his using the word jihad for something in the book is different from the reaction he intended back in the 60s?
Don Quixote by Cervantes
This is the first book I purchased with my new audible.com subscription. I thought it would be a good choice for audio because I've already tried to read it and found it way too long-winded to hold my attention. I always wanted to read it though, because of its reputation and importance in the history of literature.
Don Quixote was originally published in two parts in the 1600s. It tells the story of Don Quixote, a dude who decides to be a knight, and his squire Sancho Panza, and all the wacky situations they get themselves into.
The narrator (the reader of the audiobook) actually brings a lot to this - DQ is really funny at times, a fact which was less apparent to me in reading it, and I think it had a lot to do with the voices he chose for the characters and his own accent. It had me feeling like I was listening to a 40-hour episode of Monty Python. Also, I was able to focus on the humor of the story since I didn't feel like I was wasting my life reading unnecessary flowery phrases.
So, once I got into it I realized that DQ is really entertaining. Some of the jokes seemed a bit old and cheesy but this book is about 400 years old and had a huge influence over subsequent media, so of course I wasn't going to see something new.
Beyond the comedy, I really enjoyed the relationship between DQ and Sancho and the way it changes over time. These two characters are very well developed and we see both their goodness and asshattery.
The end was a little disappointing, somehow I expected a little better end for such a well-crafted story, but considering that it's about 2% of the book I can easily forgive it.
All in all I'm glad I finally finished the book, but it's definitely not for the faint of heart, and I won't be reading it again.
Don Quixote was originally published in two parts in the 1600s. It tells the story of Don Quixote, a dude who decides to be a knight, and his squire Sancho Panza, and all the wacky situations they get themselves into.
The narrator (the reader of the audiobook) actually brings a lot to this - DQ is really funny at times, a fact which was less apparent to me in reading it, and I think it had a lot to do with the voices he chose for the characters and his own accent. It had me feeling like I was listening to a 40-hour episode of Monty Python. Also, I was able to focus on the humor of the story since I didn't feel like I was wasting my life reading unnecessary flowery phrases.
So, once I got into it I realized that DQ is really entertaining. Some of the jokes seemed a bit old and cheesy but this book is about 400 years old and had a huge influence over subsequent media, so of course I wasn't going to see something new.
Beyond the comedy, I really enjoyed the relationship between DQ and Sancho and the way it changes over time. These two characters are very well developed and we see both their goodness and asshattery.
The end was a little disappointing, somehow I expected a little better end for such a well-crafted story, but considering that it's about 2% of the book I can easily forgive it.
All in all I'm glad I finally finished the book, but it's definitely not for the faint of heart, and I won't be reading it again.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Brave New World by Huxley
(Blog note: I'm trying to write more meaningful posts from here on out for the following reasons: to force me to think more about what I'm reading, to get a little writing practice, and just in case anyone else reads this blog in the future. Considering this, posts may not be in order of finishing, and may get edited a bunch - I haven't written non-technical pieces in a long time!)
This classic by Huxley was published in 1931. It's made multiple "best novels" lists and judging by my experience working at a bookstore, it must be typical reading for some college courses (we always had this book in stock, in higher quantities than many others in the same category). Surely it's well-studied and excessively analyzed by experts. My goal here is not academic, but to give an outline of how this casual reader experienced the novel.
Brave New World falls into the genre of dystopian novels since it describes a future world which Huxley must have assumed the reader would find undesirable, if not alarming. People live in a drug-soaked haze of total comfort, with no unmet desires. Originality, individuality, emotional attachment, frugality, and nature itself are among the things vocally despised by the citizens of this future London. The pleasure of sex has been severed from emotion and reproduction (which is taken care of in giant factories), and people are encouraged to have sex frequently and swap partners frequently. The baby factories are just the beginning of a mass-produced life cycle; dozens of identical humans are bred to perform their function perfectly, then conditioned chemically and through sleep-learning to be happily conformist. Even though higher-level persons are well aware of this conditioning, they do not fight it but rather embrace it.
Into this world comes John the Savage, who is found in the uncivilized zone by slightly rebellious Bernard and brought back to London. John's reaction to the society around him is the main focus of the second half of the book.
