Living on Earth: Life, Consciousness and The Making of the Natural World
Peter Godfrey-Smith

A CLIMATE emergency, species extinction, habitat destruction... all largely driven by human actions and choices. Why has our impact become so destructive? Logically, consciousness – whether human or animal – plays an important part. 

The author begins with fundamentals. He charts the rise of life from the simplest chemical processes 3.8 billion years ago to the present. The emphasis is on the role evolution played within a unified, complex, ever-changing ecosystem. Shifts in climate are decisive, but living creatures also change their environments simply by living. No species in the long history of life on Earth has proved so dynamic as us.

Humans also belong in the web of life. The experience of living on this riotous, diverse, colourful planet, with all its joys and challenges, evokes deep feelings. Godfrey-Smith gives plenty of examples, and we are reminded of the sheer wonder of life.

So far so good. His account sets the scene for the main question: what part does human consciousness play in all this? 

The short answer is almost everything. The scale of humanity’s impact can be measured in biomass – the actual material of life. Human biomass is now nine times that of all wild mammals. Now add the animals and birds we farm. Livestock comes in at 14 times the biomass of wild animals and farmed birds more than twice that of wild birds. 

This startling material dominance has arisen because of conscious choices made by billions of people over millennia. The consequences for nature are vast and the author rightly seeks to drill down into some key issues, including climate change, factory farming, habitat preservation and the use of animals in experiments. 

Sadly, at this point he starts to lose his way. To be fair, it’s hard to get to grips with the reasons why humans do what we do to the natural world. His explanation revolves around a vague take on “human nature,” that flags up our capacity for analysis, co-operation, sociability and ability to develop technology. All these qualities mean that we are uniquely able to shape the natural environment. But why and how? Godfrey-Smith generally falls back on the idea that we do what we do because we can. 

But generalised abstractions don’t really explain humanity’s relationship with nature, past or present. Ultimately, as a species we deploy our enhanced mental and physical capacity to adapt and consume natural resources and then transform them into something else. This process of creative destruction is one of relatively peaceful co-existence and conflict. 

However, once we moved past the primitive hunter/gatherer stage and developed mass agriculture and later industry, a new dynamic kicked in. The growth of hierarchical class-based societies based on private property fundamentally changed the way we interact with nature. This experience also decisively shaped our consciousness.

Godfrey-Smith is an academic philosophy professor, and it soon shows. He tends to swerve away from this essential materialistic point and instead focus on moral, quasi-religious  or philosophical issues. Although we are generally spared the God part, the Gaia theory which casts the Earth as a semi-conscious entity able to protect itself from threats (like us) predictably gets a good airing. The ensuing discussion meanders through thickets of speculation, ethical debates and digressions. 

To be fair, he tries hard to explain the competing ideas put forward by his fellow academics in accessible ways, and often succeeds. But after struggling through hundreds of pages of dense verbiage this reader at least suspected he couldn’t see the trees for the wood. 

Take the case of factory farming, surely the ultimate example of big business commodifying nature? Clearly, the “choices” made here by both capitalist owners and consumers are rooted in a market system of mass production for profit. But amazingly, the word “capitalism” doesn’t appear once. 

Equally disappointing is the discussion of climate change. After ritually denouncing fossil fuels — but not the companies and governments that produce or enable them — he seems to mentally shrug. Yes, we should be doing something to stop global warming, but probably won’t. 

Maybe, we should accept the inevitable and create special environmental zones instead? Then again, are there ethical problems with that too? Choices. Tricky things choices, especially in the absence of a clear analysis of the dominant class interests and ideas that are shaping them.

So ultimately the author fails to really get to grips with the current relationship between human consciousness and nature. Late capitalism leaves nothing untouched, whether human or non-human. Living fruitfully on Earth therefore requires system-change as well as a deeper understanding of our place on the planet. That will be a choice, but one that also requires class consciousness to achieve it.