You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.2 AVERAGE
3.2 AVERAGE
informative
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Interesting, but it felt like the last half was completely different from the first half. It felt disjointed. Still some very thought-provoking ideas though.
Ostensibly this book is about healthcare and wellness, but that is just the deliciously fluffy sheepskin costume designed to get ordinary people to pick it up. Barbara Ehrenreich is a grumpy, cantankerous science writer who is totally fed up with the health and wellness beat, and somewhere in her wanderings has become something of a philosopher. Underneath the grumpy diatribes about the healthcare system's systematic dehumanization of its patients, the classism of "wellness," and the sheer quackery of most "mindfulness" advice is a long, dark look at the granularity of the self and the simple beauty of death.
Angry and thought-provoking, this book is really about trying to find a way to live in peace in a modern era choked with misinformation and fear.
Angry and thought-provoking, this book is really about trying to find a way to live in peace in a modern era choked with misinformation and fear.
reflective
medium-paced
This book is a MESS, and not in any enjoyable way.
The author infuriatingly refuses to acknowledge nor address a plethora of research and evidence that point not just to the physical benefits of exercise but also to the mental health benefits of it.
Some other highlights of ways the book irked me:
- She claims that the medical suggestion for seniors to exercise regularly is “draconian,” but doesn’t even entertain discussing the alternative: the higher likelihood of the remainder of life spent bedridden and/or relying on a myriad of medications.
- She writes about the power of the placebo effect in one chapter but then dismisses and mocks meditation and mindfulness in another.
- She insinuates that anyone being mindful of their eating choices is doing so under medical and societal duress, but then she doesn’t offer any alternative other than, “I personally eat whatever I want and however much of it that I want!” There is then NO discussion about the consequences of, say, eating too much of something or drinking too much alcohol.
- She writes about the rise of ADHD and autism diagnoses as though it’s a moral failing on the part of adults and parents. (For one it’s really ableist in mindset to perceive ADHD and autism diagnoses as things we should be avoiding/working to not have, and on top of that maybe the reason there’s an increase in diagnoses is because we are overall more cognizant and knowledgeable about these symptoms nowadays compared to the past!)
- She makes a wild claim that poor white people “have it worse” than Black people, but then doesn’t even address what we now know about how trauma is passed down through our genes, affecting so much of our body and mind. Doesn’t even acknowledge how much the inherited generational trauma combined with modern day racism compounds to create disastrous effects on BIPOCs’ health.
I could go on, but I’d really not think about this book much more. I’m only writing this long of a review so as to warn others about how awful it was. It’s hard for me to DNF books, and I honestly was curious how she would conclude it after talking about how everything we know about taking care of our bodies and minds is essentially wrong and incorrect (spoiler alert: she does not offer any cogent alternative nor any semblance of a solution to her complaints).
It would’ve been a one star, though I gave it one more due to the fact that the one pro was that she is healthily and understandably skeptical of the medical industrial complex - something we should all be more weary of.
The author infuriatingly refuses to acknowledge nor address a plethora of research and evidence that point not just to the physical benefits of exercise but also to the mental health benefits of it.
Some other highlights of ways the book irked me:
- She claims that the medical suggestion for seniors to exercise regularly is “draconian,” but doesn’t even entertain discussing the alternative: the higher likelihood of the remainder of life spent bedridden and/or relying on a myriad of medications.
- She writes about the power of the placebo effect in one chapter but then dismisses and mocks meditation and mindfulness in another.
- She insinuates that anyone being mindful of their eating choices is doing so under medical and societal duress, but then she doesn’t offer any alternative other than, “I personally eat whatever I want and however much of it that I want!” There is then NO discussion about the consequences of, say, eating too much of something or drinking too much alcohol.
- She writes about the rise of ADHD and autism diagnoses as though it’s a moral failing on the part of adults and parents. (For one it’s really ableist in mindset to perceive ADHD and autism diagnoses as things we should be avoiding/working to not have, and on top of that maybe the reason there’s an increase in diagnoses is because we are overall more cognizant and knowledgeable about these symptoms nowadays compared to the past!)