I think the main point of this book is to show us the future setting that Huxley envisioned. We often imagine how a catastrophic war or environmental disaster could bring an end to happiness as we know it, but there is more than one way to skin a cat, as they say. Huxley shows us how the complete opposite - lack of any struggle whatsoever - could also bring about our downfall.
Personally I didn't particularly enjoy reading this, although I truly wanted to because I liked the premise. The writing style just didn't click with me, it really felt like I was reading something for english class. If you want to read about depressing things happening in the future (here I am lumping together dystopian and post-apocalyptic novels) then I can attest to more enjoyable options.
This classic by Huxley was published in 1931. It's made multiple "best novels" lists and judging by my experience working at a bookstore, it must be typical reading for some college courses (we always had this book in stock, in higher quantities than many others in the same category). Surely it's well-studied and excessively analyzed by experts. My goal here is not academic, but to give an outline of how this casual reader experienced the novel.
Brave New World falls into the genre of dystopian novels since it describes a future world which Huxley must have assumed the reader would find undesirable, if not alarming. People live in a drug-soaked haze of total comfort, with no unmet desires. Originality, individuality, emotional attachment, frugality, and nature itself are among the things vocally despised by the citizens of this future London. The pleasure of sex has been severed from emotion and reproduction (which is taken care of in giant factories), and people are encouraged to have sex frequently and swap partners frequently. The baby factories are just the beginning of a mass-produced life cycle; dozens of identical humans are bred to perform their function perfectly, then conditioned chemically and through sleep-learning to be happily conformist. Even though higher-level persons are well aware of this conditioning, they do not fight it but rather embrace it.
Into this world comes John the Savage, who is found in the uncivilized zone by slightly rebellious Bernard and brought back to London. John's reaction to the society around him is the main focus of the second half of the book.
I think the main point of this book is to show us the future setting that Huxley envisioned. We often imagine how a catastrophic war or environmental disaster could bring an end to happiness as we know it, but there is more than one way to skin a cat, as they say. Huxley shows us how the complete opposite - lack of any struggle whatsoever - could also bring about our downfall.
Personally I didn't particularly enjoy reading this, although I truly wanted to because I liked the premise. The writing style just didn't click with me, it really felt like I was reading something for english class. If you want to read about depressing things happening in the future (here I am lumping together dystopian and post-apocalyptic novels) then I can attest to more enjoyable options.
Cryptonomicon by Stephenson
World War II spy activity, modern-day (ok, ten-year-old) tech excitement, wacky characters and some wacky math thrown in for good measure. This pretty much sums up Cryptonomicon, written by Neal Stephenson in 1999.
I have to say that for the first 20% or so of the book I wasn't particularly interested in any of the characters or plotlines. The beginning is a bit tedious for my taste*, and quite honestly most of the characters aren't immediately likable. It's more of an ensemble cast but perhaps the main character is Randy Waterhouse, an educated computer guy who lives in California with an academic girlfriend, some really geeky friends, and the kind of "whatever" attitude so common to middle-class white dudes living in California, and I never really connected with him. However, the episodic nature of this book (it flips back and forth between WWII and 1990s) made it easy reading for public transport so I stuck with it.
Later on I found myself almost missing my stops and reading at other times too. The plot is really cool and some of the characters are a lot more interesting than they first seem. Of course some plot twists are a little ridiculous but on the whole I found this to be an exciting and interesting read.
This is the first Stephenson novel I've read, and I am surprised how much I liked it. Usually, I can't stand long-winded authors and this man definitely likes to write long books. I'm planning to check out others of his in the future.
*I must fess up to uncomfortability when authors try to sneak popularized mathematics into otherwise fine novels - and I am a mathematical cryptographer so it's not a matter of understanding.
I have to say that for the first 20% or so of the book I wasn't particularly interested in any of the characters or plotlines. The beginning is a bit tedious for my taste*, and quite honestly most of the characters aren't immediately likable. It's more of an ensemble cast but perhaps the main character is Randy Waterhouse, an educated computer guy who lives in California with an academic girlfriend, some really geeky friends, and the kind of "whatever" attitude so common to middle-class white dudes living in California, and I never really connected with him. However, the episodic nature of this book (it flips back and forth between WWII and 1990s) made it easy reading for public transport so I stuck with it.
