4 Stars

This is my second Mary Roach book of this Cannonball read, and the fact that it popped into my queue right now is perfect, because Gravity is out and I cannot wait to see it.

I was excited to read this because when I was a kid I wanted to be an astronaut. Not enough to get into the physics and astronomy track in college, or enlist in the air force, or really do anything to actively pursue that career path, but enough that to this day I still think that if I win the lottery I plan to squirrel away a chunk of the change to pay my way into space (after donating the vast majority of it to charity, of course.)

The premise is not just exploring space travel, but specifically extended space travel. Ms. Roach does a great job of weaving in the history of space travel through specific areas from eating space food to … eliminating said food. There are so many wonderful facts, great footnotes and just fun stories. She gets to ride the vomit comet (i.e. the parabolic flight), interview groundbreaking (atmosphere-busting?) astronauts, scientists and others.

The book is especially interesting because it doesn’t sugar-coat anything about space travel. I didn’t realize, for example, that some of the early space flights involved two dudes hanging out in a capsule for two weeks, no ability to wash or really take care of any personal hygiene needs. Or how much fecal matter can end up floating around in the space shuttle, and how much research and development had to go into creating a toilet, or how much effort goes into creating food that allows for a little more time between … evacuations.

Along the way of telling the story of all the challenges that are increased on a long space trip, Ms. Roach drops great little bits of knowledge. For example, she explains how the flag on the moon looked like it was blowing in the wind even though there isn’t wind on the moon, and talks about why people get motion sickness. There are so many awesome nuggets that it’s worth it for anyone who is into trivia.

You know the drill. It’s Mary Roach. It’s good. You’ll probably like it. Add it to the list.

I love Ms. Roach’s books. Stiff is a particular favorite of mine. Her writing style reads more like a fun conversation than an informative book, even though her books are inevitably also filled with interesting tidbits.

This book was no exception. Following the life of food as it passes through, well, us, Gulp spends each chapter focused on a different bodily function, some spreading across multiple chapters. Each chapter has some interesting history and interviews with folks doing research you probably didn’t know was going on. It is fun, entertaining, and an easy read.

Really the only wish I had is one that’s more for my benefit than others. I wish the book had started out with a basic reminder of the all the functions along the way. What does the small intestine do again? Is the large intestine different from the colon? Yes, I learned this in biology (I think), but that was a couple of decades ago, and I kind of assumed a book about digestion would provide me with that reminder. Additionally, while each chapter is definitely interesting on its own, there isn’t the connection one might expect in this type of book. It seems to lend itself well to a piece by piece narrative, but she only follows that in the most general terms.

Like Stiff, there are some who will be turned off by the realistic and blunt nature of the book. There’s a lot of talk of body fluids, smells and other things that people usually don’t discuss in ‘polite company.’ But if that doesn’t bother you, and like fun facts and interesting bits of trivia, then I suggest adding it to your list.

I should know better than to ever go into Powell’s without a firm agreement with myself that I will NOT buy any books that aren’t already on my Goodreads list. I mean, I’ve got 138 waiting for me – do I REALLY need to walk up and down the aisles of this massive indie bookstore, pulling off books that catch my eye?

Yes, yes I do. Unfortunately, I wish I hadn’t picked up this one.

Subtitled “How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future,” Mooney and Kirshenbaum’s book purports to explore why the lack of interest in or understanding of science is a threat to the U.S. While I appreciate the sentiment, there were a few negative things that really stood out to me as I read this book, resulting in a pretty low rating.

First, this book was published in 2009, and spends a good part discussing how scientists need to be better versed in how to discuss their findings and research with the media. Better communications training for all scientists is one of their main solutions to the problem referenced in the title, and overall it’s a good one. They point to Carl Sagan as a great scientist who the average person trusted and was interested in learning from; they also point out that he was essentially shunned by “serious” scientists. That’s a problem and needs to be fixed. However, one of the author’s biggest concerns is that we don’t have anyone like that these days.

Say what? Has he never heard of Neil deGrasse Tyson? That man is amazing. He got The Daily Show to (for the day at least) fix their opening credits so the world spins the right way. He got James Cameron to FIX THE SKY when he released the anniversary print of Titanic. This is a man people know, a man who is trying to bridge the unnecessary gap between science and policy, and he’s not even mentioned in the book. That alone gives me pause.

Second, the book has a disturbing chapter called “The New Atheists” that seeks to vilify PZ Meyers, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Now, I don’t know much about Meyers, and I know that Sam Harris seems to be EXTREMELY islamophobic, and Richard Dawkins seems to be quite misogynistic. However, those were the issues these authors had. They attempt to make the case that atheists like them, who suggest that religion today is incompatible with reason, are making the situation worse. I actually get the argument they are trying to make, but they make it so poorly that it’s a bit challenging to get on their side.

