Beyond the Brink
August 21st, 2010
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Beyond the Brink”.
Posted in 
Tags: 2 Responses to “Beyond the Brink”
Leave a Reply
August 21st, 2010
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Beyond the Brink”.
Bad Behavior has blocked 41 access attempts in the last 7 days.
I’ve read both books and find his first book the best. It sets out the journey of how he came to read the Australian landscape in the first place. In my mind, you have to read the first one, first – to get the second one. It’s about how he watched his father’s farm and whole farming communities disappear in his generation alone, let alone ours.
What I loved most about his first book, is how it explains the way Australia used to be. Livestock were healthier when farmers first arrived, because we hadn’t done the things to the land we now call common practice.
He explains how very little input was required in farming initially, because the fertility was immense. His father’s generation didn’t need to buy fertilisers or pesticides, or even wormicides for livestock. The pasture was that full of diversity, the animals grew like weeds, LOL.
He explains a lot of how he came to unravel that particular mystery in his first book. Which is why I’m thankful I read them in order. I wasn’t planning to do it that way, it’s just how they arrived at the library.
What did you think was “chaff” in his book though? I struggled to find anything I didn’t already agree with – but maybe I missed something? Although I found the first one more enjoyable to read, than the second.
Thank you for your comment. It’s good to get an alternative opinion.
Whilst I agree with much that Peter wrote, and REALLY like his ideas of planting trees on high ground so that the fertility ‘flows’ downhill, I also found some of his statements to be highly dubious. For example, in this book Peter explains that the reason that sea breezes blow is because the water is warmer than the land, and wind always blows from hot areas to cold areas.
Unfortunately, the truth is that sea breezes blow because the land re-radiates much of the heat that strikes it, warming the air above it. The sea, due to the high specific heat of water, captures most of this heat to warm the water. However the the sea temperature doesn’t rise appreciably due to the large volume involved. The warm air over the land then rises, creating an area of low pressure underneath it which the air from over the water flows in to fill.
It’s elementary science, and is not in any doubt. It is also contrary to what Peter states as being ‘the truth’. There are other statements like this but this is the first that comes to mind.
I know that this shouldn’t impact upon the broader philosophy that Peter is advancing, which is why I broadly agree with his statements. However I do stand by my original statement that this book is excellent but it should be read critically!