- She makes a wild claim that poor white people “have it worse” than Black people, but then doesn’t even address what we now know about how trauma is passed down through our genes, affecting so much of our body and mind. Doesn’t even acknowledge how much the inherited generational trauma combined with modern day racism compounds to create disastrous effects on BIPOCs’ health.
I could go on, but I’d really not think about this book much more. I’m only writing this long of a review so as to warn others about how awful it was. It’s hard for me to DNF books, and I honestly was curious how she would conclude it after talking about how everything we know about taking care of our bodies and minds is essentially wrong and incorrect (spoiler alert: she does not offer any cogent alternative nor any semblance of a solution to her complaints).
It would’ve been a one star, though I gave it one more due to the fact that the one pro was that she is healthily and understandably skeptical of the medical industrial complex - something we should all be more weary of.
I have read this author's other books and respect her body of work. I needed to stop reading this one so I would be able to continue respecting her work.
It had me in the first half.
I was torn between 2 stars and 3 stars, so I rounded up since death/dying happens to be a particularly interesting topic to me.
Obviously very thoroughly researched, and it's clear that Ehrenreich has a lot of passion for the subject. I started to get lost around the DNA/cell area. I feel like the book just lost focus around there and the content stopped elaborating on "an epidemic of wellness, the certainty of dying, and killing ourselves to live longer" and continued on a path that wasn't all that related to the topic that hooked me. My interest very much waned. Which is really unfortunate, because I found the first half of the book fascinating.
Also, can we talk about how Ehrenreich compared a colonoscopy to sexual assault???? We maybe could've skipped that comparison.
Did not end up finishing the second half. I just couldn't pull myself through cell biology when I had Caitlin Doughty next in my TBR lineup.
I was torn between 2 stars and 3 stars, so I rounded up since death/dying happens to be a particularly interesting topic to me.
Obviously very thoroughly researched, and it's clear that Ehrenreich has a lot of passion for the subject. I started to get lost around the DNA/cell area. I feel like the book just lost focus around there and the content stopped elaborating on "an epidemic of wellness, the certainty of dying, and killing ourselves to live longer" and continued on a path that wasn't all that related to the topic that hooked me. My interest very much waned. Which is really unfortunate, because I found the first half of the book fascinating.
Also, can we talk about how Ehrenreich compared a colonoscopy to sexual assault???? We maybe could've skipped that comparison.
Did not end up finishing the second half. I just couldn't pull myself through cell biology when I had Caitlin Doughty next in my TBR lineup.
I usually enjoy Barbara Ehrenreich's books and this one was good but it went a little too much into the molecular science of the body and not (as I had thought) the social aspects of aging and dying. She's a scientist by training (I hadn't known that) so it's understandable. And a good part of the book deals with our efforts to stave off the inevitable end-of-life experiences. But a little too heavy on the macrophages and whether human cells have free will and stuff like that.
Otherwise, a good read as always from this author.
Otherwise, a good read as always from this author.
medium-paced
The main idea I've taken from this book is that the body is non-unitary; it is made of cells which may comprise systems, but these systems do not all work together for the same end. The book illustrated this well, especially in its description of various members of the immune system.
I found the more philosophical sections weaker. A theme throughout was the idea of agency (and cells having agency), but although it was brought up a lot it felt underexplored. It's unclear what exactly agency means, definitionally and what the significance is for the argument. It kinda felt like trading on the implicit meaning/value of the word 'agency' rather than giving a substantial description of a trait that cells have and is significant for them to have. If we can already accept cells make decisions according to some kinds of algorithms (and if there is insufficient information, 'randomly') shaped by evolutionary pressures towards individual success, rather than that of the whole organism (the consequences of which are my main takeaway from the book) then I'm not sure what work the concept of 'agency' does for the argument/what it adds. A panpsychist perspective would add something, but the definition of agency given explicitly states consciousness isn't required, which was interesting but also confused me/felt underdeveloped.
(Ofc this is a genuine philosophical puzzle/problem (e.g. the role of consciousness, randomness, etc) and not one I expect the author to solve - but given that it is such a deep concept, just providing one definition felt like it couldn't do the work it was suppose to do. Again, I'm not sure what role this concept of agency (and cells having it) plays in the overall argument, really. Maybe I'm being harsh; I don't think the book was worse off for including this section; it is interesting to ponder. I guess it just didn't really make a strong case for anything and could have perhaps been more of an exploration of different conceptions/possibilities rather than trying to assert/push for one concept (which I may be misremembering so sorry if it was actually more exploratory!).
Other philosophical parts , such as the point about the intrinsic inability to imagine the future without one's presence (as we are imagining from our perspective; we can only imagine what the world would be like for us to behold), felt a little trivial.
However, I would still recommend the book as overall it was really interesting. If you're already familiar with health/diet culture discourse then I don't think there's much new analysis (but the historical elements are interesting). The biology is the main strength of the book. Yep!
I found the more philosophical sections weaker. A theme throughout was the idea of agency (and cells having agency), but although it was brought up a lot it felt underexplored. It's unclear what exactly agency means, definitionally and what the significance is for the argument. It kinda felt like trading on the implicit meaning/value of the word 'agency' rather than giving a substantial description of a trait that cells have and is significant for them to have. If we can already accept cells make decisions according to some kinds of algorithms (and if there is insufficient information, 'randomly') shaped by evolutionary pressures towards individual success, rather than that of the whole organism (the consequences of which are my main takeaway from the book) then I'm not sure what work the concept of 'agency' does for the argument/what it adds. A panpsychist perspective would add something, but the definition of agency given explicitly states consciousness isn't required, which was interesting but also confused me/felt underdeveloped.
(Ofc this is a genuine philosophical puzzle/problem (e.g. the role of consciousness, randomness, etc) and not one I expect the author to solve - but given that it is such a deep concept, just providing one definition felt like it couldn't do the work it was suppose to do. Again, I'm not sure what role this concept of agency (and cells having it) plays in the overall argument, really. Maybe I'm being harsh; I don't think the book was worse off for including this section; it is interesting to ponder. I guess it just didn't really make a strong case for anything and could have perhaps been more of an exploration of different conceptions/possibilities rather than trying to assert/push for one concept (which I may be misremembering so sorry if it was actually more exploratory!).
Other philosophical parts , such as the point about the intrinsic inability to imagine the future without one's presence (as we are imagining from our perspective; we can only imagine what the world would be like for us to behold), felt a little trivial.
However, I would still recommend the book as overall it was really interesting. If you're already familiar with health/diet culture discourse then I don't think there's much new analysis (but the historical elements are interesting). The biology is the main strength of the book. Yep!
I am somewhat in two minds about this book and thus its review. The book came across as interesting, but fragmented and sometimes with bad or uninformed reasoning to start with, then very technical about cell biology and the immune system (turns out Ehrenreich has earned her PhD in cell biology) which seems unnecessarily detailed for what seems to be the purpose of the book. And it ends with a very interesting chapter which brings all of it together. What I gathered from it were the similarities in how our own immune system is meant to defend us, but sometimes works against our health just like our concept of self is meant to do us good, but may be the cause for many psychiatric problems such as depression (further evidenced by patients that use mind altering drugs which more are less takes away their sense of self, replacing it by a sense of being part of something bigger, which brings them more peace of mind. This reminded me very much of the concept of non duality in Buddhist teachings and seems to back this up. Interesting stuff).
At times I wouldn't have given this book more than a 1 or 2 star review, but the interesting chapters alone warrant a 4 star review, inspite of this book being a drudge in large parts. One thing is for certain: this book is a lot less philosophical than I would have expected and at times (as mentioned) being less factual and well reasoned than expected. But when it is good it's really good.
At times I wouldn't have given this book more than a 1 or 2 star review, but the interesting chapters alone warrant a 4 star review, inspite of this book being a drudge in large parts. One thing is for certain: this book is a lot less philosophical than I would have expected and at times (as mentioned) being less factual and well reasoned than expected. But when it is good it's really good.