What do you think?
Rate this book
The Arrogance of Humanism
An inquiry into the origins, dissemination, and consequences of the modern belief that humans can solve any problem and overcome any difficulty, given time and resources enough.
304 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1978
11 people are currently reading
366 people want to read
About the author
David W. Ehrenfeld
13 books5 followersAmerican professor of biology at Rutgers University, New Jersey.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
November 9, 2023
David sees good and bad sides to Humanism and this book will focus on its downside. Let’s break Humanism down to those “untestable assumptions”: “All problems are soluble.” “All problems are soluble by people.” “When the chips are down, we will apply ourselves and work together for a solution before it’s too late.” “Some resources are infinite; all finite or limited resources have substitutes.” “We have to accept hardly anything the way it comes from nature: we can do it better”. “Anything conceivable can be accomplished.” For David, there are few humanists who don’t see nature as a machine. Most worship the machine and believe “the myth of control is true.” But if man falsely thinks nature is a machine, won’t he end up using science to move even further from nature? And increase Jevon’s Paradox? Kant said machines contain “an external organizing principle while nature does not.” Lewis Mumford agreed. Humanism has generated both “technology’s dehumanization of people” and a “dream of eliminating death and disease altogether.” A danger is humanists looking down on nature, the way Montgomery Burns looks down on people. Such a humanist mindset might make a blind person prefer a high-tech laser cane over an actual guide dog.
Pop culture Humanism: Aboard the Enterprise in Star Trek, everyone is walking around in perfect health thanks to a doctor “whose chemical and electronic aids can make any diagnosis and treat any mere human ailment.”
As a racoon lover, I adored the comical story from scientists trying to control racoons to do their bidding, in this case put coins in a box for a reward: “now the racoon really had problems and so did we. Not only could he not let go of the coins, but he spent seconds, even minutes rubbing them together, and dipping them into the container. He carried on this behavior to such an extent that the practical application we had in mind …simply was not feasible.”
“If a discovery or a technology can be used for evil purposes, it will be so used.” Against the ‘man can fix everything’ humanism, think entropy: think silting of waters behind dams where you lose 50% reservoir capacity in five years, or increased salinity (Lake Nassar), or reduced marine fertility. Try to solve entropy, ha ha. We should have been told that the Green Revolution was a devil’s bargain: a free lunch that deeply depended on fossil fuel inputs of fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides or on mining the soil rather than nurture and restore it. Look at the tech solution of industrial stack scrubbers, meant to remove pollutants from the air; instead, they put sulfuric acid up in the sky which comes down in rain etching away stone buildings, causing animal and plant illness and weaknesses. Yet the scrubbers are dubbed pollution control. There is thus a danger of fleeing “from reality to an altogether more soothing world of techno-pastoral dreams.”
The world found out that the insecticide DBCP can cause sterility in small doses because two workers at a DBCP manufacturing factory, were talking at lunch break about why their wives couldn’t get pregnant. “We remain prisoners of our own (humanist) system” because “One bushel of Iowa corn costs us two bushels of topsoil.” Note that increasing complexity of human solutions increases not decreases inertia. For example, why are we still subsidizing comically inefficient truck and air transport while ‘allowing’ the rest of the world to implement far more efficient high-speed rail? Why was the ITT Corporation allowed to “undermine and topple the lawful government of Chile? “
A paradox is that Humanism wants a world controlled by human beings - but funny how it doesn’t factor in having so many crazy mother#$%kers in positions of power. Note that hydrogen bombs and defoliating chemicals are products of humanism. Note how “in the fishing industry nearly every ‘improvement’ in efficiency is now associated with a decline or extinction of the populations being fished.” Note how one man trying to save the whales once published maps of exactly where whales were living because “he couldn’t withhold scientific truth.” Remember the TVA was going to bring electric power to the poor? That TVA since then became “a force to exterminate endangered species, to root up wilderness, to inundate tens of thousands of prime agricultural lands beneath unnecessary reservoirs.”
“The opponent of humanism dislikes and fears large organizations whose purpose is control.”
“The opponent of humanism deplores any form of lack of consideration for the environment.”
Know that Goethe wrote that “most moderate individuals” “cannot advance beyond the idea that everything redound to the benefit of mankind.” Such humanists would call nature as “a gigantic toolshed” (Clarence Glacken’s words). Such a mindset means all nature must reveal why it deserves to be preserved; there must be a logical and practical reason. Some conservationists in US history have felt this way.
