So far I haven't been tagging spoilers because its nonfiction and in my mind, talking about Gaspare Tagliacozzi who died in 1599 doesn't feel very spoiler-y ? I guess technically it could be spoiling what direction the book will go, but when it is all science adventures and fun facts, it doesn't seem to me like it would count as a spoiler. That said- I certainly can start marking them as spoilers if you good folks think they are spoilers. Just want to be respectful of the space.

I laughed out loud when I read that the MC wakes up to her man calling her “most perfect woman in the world” all upbeat and telling each other they love one another. Sounds like a movie scene moment that doesn’t actually happen irl.

Read on and now I understand that the author is intentionally trying to convey that this relationship is new and the dude’s a peppy wealthy person, which I suppose explains the cheesy behavior. Still found it funny though.

Just got to the point where she holds up FLLs as a great example of gifting in community beyond the people you know. But it prompts a question for you guys that I’ve been discussing with friends lately- do you actually find books you’ve enjoyed from a FLL? Often the ones in my neighborhood (and there are many) seem to become receptacles of books nobody wants. Certainly could pickup some of the books to use for Christmas crafts or other projects, but I’m curious what your success rates as readers has been with the world of FLL. Are they maybe better for children’s books?? I could see that being the case since those are shorter reads (less time investment, more desire for novelty).

Absolutely loved the call to action at the end. Sure you enjoyed the concepts discussed in the book but what are you willing to do about it? How will you introduce a gift economy into your life?

(bernie sanders voice) i am once again complaining about survivalist culture and shows like "Alone"

i know this is lightly offtopic, but this reminds me sooo much of the thoughts i always have when i watch these shows. it's like a microcosm of capitalist/imperialist co-option of indigenous ideals and practice while simultaneously devaluing indigenous ideals and practices. the survivalists are clearly informed by indigenous wisdom, with some of them fully appropriating indigenous teaching, but many are too limited by the framework of their own individualism to really practice the type of reciprocity and mutuality Kimmerer talks about

i see often people talk about indigenous wisdom in these environments, things they learned about "living off the land", even attempting to be grateful; yet they will inevitably do something that goes against the practice (and usually, ends up in their loss)

there's also a bit of sad irony in the fact of a show like "Alone" specifically. indigenous culture thrives on the idea of community, connection, caring for each other, everyone providing what they can for the greater good. yet Alone strips all of that away, and these survivalists are expected to survive with nobody, no connection, no assistance - and this individualism results in doing things that would be unheard of had they had a community (or at least a partner, damn) to survive alongside

killing animals that provide really no sustenance out of desperation, or killing huge animals that require intense amounts of work for storing/drying because it's way too much for one person, hoarding forageables even when it's counterintuitive, it's all a symptom of the scarcity mindset Kimmerer is trying to combat here

not only that, but the achievement is in who is able to do this the best. who is able to prove that they need nobody but themselves? all for a cash prize to top it all off 🫠 it's a one-for-one, super niche example of the extractive nature of capitalism & colonialism while appropriating indigenous land & wisdom

"A hunter had brought home a sizeable kill, far too much to be eaten by his family. The researcher asked how he would dry and store the excess. Smoking and drying technologies were well-known, storing was possible. The hunter was puzzled by the question. Store the meat? Why would he do that? Instead, he sent out an invitation to a feast, and soon the neighboring families were gathering around his fire, until every last morsel was consumed. This seemed like maladaptive behavior to the anthropologist, who asked again, given the uncertainty of meat in the forest, why didn't the hunter store the meat for himself, which is what the economic system of his home culture would predict. 'Store my meat? I store my meat in the belly of my brother,' replied the hunter."

"Scarcity is a social construct"

This was a very thought provoking book. However, the pessimist in me finds a lot of the concepts too optimistic for human nature. The reason humans are on top of the food chain IS because of our selfish nature that ignores the balance of nature. This book has made me so sad that this is an unsustainable way for humans to continue and mother nature will have her reckoning.

Does anyone else feel almost sad and hopeless after reading this book?

"Gifts flowing with no compensation"

Love this idea of community through gift giving over capitalism selling. Overconsumsion is such a problem and it's important to recycle our goods onto others and not trash them.

“these plant gifts are a manifestation of unconditional love that plants have for people”

Why does this have me so emotional 😭 Please be good to plants today before I crash out

The fact this book doesn't have pictures is a TRAVESTY! (and the fact I can't post them here doesn't help) But learning about Gaspare Tagliacozzi's approach to getting a more subtle skin flap for creating a nose (as opposed to using a section of skin from the cheek or forehead) required the individual to have their arm tied up next to their nose for weeks while the skin healed into place is WILD! I guess its better than the cheek flap or just not having a nose but WILD!