I wanted to read a book yesterday evening, and plucked "The God Species" from my friend's bookshelf.
I read as far as the 6th page of the introduction, on which I discovered that "the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence suggests that we are fast approaching the point where our interference in the planet's great bio-geochemical cycles is threatening to endanger the Earth system itself..." which caused a mental stutter, not just because the evidence is that we have past several important tipping points some time ago, but also because I have some conceptual problems with the "Earth system". But I read swiftly on, "...and hence our own survival as a species." As I understand it, this translates to "we have the tiger, or perhaps it is a dragon, or Godzilla, by the tail, and our future is uncertain".
But then the author goes on, "Nature no longer runs the Earth. We do. It is our choice what happens from here." So either the author has a different concept of "nature" from me, or he has not internalised the idea that "the planet's great bio-geochemical cycles" will go on blithely "running the Earth", altered or unaltered, humans or no humans, and that gumming up a coffee grinder by sticking your finger into it is not "running" the coffee grinder.
I read on to the next page, but my heart wasn't in it, and I was terminally discouraged when I found that the author thinks that Limits to Growth was about economic growth (it is about the growth of human impact on the planet) and that the planetary boundaries concept does not "necessarily mean ditching capitalism, the profit principle or the market". Profit requires debt, and debt requires that tomorrow is bigger than today. End of. Oh well.