Facts to recite at a cocktail party: “Massive grazing by wildebeest during their annual migrations is necessary to provide a lush mat of grass that can be eaten by Thompson’s gazelles month’s later.” It’s Symbiosis, Baby! As well as a killer album with Bill Evans soloing to Claus Ogerman’s incredible arrangements.
David writes, “I believe we cannot voluntarily give up the dream of power, and that a Gollum will be needed.” To bring down the arrogance of humanists, David thinks only global economic depression will do it. That would bring “the collapse of exploitative industry, the collapse of the global trade,” etc… Know that some misanthropes are that way because they think the path we are collectively taking is madness and there is too much “relentless enthusiasm” for it and “such little heed of the cost.” As you can see from this book, a big danger of humanism has been “the pursuit of knowledge regardless of consequences”. Assignment: Now the book is over, note how in the past century “nothing is totally free from our arrogance.” Forever chemicals found everywhere (in the Antarctic, in nearly 50% of US drinking water, in cosmetics, even inside our bodies). Now’s that’s progress Dupont and 3M style!
This was a really good book that covers territory that few books touch. I thought, humanism about being man centered instead of religion centered - that humanism was a shift from religious to secular matters and that humanists only believe in the universe, nature and themselves. Until this book, I never was told humanism wasn’t also about being connected to nature and with reverence. The only thing suspect for me was that Humanist groups on the internet seemed so human centered that I wondered if there is any humanist appreciation for any of the planet that is NOT human. And I remember in San Francisco my kids were taught in school that humans deserve respect but strangely weren’t told nature does as well.
Pop culture Humanism: Aboard the Enterprise in Star Trek, everyone is walking around in perfect health thanks to a doctor “whose chemical and electronic aids can make any diagnosis and treat any mere human ailment.”
As a racoon lover, I adored the comical story from scientists trying to control racoons to do their bidding, in this case put coins in a box for a reward: “now the racoon really had problems and so did we. Not only could he not let go of the coins, but he spent seconds, even minutes rubbing them together, and dipping them into the container. He carried on this behavior to such an extent that the practical application we had in mind …simply was not feasible.”
“If a discovery or a technology can be used for evil purposes, it will be so used.” Against the ‘man can fix everything’ humanism, think entropy: think silting of waters behind dams where you lose 50% reservoir capacity in five years, or increased salinity (Lake Nassar), or reduced marine fertility. Try to solve entropy, ha ha. We should have been told that the Green Revolution was a devil’s bargain: a free lunch that deeply depended on fossil fuel inputs of fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides or on mining the soil rather than nurture and restore it. Look at the tech solution of industrial stack scrubbers, meant to remove pollutants from the air; instead, they put sulfuric acid up in the sky which comes down in rain etching away stone buildings, causing animal and plant illness and weaknesses. Yet the scrubbers are dubbed pollution control. There is thus a danger of fleeing “from reality to an altogether more soothing world of techno-pastoral dreams.”
The world found out that the insecticide DBCP can cause sterility in small doses because two workers at a DBCP manufacturing factory, were talking at lunch break about why their wives couldn’t get pregnant. “We remain prisoners of our own (humanist) system” because “One bushel of Iowa corn costs us two bushels of topsoil.” Note that increasing complexity of human solutions increases not decreases inertia. For example, why are we still subsidizing comically inefficient truck and air transport while ‘allowing’ the rest of the world to implement far more efficient high-speed rail? Why was the ITT Corporation allowed to “undermine and topple the lawful government of Chile? “
A paradox is that Humanism wants a world controlled by human beings - but funny how it doesn’t factor in having so many crazy mother#$%kers in positions of power. Note that hydrogen bombs and defoliating chemicals are products of humanism. Note how “in the fishing industry nearly every ‘improvement’ in efficiency is now associated with a decline or extinction of the populations being fished.” Note how one man trying to save the whales once published maps of exactly where whales were living because “he couldn’t withhold scientific truth.” Remember the TVA was going to bring electric power to the poor? That TVA since then became “a force to exterminate endangered species, to root up wilderness, to inundate tens of thousands of prime agricultural lands beneath unnecessary reservoirs.”
“The opponent of humanism dislikes and fears large organizations whose purpose is control.”
“The opponent of humanism deplores any form of lack of consideration for the environment.”
Know that Goethe wrote that “most moderate individuals” “cannot advance beyond the idea that everything redound to the benefit of mankind.” Such humanists would call nature as “a gigantic toolshed” (Clarence Glacken’s words). Such a mindset means all nature must reveal why it deserves to be preserved; there must be a logical and practical reason. Some conservationists in US history have felt this way.