Later on I found myself almost missing my stops and reading at other times too. The plot is really cool and some of the characters are a lot more interesting than they first seem. Of course some plot twists are a little ridiculous but on the whole I found this to be an exciting and interesting read.
This is the first Stephenson novel I've read, and I am surprised how much I liked it. Usually, I can't stand long-winded authors and this man definitely likes to write long books. I'm planning to check out others of his in the future.
*I must fess up to uncomfortability when authors try to sneak popularized mathematics into otherwise fine novels - and I am a mathematical cryptographer so it's not a matter of understanding.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Guns, Germs, and Steel by Diamond
I already had a good idea about this book since I listened to an abridged version last year, and saw the author speak several years ago. I found his observations so interesting that I wanted to read the whole book. He uses data from a variety of different fields to create a strong case and an interesting read. I plan to read this again sometime, and also check into some of the references he recommends.
Perhaps because I am an academic, I prefer his writing style to that of any other nonfiction authors that I've read recently. He presents the data in a logical manner and draws reasonable conclusions from it. He doesn't bring in a human-interest element or put himself into the story any more than he has to.
ETA: This book has really stuck with me. It made me aware of some assumptions about our planet that I shouldn't have been making... which causes me to question a lot of ideas that were based on those assumptions. However I am having a hard time finding words for these changes in my worldview.
By exploring the development of food production over the world, Diamond gently points out that most places on earth do not have native species that can be used in agriculture. This means that most populations on earth grew only because they somehow managed to bring in plants and animals from elsewhere. Diamond uses this fact to explain why different cultures "developed" at different rates, but somehow this observation has rocked me beyond that. This movement of species happened thousands of years ago in many cases, so of course it doesn't seem strange that there are cows in Europe, the Americas, Asia, Australia, etc. But now, when I think about our current preoccupation with being natural, organic, locavorous, etc it all seems a bit silly. When potatoes originated in the Andes, isn't it a little bit silly to worry about genetically modified potatoes growing in idaho, for example? They are already modified by our many many generations of growing them outside their original location.
Taking it a step further, the whole idea of a plant having a place where it is "supposed" to grow is silly too. If we want to be one with the earth and only grow mother nature's plants where mother nature planted them, then I suppose we all ought to move back to the fertile crescent. Any other situation is inherently unnatural and disruptive of "the natural balance" - whatever that is.
Perhaps because I am an academic, I prefer his writing style to that of any other nonfiction authors that I've read recently. He presents the data in a logical manner and draws reasonable conclusions from it. He doesn't bring in a human-interest element or put himself into the story any more than he has to.
ETA: This book has really stuck with me. It made me aware of some assumptions about our planet that I shouldn't have been making... which causes me to question a lot of ideas that were based on those assumptions. However I am having a hard time finding words for these changes in my worldview.
By exploring the development of food production over the world, Diamond gently points out that most places on earth do not have native species that can be used in agriculture. This means that most populations on earth grew only because they somehow managed to bring in plants and animals from elsewhere. Diamond uses this fact to explain why different cultures "developed" at different rates, but somehow this observation has rocked me beyond that. This movement of species happened thousands of years ago in many cases, so of course it doesn't seem strange that there are cows in Europe, the Americas, Asia, Australia, etc. But now, when I think about our current preoccupation with being natural, organic, locavorous, etc it all seems a bit silly. When potatoes originated in the Andes, isn't it a little bit silly to worry about genetically modified potatoes growing in idaho, for example? They are already modified by our many many generations of growing them outside their original location.
Taking it a step further, the whole idea of a plant having a place where it is "supposed" to grow is silly too. If we want to be one with the earth and only grow mother nature's plants where mother nature planted them, then I suppose we all ought to move back to the fertile crescent. Any other situation is inherently unnatural and disruptive of "the natural balance" - whatever that is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)