Source: Madison Public Library
1. Weisman’s reasons for probing the idea of a ‘world without us’ are unstated. Why do you suppose he didn’t offer an introductory chapter, or even paragraph, on his reasons for exploring this idea?
2. Do you agree with Weisman that a way to understand how the world may evolve without us is to picture how the world was like before us? It seems some of the scientists interviewed believe the earth will actually change in new, heretofore unseen ways in a world without us, rather than return to a pre-human state. (For example, the Spanish conservation biologist who studies reefs and oceans seems to believe that.)Were there other compelling concepts in the book of a new earth that could emerge in part because of our presence, then disappearance?
3. Some reviewers have found in The World Without Us doomsday plotlines (New York Times & others), while another (New York Times Book Review) called it the equivalent of a “Hollywood-worthy, slow-motion disaster spectacular and feel-good movie rolled into one.” What was your emotional connection to the book? Did you find its tone depressing all the time? Some of the time? Not at all?
4. While some of the worst ecological damage is known to us all (Chernobyl, for example) some examples here were surprising. Which of his discoveries of damaging products were unknown or most shocking to you? Plastic pellets from skin exfoliants on the beach? By-products from embalming? The chemicals used in Kenya’s cut-flower industry? Others?
5. Living in Wisconsin, were you surprising to read of the history of large mammals in North America? Were you aware of the giant sloth, for example? Did the idea of repopulating North America with large carnivorous mammals intrigue you? What about his supposition that the continued existence of large mammals in Africa is the result of their evolving simultaneously (and in close proximity to) human evolution?
From: http://www.meetup.com/bookclub-458/messages/boards/thread/6310478
1. What do you think was the author's main objective in writing this book? Does he want to educate us? Scare us? Depress us? Motivate us? Was he successful? What should we do after reading this book?
2. What was your reaction to the book? Did you find it depressing or ultimately hopeful? Why? Does the author offer us any hope for humanity?
3. What was the most surprising thing you learned from this book? What did you take away from it that made you glad you read it?
4. Has there been a change in your perception in the way that popular culture and the media treat environmental issues? Do you feel that it has become more "mainstream" or "popular"? If so, what do you think accounts for this change?
5. What do you think about the style that the book is written in? How would you describe his style? Is it more descriptive than argumentative? Is that effective as a choice for the book? Why is it organized the way that it is? Why do you think that Weisman chose not to be overly prescriptive and tell us what to do?
6. One of the solutions that Weisman appears to propose is that we limit human population, imposing something like the "one child" policy currently in place in China. Is this feasible? Is it right? How does this relate to Catholic/Christian views on reproduction?
7. If you had to choose one chapter that best represents what the book is about, which one would you choose and why?