Facts to recite at a cocktail party: “Massive grazing by wildebeest during their annual migrations is necessary to provide a lush mat of grass that can be eaten by Thompson’s gazelles month’s later.” It’s Symbiosis, Baby! As well as a killer album with Bill Evans soloing to Claus Ogerman’s incredible arrangements.
David writes, “I believe we cannot voluntarily give up the dream of power, and that a Gollum will be needed.” To bring down the arrogance of humanists, David thinks only global economic depression will do it. That would bring “the collapse of exploitative industry, the collapse of the global trade,” etc… Know that some misanthropes are that way because they think the path we are collectively taking is madness and there is too much “relentless enthusiasm” for it and “such little heed of the cost.” As you can see from this book, a big danger of humanism has been “the pursuit of knowledge regardless of consequences”. Assignment: Now the book is over, note how in the past century “nothing is totally free from our arrogance.” Forever chemicals found everywhere (in the Antarctic, in nearly 50% of US drinking water, in cosmetics, even inside our bodies). Now’s that’s progress Dupont and 3M style!
This was a really good book that covers territory that few books touch. I thought, humanism about being man centered instead of religion centered - that humanism was a shift from religious to secular matters and that humanists only believe in the universe, nature and themselves. Until this book, I never was told humanism wasn’t also about being connected to nature and with reverence. The only thing suspect for me was that Humanist groups on the internet seemed so human centered that I wondered if there is any humanist appreciation for any of the planet that is NOT human. And I remember in San Francisco my kids were taught in school that humans deserve respect but strangely weren’t told nature does as well.
November 2, 2015
This is an important book. It helped clarify my ideas around the power-fantasy of human control and the need for humility in our attempts to find our place in the world.
July 6, 2021
One of the most important books I've read in a very long time. This has explicitly stated many intuitions that I haven't quite been able to find the words for up until now. Equally critical of capitalism and communism, I found this to be a fantastic critique of the humanist project.
April 12, 2012
This is not a religious screed against the non-religious. It describes how most of us have untested tenets within our normal operating mind, some of which have no more "scientific basis" than religions. Which makes it another sort of faith--faith in humanity, or the scientific method, or what have you.
The leads to a belief that we can solve any problem with science, or engineering or politics--when our history is that we have nearly always produced quasi-solutions, with residual problems that are an order of magnitude harder to resolve.
The leads to a belief that we can solve any problem with science, or engineering or politics--when our history is that we have nearly always produced quasi-solutions, with residual problems that are an order of magnitude harder to resolve.
August 24, 2019
I called myself a humanist for a short while, in my ardently anti-religious phase. I'm over both now, and would call myself a "Planet Earth-ist" now. :-)
All joking aside, this is an incredibly important book. Reading it in 2019, I am impressed and dismayed by how much we already knew in 1980 when the author was writing this book about how humanism, anthropocentrism, capitalism, consumerism, ecocide, and climate change were destroying the natural communities and beauty of the world, our planet, our only home.
Impressed because that was early days to be so aware of all the issues that continue to plague us today, and dismayed because we've done nothing since this book hit the shelves except make the problem exponentially worse.
We cannot claim that we didn't know. David Ehrenfeld knew. And apparently no one listened.
Not everything in this book hits quite the right notes with me, but 90% did. When I finished the last paragraph on the last page, I closed the book and said wow, loudly, to no one in particular. There are many pages with the corners turned in that I will revisit to think about again and again. And despite being almost 40 years old, this book is an important read still today, if for no other reason than to remind us of the delusions which continue to lead us astray in our journey as human animals on planet Earth.
All joking aside, this is an incredibly important book. Reading it in 2019, I am impressed and dismayed by how much we already knew in 1980 when the author was writing this book about how humanism, anthropocentrism, capitalism, consumerism, ecocide, and climate change were destroying the natural communities and beauty of the world, our planet, our only home.
Impressed because that was early days to be so aware of all the issues that continue to plague us today, and dismayed because we've done nothing since this book hit the shelves except make the problem exponentially worse.
We cannot claim that we didn't know. David Ehrenfeld knew. And apparently no one listened.
Not everything in this book hits quite the right notes with me, but 90% did. When I finished the last paragraph on the last page, I closed the book and said wow, loudly, to no one in particular. There are many pages with the corners turned in that I will revisit to think about again and again. And despite being almost 40 years old, this book is an important read still today, if for no other reason than to remind us of the delusions which continue to lead us astray in our journey as human animals on planet Earth.