Additionally, while I see they have a larger goal in mind, they also seem to be doing the ‘give both sides equal time” thing they eviscerate just a few chapters earlier when discussing climate change. As an atheist (of the ‘there’s no evidence for a diving being now but if you gave me some obviously I’d change my mind’ variety) I am clearly more prone to sensitivity around discussions of this nature, so it is possible that I am either misreading that section or just disagree, but either way it left me with a pretty bad taste in my mouth.

Finally, while the title was clear enough to me that this was about the specific problem of science literacy in America, the nationalist undertones were ever-present and unsettling. I’d like to see the discussion about why it’s important for people to understand science and find it interesting from a policy perspective without ending the chapter with “BECAUSE AMERICA MUST BE NUMBER ONE!!!!1!1!!” I take issue with the U.S. not fostering financial support around issues like climate change, but not because we are the best yay U.S.A.! There seem to be constant appeals to that competitive, egotistical spirit in a lot of the promotion of the STEM areas (science, technology, engineering and math), often to the detriment of the humanities, which ironically these authors correctly point out are a necessary part of even science education. A focus on why this is a problem in our country without the ‘because WIN’ argument would be refreshing.

I appreciate (to a degree) what these authors were going for, but I think they missed the mark. The book was certainly an easy read (and very short, and only 130 pages of text with an additional 100 or so pages of references), and well written, but the arguments left me wanting something better.

“A simpler life with more exercise, fewer processed foods, and closer contact with our children may well be good for us. But we shouldn’t seek to live that way because we think it emulates our ancestors.” – Marlene Zuk, Paleofantasy

There are a lot of different diets out there, some couched as providing quick weight loss, others purporting to be full-on lifestyles. We’re likely all familiar with South Beach and Atkins, as well as some of the old-school fixes (cabbage soup, cayenne lemonade ‘cleanse’). But one that’s gotten a lot of coverage lately is the Paleo or caveman lifestyle. The basic foundation of these recent movements is that we haven’t evolved for this life (eating dairy, sitting at a desk, consuming refined grains), so we need to adjust our diet to get back to the time when we were best matched to our environment: the Paleolithic era.

I try to reserve judgment of people if they are not hurting others. If what you choose to do works – either because of placebo effect or otherwise – then yay for you! I’m not, however, a fan of people promoting certain actions for reasons that can’t be supported with facts. If I tell you that a car will go forward when you step on the gas pedal, I’m correct; if I tell you it goes forward if you step on the gas pedal because of magical fairy dust in the trunk, I’m wrong. Even if the outcome – you trusting me that pushing on the pedal will make the car go – will be the same, the supporting evidence matters to me.

That’s why I found this book to be SO fascinating. Dr. Zuk is interested in exploring the claims many people seem to be making about what evolution can tell us about how we should be living our lives. It was a bit of a challenging read, but certainly manaegable if you have a basic understanding of biology. She’s great at explaining things, although there were definitely areas that I had to re-read twice.

The purpose of the book is to explore in detail the oft-cited claims that we haven’t evolved for this life we’re living. She spends time building her case by talking about evolution of other species – including a really fascinating discussion of how quickly some crickets evolved to stop chirping because the chirps attracted some deadly flies – before addressing some of the main claims those who promote a Paleo lifestyle make. She tackles the dairy argument by providing evidence of how many of us HAVE evolved to process dairy (and why!). She looks at the caveman exercise model by pointing out that while the need for activity itself is supported, the idea that it needs to mimic chasing a mammoth is unsupported. She even takes aim at the “agriculture changed everything for the worse” argument. It’s fascinating and different from what seems to be pushed on a regular basis by many people who are promoting a specific agenda.

She also examines non-diet evolutionary biology issues, some of which she sees having support (attachment parents will like that part of the book) and some she does not (people who think women evolved to be monogamous and men did not may want to skip chapter seven). Those sections are especially interesting because those arguments – especially the ones around men and women evolving to be better suited to performing certain tasks – find their ways into daily life. Even political arguments from some conservatives (who ironically often don’t believe in evolution) are often based in this misunderstanding of how we have evolved.

My biggest take-away from reading this book is that there is not ‘perfect’ time that we’re best suited for, and evolution can happen much quicker (relatively speaking) than some Paleo proponents suggest. Dr. Zuk is NOT suggesting that, for example, eating fewer processed foods, or eliminating dairy, is bad; she’s just saying that the evidence for why it might be good to eat more whole foods or be more active is not necessarily found in how we lived 15,000 years ago.

I’d recommend this book to anyone who is interested in science, evidence, reason, and biology.