May 28, 2019
While Secular Humanism by Duncan Homer was written by a Baptist minister and takes on the religious issues; the Arrogance of Humanism is written by a Jew who takes on the cultural particularly via science fiction i.e. Arthur Clarke, Star Trek etc. While not a bad book, and probably more mainstream than the other by Dr. Homer, this one is overwritten and Ehrenfeld seems to want to beat his adversary to death. I can understand that pov, but OTOH, it does get tedious.
June 18, 2021
This little book was a referent to me given by a friend who helped found the CA Green Party.
It's a little gem of a book on environmental problems which culminates with a quandary for the author (an MD) while on a sampling cruise when one of the onboard crew suffers an injury. It's an issue of the short-term problem versus the long-term problem.
The chapter on emotions and survival is a good chapter.
It's a little gem of a book on environmental problems which culminates with a quandary for the author (an MD) while on a sampling cruise when one of the onboard crew suffers an injury. It's an issue of the short-term problem versus the long-term problem.
The chapter on emotions and survival is a good chapter.
August 7, 2023
Accurate overview of human hubris. First half of the book is a bit grumpy. Second half, better and crisper. Ehrenfeld’s thesis is that we’ve defiled pretty much everything. The passage of time hasn’t provided any counter evidence.
November 3, 2019
A thoughtful and upsetting book. The book feels a bit dated at times, but only superficially. It doesn’t take much imagination to replace the Cold War era references with modern analogues.
October 2, 2023
Amazing how well this has held up 45 yrs later
July 27, 2024
very good, dense but fun read
September 7, 2013
This is now one of my very favorite non-fiction books. It very succinctly put humanism (i.e., human supremacy) in its very ugly little place. The best chapter by far was number 7; Ehrenfeld eviscerates liberals -- which arrogantly believe themselves to be different than conservatives. On the surface this may be true, but underneath in the depths of truth, liberals are just the other side of the same human supremacist coin. The same chapter puts paid to communism and by extension paints socialists/Marxists in the same light. I knew this stuff from prior study but this book puts it all in one convenient little package.
I saw another review on here where someone talks about how dated this book is. This reviewer entirely missed the point, I think. It's not dated at all. What is important about this book is that 40 years ago (a very few) people had a strong grip on what was wrong with humanism and how we are destroying the wilderness. If they had been listened to then, perhaps we wouldn't be at the tipping point of a massive crash as we are now. Every point made in this book speaks exactly and directly to problems I see with civilization and humanism today.
If people don't get this or dismiss this book then they have not grasped the truth about how horrible humanism is and are still blinded by their humanistic arrogance and ego. It was really difficult for me to figure this stuff out over the past several years and I doubt most people will even be willing to open-mindedly examine this subject. Our culture as a whole is too arrogant, egotistical, deluded, insane, and in love with destruction for people to be able to freely and comfortably look at the truth.
I saw another review on here where someone talks about how dated this book is. This reviewer entirely missed the point, I think. It's not dated at all. What is important about this book is that 40 years ago (a very few) people had a strong grip on what was wrong with humanism and how we are destroying the wilderness. If they had been listened to then, perhaps we wouldn't be at the tipping point of a massive crash as we are now. Every point made in this book speaks exactly and directly to problems I see with civilization and humanism today.
If people don't get this or dismiss this book then they have not grasped the truth about how horrible humanism is and are still blinded by their humanistic arrogance and ego. It was really difficult for me to figure this stuff out over the past several years and I doubt most people will even be willing to open-mindedly examine this subject. Our culture as a whole is too arrogant, egotistical, deluded, insane, and in love with destruction for people to be able to freely and comfortably look at the truth.
November 26, 2011
Not a bad look at the role our obsession with technology and development has had on our species and our interactions with the world. However, this book is rather dated, and the author tends to emphasize Cold War examples. Also, he advocates, what seems to me to be, the precautionary principle, which in its standard form, is incomprehensible in inconsistent and incomprehensible from a logical point of view. Instead of arguing for the precautionary principle, he should have supported the application of the threshold precautionary principle or maximin decision criteria. Ehrenfeld is a biologist and not a philosopher, and it shows.
January 1, 2019
In this book, the author attacks Humanism as an ideology which sees many of our modern problems arising from the belief that humans can control most everything. We must have humility as we proceed. Oh, and this book is not an attack on "secular humanism" as such. But it is an eye-opening read about our world.
January 9, 2008
Opened my mind in the most amazing and memorable "aha!" moment I think I've ever had while reading.
April 1, 2011
My husband gave me this book over 20 years ago. It's one that shifted the way I think about technology and has informed my point of view ever since.
September 4, 2018
Well written, clever and funny so far.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews