Science Nature Books

Helps the reader easily grasp both authors divergent and convergent insights on language. The material on politics was enlightening.

Regarding the so-called "power conspiracy" theories--which Chomsky has refuted several times, both in print and in lectures--proponents of those theories argue not, e.g., that there are meetings between the Board of Directors of Exxon-Mobil and their major stockholders--of which there certainly are. No. Conspiracy theorists argue the case for some grand, overarching subterfuge. That is, e.g., monthly meetings between the CEOs of the New York Times, the Washington Post, et. al., Exxon-Mobil and the other Fortune One-Hundred Corporations, and high-level D.C. administrators, etc., examining all of the data on dissident factions, major protests, D.C. legislators and jurists exhibiting opposition to status quo policy making, etc., and then plotting to coordinate counter-intelligence measures to maintain their own entitlements, etc.
And, all this, considering the fierce competition, and predatory tactics amongst the Players themselves, i.e., to, daily, unman--i.e., castrate, economically speaking--any (viable or not) competitors. And, we have not even touched upon security leaks, etc., the threat of which would be ever-present (consider the thoughts of a disgruntled Player who felt cheated in a recent "deal"), and which would prove calamitous, to say the least. Nor have we entered into the equation the very real presence of trans-national Players, whose interests impinge upon our own--from hour to hour, in fact, if one considers the realities of the various Exchanges in major world markets.
Is this possible? Consider the enormity of such an ongoing effort--and it would, of necessity, have to be ongoing, since the rank-and-file are in a state of information exchange, revision, flux, etc. Again--is it possible that a grand, overarching subterfuge does, in fact, exist? Well, since anything is quote-unquote possible, let us, then, consider--more practically--what is likely, i.e., within the context of: What is really needful for Power to maintain its prerogatives and entitlements? To differentiate Power from Player: Power itself, we would do well to remember, is no respector of persons. That is, Power will readily forego the participation of this or that particular Player, but Power itself will not be as readily undermined.

At this point, Players within the Market/State/Media complex do not need to "conspire" in order for Power to exist. That is, Power, in the parlance of Social theorists, is "libidinous." "Libidinous" is a Freudian term referring to the libido, the sex drive, or sexual desire--an apt comparison. Power is libidinous--an often mindless, material striving...for its own sake. "Libido" and "desire" can be subtle drives, but none the less real for their subtlety. And, similarly, Power, as an illegitimate (i.e., non-justified), entity--i.e., Power, as the exercise of self-serving control by the few over the many--that has not been successfully opposed, or contravened, once rooted, will continue. It's as simple as that.
At this late stage in the game no overarching conspiracy is needed--no upper-echelon "meetings," subterfuge, secret envoys, etc.--to sustain Power. Yes, the names and faces of the various Players may be variable--e.g., if the CEO of Exxon-Mobil dies tomorrow some other "suit" will take over quickly--and, this, despite the fact that they would that their own personal agenda be maintained. But--and, despite that variability (q.v., the meetings, the violent takeovers, the power coups, etc.)--Power itself rolls on.
Yet--and, returning to libidinous Power--just what is there to "desire"? That is, what are the Market, the State, and the Media in pursuit of--simultaneously--that might lead one to believe that there is a quote-unquote conspiracy which correlates all of their activities, somehow in tandem, one to the other? Again: What is there to desire? In a word: MORE. "MORE," that is necessary or needful? No--just "MORE" (this is akin to the difference between Marxian "exchange value" versus "use value"). And, the pursuit of "MORE" will never, in fact, be sated.
Power itself dictates terms to its Players, i.e., the particular Players are merely incidental to Power. And, just like someone suffering from a substance-abuse type addiction, Power-as-the-pursuit-of-MORE has to be contravened and stopped. To use another analogy, it's like a juggernaut--it's out of control, i.e., it cannot stop by itself. It has to be opposed...

It is now widely conceded among post-modern/post-structuralist circles that Foucault broke the back of linguist-political scientist Noam Chomsky in this televised debate on Dutch television. Perhaps this conception further contributed to Chomksy's disdain with the French intellectual community entire in subsequent years. Nevertheless, regardless of one's political/philosophical disposition, this is an endlessly fascinating debate, between two thinkers working as "tunnellers through a mountain working at opposite sides of the same mountain with different tools, without even knowing if they are working in each other's direction" (2), to use the moderators' description.

The debate begins technically, Chomksy addresses his discoveries within the domain of cognitive linguistics, and Foucault outlines his historical research into the sciences in Western civilization. Chomsky is a self-described rational `Cartesian,' a philosophical disposition largely rejected by post-modernity after the detruktion of Western philosophy by Martin Heidegger. Foucault, on the other hand, (who began as a major Heideggerian) seems to adopt a Nietzschean disposition; he rejects Chomsky's assertion that a genuine concept of human justice is rooted biologically in the human species. Rather, that our knowledge of morality and human nature are always necessarily rooted in social conditioning. Chomsky actually fails (here as well as elsewhere) to really confront the philosophy of Nietzsche, who necessarily put a dent in all forms of socialism, whether democratic, libertarian, or totalitarian. To illustrate Chomsky's elusiveness: "FOUCAULT: it seems to me that the idea of justice in itself is an idea which in effect has been invented and put to work in different types of societies as an instrument of a certain political and economic power as a weapon against that power. But it seems to me that, in any case, the notion of justice itself functions within a society of classes as a claim made by the oppressed class and as justification for it. CHOMSKY: I don't agree with that. FOUCAULT: And in a classless society, I am not sure that we would still use this notion of justice" (54-55). But Chomksy replies by reasserting his belief that there must be an absolute basis in which notions of human justice are "grounded" (ibid), however, he relies once again solely on his partial knowledge of what `human nature' is.

The Chomsky-Foucault Debate On Human Nature collects and presents an integral debate held between two of the world's top intellectuals, Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, held in 1971 (during the height of the Vietnam War) to wrestle with the ancient question: Is there such a thing as "innate" human nature independent of our experiences and external influences? In addition to reproducing the debate verbatim, The Chomsky-Foucault Debate On Human Nature includes later writings by each speaker: "Politics" (1976) and "A Philosophy of Language" (1976) by Noam Chomsky, and "Truth and Power" (1976), "Omnes et Singulatim: Toward a Critique of Political Rason" (1978) and "Confronting Government: Human Rights" (1984) by Michel Foucault. "The concept of legality and the concept of justice are not identical; they're not entirely distinct either. Insofar as legality incorporates justice in this sense of better justice, referring to a better society, then we should follow and obey the law... Of course, in those areas where the legal system happens to represent not better justice, but rather the techniques of oppression that have been codified in a particular autocratic system, well, then a reasonable human being should disregard and oppose them, at least in principle; he may not, for some reason, do it in fact." Highly recommended, and a welcome contribution to library philosophy shelves.

I didn't know about this debate between these two on this subject--what a find! I am reading it now, and a line of friends are waiting for their turn.

Although it was a bit long to hold attention (mostly the other adults in the room) the kids seemed to get a lot out of it, asking questions and remembering when they had been in a similar situation as the person in the throws of the problem. Kids and adults learned from it in our house.

I ordered this book for my sons 6th birthday. He is very interested in science and this looked like a fun book. We have read it through once and he enjoyed it, don't know how well it will be at repeat performances.

Even if your youngster hasn't asked, this book helps the "thinking" process of asking "why". When this question is asked about things that they can understand, it begins the process of asking why about lots of other things.

Great for those who also ask why on their own.

This book explains about how the human body deals with reflexes. It gets a little technical, but a four or five year old can definately understand the content. I enjoyed reading this book to my children because even I learned a little that I either had not learned or had forgotten.

The author accepts global warming as a given and a very serious problem. He considers what we can do about it at what cost. His approach is to create a computer model in which he hopes to capture the salient economic, energy and climate factors while being simple enough that it can be understood and run repeatedly with different scenarios. I am not an economist and and the equations and their import were often beyond my understanding. I relied on Professor Nordehaus's academic standing (Stirling Professor of Economics at Yale and coauthor of a standard economics text with Paul Samuelson) and took him to be fair in his assessments. I thought he was thorough is his descriptions of the limitations of this approach and his model which I would describe as an economic and cost benefit analysis over time of various strategies for ameliorating global warming.

To understand his model you must understand how future losses from climate change are "discounted" by economists. Freeman Dyson explains this as follows "the value of one dollar invested at an average interest rate of 4 percent for a period of one hundred years would be fifty-four dollars ... therefore, for every dollar spent now on a particular strategy to fight global warming, the investment must reduce the damage caused by warming by an amount that exceeds fifty-four dollars in one hundred years' time to accrue a positive economic benefit to society."

Nordhaus runs his model under eight varying assumptions and or goals so that they can be compared 100 and 200 years out.
1) captures the cost of doing nothing to which the others can be compared.
2) is an optimal policy economically without constraints of eventual temperature or CO2 increase. It only spends on abatement when in costs less than doing nothing.
3) constrains allowable CO2 to 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 times the pre-industrial level in separate runs.
4) constrains the eventual temperature increase to 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0 degrees C. in separate runs.
5) runs several variants of the Kyoto agreement, with and without the US and with an improved treaty.
6) evaluates the Stern review proposal (early major carbon reduction).
7) evaluates the Gore proposal (early stringent carbon reduction).
8) evaluates the result of finding a cheap non-carbon energy source for all energy needs.

For the results let me quote Nordhaus: "The net present-value global benefit of the optimal policy is $3 trillion relative to no controls. This total involves $2 trillion of abatement costs and $5 trillion of reduction climate damages. Note that even after the optimal policy has been taken, there will still be substantial residual damages from climate change, which we estimate to be $17 trillion More of the climate damages are not eliminated because the additional abatement would cost more than the additional reduction in damages."

Note that less than 25% of the economic damage is prevented because it is not cost effective in the "optimal" policy to prevent the rest and thus global temperature increases 2.7 C. (about 5 F.) by 2100. There is also large scale damage for which a dollar amount cannot be assigned and is thus omitted from the model. This includes loss of species, discomfort of higher temperatures, displacement of human, animal and plant populations, shifting weather patterns etc.

Limiting atmospheric CO2 to two times pre-industrial levels or limiting the temperature increase to 2.5 C. produce very similar results to the "optimal" policy. Limiting CO2 to 1.5 times pre-industrial or temperature to 1.5 C. has a net loss of $14 trillion (damages plus abatement costs) over doing nothing. The Gore proposal produces similar results but costs $21 trillion. The Kyoto proposal results where almost identical to doing nothing!

The model also computes an optimal carbon tax for each strategy which because of the discounting needs to increase gradually over time. For the "optimal" strategy the carbon tax would be $27 per ton initially, $90 per ton in 2050 and $200 per ton in 2100. Note that because CO2 is 3.2 times as heavy as carbon if you tax CO2 the rate would be 3.2 times lower or just over $8 initially. Nordhaus also discusses the advantages of a carbon tax over a cap and trade approach.

These results surprised me. I had assumed that the Kyoto Agreement approach, although flawed, could be good if modified and joined by the US and that the Gore approach would be even better. I was annoyed by those who proposed putting the major carbon restrictions off to the future which seemed to push the problem onto our children. I though a cap and trade approach would be superior to a carbon tax since if guaranteed specific reductions. What makes this such an important book from my point of view is that I found myself to be so frequently wrong. The approaches I had favored turned out to be either relatively ineffective, much more expensive or both. This is not a book for those who do not want their current conceptions challenged.

Findings I found important include: 1) A moderate carbon tax with gradual increase is much more cost effective in achieving the SAME GOAL as a stiff initial tax. This was by far the most surprising to me. 2) total participation is much much more efficient that partial whether it is nations or industries. 3) A carbon tax has several important advantages over a cap and trade system. 4) The cost of the various approaches varies dramatically in ways I would not have predicted. 5) There is a huge gain in finding alternative energy sources early in the game making research a top priority deserving large public investment.

This is a book about economic tradeoffs - a question of balance. The author is clear that these models do not capture esthetic, moral, species extinction, stewardship and other concerns which policy makers must address. For instance, the "optimal" economic approach leaves our great grandchildren in a world 5 degrees warmer, with many fewer species, and major environmental shifts. I myself would probably opt for a less economically "optimal" approach that preserved more of the world as I know it and takes fewer risks about possible positive feedback loops leading to an escalating and uncontrollable heat gain. We can make these political decisions more rationally when we can estimate the costs of alternatives. Other things being equal, we would like to arrive at a chosen result at the least cost. I believe that professor Nordhaus's continuing work is a major advance toward helping us achieve that goal.

It is important to remember that this is a simplified model for which the inputs are often best guesses and that some crucial unknown features may turn out to have been omitted. I expect the model will improve over time as more data is accumulated.

If you do not wish to buy the book I think most of the material can be found and the author's website (Google: William Nordhaus). Again I think this is a very important book and I consider it a must for those setting global warming amelioration policy.

My 3-year-old son LOVES this book! Very well done and cheery. Fun! I learned some stuff, too! If your kid is into learning about the human body and they're very young, get this book. May be a little "young" for kids 6 and above (although I don't really know, since I've never had a 6-year-old).

I saw this book in the library and ended up buying a copy. We used it as part of an ongoing series of classes about the human body for kindergartners. It is great for this age group and younger, but probably too babyish for anything beyond kindergarten.

I loved the book and enjoyed reading it to my grandson. He seemed interested also. He is
2 1/2 yrs. old. My son, his father, seems to think that some of the pictures in it
should be a boy as well as girl.

This is a great starting place to explain in 3D the connection between bones, muscles and blood. We were disappointed that it did not have the sex organs for both F and M.

At the moment my 5 year old daughter is fascinated with the workings of the body - she says she wants to be a surgeon! I got this for her, and it does contains lots of basic and informative information about human anatomy and the systems that run the body. My only complaint, and it is a pretty big one, is that the illustrations actually creep me out. My daughter does not voice this opinion, but she was reserved in her reaction to the book. The illustrations are supposed to look like a child has drawn them with crayon, but they are presented as drawings of the very same girl who narrates the book, but she is missing her face, or her face is part skull, etc. It just struck me as a bit jarring, and I'll be interested to look at other books for the same age group on this topic. Also, the reproductive system is conveniently skipped, which would be of enormous interest to the kids, but force the folks to have a longer bed time story!

The 2005 edition is the one with the zebra on the front. This listing is for the 1998 edition.

After homeschooling for nearly 20 years and searching for a science curriculum my kids would actually enjoy I'm pleased to say that I've finally found the best science curriculum available, bar none! At last, no more whining about science! And this one comes available with a CD-ROM and a disection kit that you can purchase seperately. If you use the Charlotte Mason approach to homeschooling and enjoy "living books" then this could be just what you're looking for.

Dr. Wile is not afraid of misrepresenting and withholding evidence to push across his own political or cultural beliefs, at time he even outright lies. He regularly misquotes, misconstrues evidence, and fails to give the whole truth on controversial subjects. Christians who are reticent towards evolution should ask themselves whether supporting such a belief should be done through dishonest means. Students who take this course are led away with a complete misunderstanding of even the basics of evolution, environmentalism, and other subjects Wile doesn't agree with the scientific mainstream. It's fine to disagree with the mainstream, but neglecting your duty to provide your children with the most honest education possible is going to do them harm in the long run.

At one point Wile claims that a diagram for the evolution of a horse is known by evolutionists to be false, but is still presented in museums. Wile doesn't mention, however, that the reason we know the diagram is false is because scientists have constructed a new and more accurate diagram. The reason this diagram is still shown in some museums is because it is simpler than the more complicated diagram. Wile does this himself: he points out himself that the bore model of the Atom is false, but he says it's helpful for learning about an atom because of its simplicity. Instead of telling students that science is continually expanding and improving, and old models are being replaced by better models daily, Wile pretends like the model has been refuted and nothing has been brought up to replace it: as if evolutionists know they're wrong but keep teaching it anyway.

At one point Wile compares a certain basic protein, which is known to scientists as one of the simplest building blocks of life, and that is present across all species, and compares the differences between the protein in one animal and the protein in another, and shows that there is no relation between how distant the animals are related evolutionarily and the differences in the proteins: but this is very poor science, proteins are heavily modified after they are made, which is why scientists go to the blueprint of the protein: the DNA. DNA is the genetic material We've all heard of the "human genome project", which mapped out the DNA of human beings, and we all know that the project found the DNA of humans was only one spot different from chimps, and a couple from gorillas and orangutans and so on, and it all confirmed what had been previously theorized about human evolution. Well while Wile presents "evidence" from a single protein, which really can tell us nothing about evolutionary history, he decides not to even tell the student about the Human Genome Project! This is gross negligence!

In another part, Wile quotes Darwin, but completely rips the quote out of context and blatantly lies about Darwin's point. Wile claims that Darwin is admitting faults in his theory, that Darwin thinks his theory is absurd, and he quotes him like this:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

What Wile leaves off is the very next few sentences:

"When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.


What Darwin is saying is that, while the people of his time might think it absurd that the eye would have evolved by natural selection, people who came before thought the same thing about the idea that the earth is revolving around the sun! And then he goes on to say how one might develop a theory as to how the eye developed. And indeed, scientists have developed such a theory, and it is very well known, and each intermediary stage of the eye has even been found in nature. Even though Wile could have easily thrown the diagram of the evolution of the eye into his textbook, he instead chooses to misquote Darwin and lie about the theory.


This dishonest way of going about teaching is certainly not Christian in the slightest.

The authur of this book admits he is biased in that he believes there is a God. He teaches that this must be taken into account in order to truely weigh all of the possibilities. A good scientist never ignores the possibilities. As a child I was fed only one view. This book presents views on both sides with an obvious lean towards catastrophism.

My daughter at age 6 received this book as a gift from her uncle. She wasn't interested in it at all. Surprisingly, my son (age 3 at the time) grabbed it and has been coveting it for a year now.

A year has gone by and the book (minus a few pieces) is still in good shape, and best of all. At age 4, my son knows the name of every organ and it's location.

The only issue for younger kids is that the small organs can break off so I wouldn't recommend it for kids younger then 3.

I thought this would be neat because of the rave reviews. I see where the concept is nice, but it is inaccurate. For my kindergartener, I think a transparency would be more ideal. I wish someone would recommend something.

I gave this book to my nephew for his 5th birthday. My nephew is obsessed with learning and his topic of choice at that time was the human body. He literally stared at this book for an entire week. After a month or so, he could name every single bone in the body, point to all the major organs, and tell you how your digestive system works. This book is full of learning and is so interesting for kids because of the 3D body parts. Yes, you may lose a part or two, or need to glue the skull back in, but all in all, it's fascination and wonder for curious little kids!

I bought this for my 5 year old for her birthday. She wanted a stand up skelleton with organs that she could take out and look at. As she is only 5 and she has a 2 year old brother I opted for this book instead. She loves it! Not only can she look at the organs but she can also see the nerves, blood vessels and the brain. The book also contains projects you can do with your child that are pretty neat. Believe it or not this has become a bed time book.
Very cool. And no small pieces to lose.

This is one of my 8 year-old's favorite books: she asked for it when she was 6 and is constantly rereading it. Now that she is a very scientific 8 year old, and has other books in the Uncover series, she has raised questions as to why the reproductive system is included in the tarantula book but not in the human body book. She would also like to know whether the body is a boy's or a girl's, because she cannot tell and thinks that's strange. I think these are good questions in a book designed for ages 8 and up. But I couldn't give it less than five stars because she loves it so and has learned so much from it.

I originally ordered this for my daughter from the library and she loved it so much we bought it. Most projects are one page to its very simple and step by step. I even learned a few things as a father!

But more importantly its great for working on along with your children together.

My eight year old daughter asked for a chemistry set for her birthday; a real chemistry set; one she could do real experiments with. There are no longer many quality chemistry sets on the market. I guess the safety regulations are too strict; making it unprofitable to sell "real" chemistry sets. I ordered this book. I was concerned I would end up having to mail order supplies, but I made one trip to the grocery store and my daughter was set to work through the book.

The coolest part, to her, was the potential danger inherent with some of the supplies. She worked through six experiments in three days and proudly tells her younger neighborhood girlfriends "Sorry, You can't touch those things. It's too dangerous. It's Chemistry."

The best part for me, the experiments are carefully arranged in a progressive manner so that they start from the simplest and safest activities. She can work through them in order, with supervision, safely building her confidence and skills.

Unlike many books that purport to promote science, but are really just a collection of entertaining activities, this book includes the science concepts behind the wow. So, she really is learning.

Janice VanCleave's Chemistry For Every Kid is a must have book for upper elementary/middle school science teachers. The experiments are easy to set up and the kids LOVE them! Janice has tackled tough Chemistry concepts and come up with simple experiments that the kids ACTUALLY understand! I have used the activities in this book numerous times and couldn't recommend this book highly enough. The way I use the activities in this book, along with the others in the series, is set them up as stations and have the kids rotate through them. You will not be disappointed with this purchase and your kids will love you for it.

No handwriting required and no over-the-head scientific explanations. It is clear, simple, and EASY to pull off the shelf and use. I recommend previewing the list of materials for the week to be sure you have the needed items. Substitutions can effect the experiment. I use this with ages 4-10 and they ALL enjoy the experiments. The experiments are simplistic and easy for young children to grasp the idea yet have enough information to get the parents thought process going! A great introduction to chemistry that takes very little time to prep and do. I even use this book as birthday party entertainment! A favorite with us.

My boys are 6 and 7 and they LOVE doing the Science experiments in this book. The items needed are easy to find, usually common household item, but nothing too fancy. It has really changed how they view "science" and it's fun to see them question what they are learning. You can never get the gears cranking at too young an age and this book opens the door to a interesting introduction into the world of science.

Why We Run is for runners what Lives of a Cell (by Lewis Thomas) is for scientists. It's a classic book on running, well enjoyed by the casual runner to the elite. If you are a runner or love a runner, this is a "must read".

. . . is what I said involuntarily just after finishing the book. This is a very well written book that compares the physiological aspects between animals and humans as they pertain to running and endurance. It covers a wide breadth of material ranging from bird migration to the running differences between prey and predators, but it all comes around to answering the question of why humans run and have a very high level of endurance. A good part of the book is autobiographical as the author begins by discussing the effect that running and nature had on his earlier life and ends with describing his experience competing in a 100-kilometer race. This book would appeal greatly to runners who want (or need) to go beyond the run-a-bunch-of-intervals and drink-a-bunch-of-sugar-water style of running books. It would also appeal greatly to readers who generally enjoy popular science or nature books.

This book was interesting, though a little too dry at times. Glad I purchased it though.

I am an ultrarunner, and read this book expecting a book on ultrarunning.

I have recommended this book to runner and non-runner friends alike. When they ask what it's about, I describe it as 1/3 personal memoir, 1/3 biology book, and 1/3 training log. The author's accomplishment he writes about is extraordinary, and his portrayal of "the race" at the end will be re-read by me many times.

Some of the "biology book" sections are a little drawn out and tough to slog through, but it all comes together by the end of the book. I acknowledge some of the criticisms posted here, but I guess I wasn't as sensitive to them.

I enjoyed the book and will read it again.

This book is truly a classic on the biology and anthropology of exercise. I first stumbled upon it in the bookstore when I was just looking for some more books on running. I wasn't looking for anything in particular and I picked up "Why We Run" off the shelf to give it a chance.

It was just what I was looking for.

The exploration of human anthropology and the scientific explanations of why we run were in exact alignment with my beliefs. Heinrich's basic assertion is that we run because we're supposed to run. Our systems are made to use fatty acids and glycerol as fuels for long distance, nomadic type activities, not quick glucose intensive activity.

This clearly sheds light on the heart rate formula for weight loss and what is particularly best for any specific person. If Heinrich's points are correct, then the conclusion would be a lower heart rate is most effective for weight loss and the preferred zone for any type of exercise. Any exercise in the higher heart rate zones could be classified as survival training--or expending energy that is meant for fight or flight type activities, like running away from tigers or the like. This is clearly not anything we have to do in our modern times.

Heinrich goes to great lengths to explore his arguments. He takes the biology of the other animals and compares them to ours in a very "easy-to-read," unscientific way--something that is relieving for anyone who's spent hours with their nose buried in anatomy books.

The book is anecdotal, because Heinrich bookends the story with his own 100K run. This makes the book entertaining as well and not just a dry scientific read. It's also great biological justification (translated: "excuse") to tell a spouse who thinks you spend too much time training for the next big race!

Perfect for runners and walkers who want to understand their body and what is best for optimal health!

Kevin Gianni, NCSF-CPT
Author, Personal Trainer

Thanks to Paul for sharing his understanding and knowledge of said mushrooms with the world. Beautiful book.

Most mushroom guides don't include these specimens, so a good addition to your field guides....

So many people are utterly consumed with their work life that they are avidly avoiding a spiritual experience, which is at the heart of what is ideal. This book may help serve as a gentlemenly guide to embarking on an organized hunt for fungi and an organized understanding of how to incorporate them into personal experience. Although some may argue with me, I would say this is actually high level reading.
The book provides the following:
The effects of psilocybin mushrooms
How to identify them while hunting outdoors
Tips on ingesting them and experiencing them
Pictures and diagrams to help identify them
Individual species descriptions
Poisonous look alikes
Includes a forward by renowned physician Dr. Andrew Weil

There is a wealth of info in this book and it is the best book on this subject.

This is a detailed and fun book. It's probably what you're looking for. It contains clear descriptions, many quality pictures, suggestions about variations among species, safety considerations, and a helpful rating scale of very low to very high potency, also making it clear when the potency is unknown. For me, I chose to partner this book with a larger book which includes all species, just so I'm clear what I'm looking at and for, especially when it comes to ingestion, better to be extra careful, right?

...you're looking for. I've read a few books on the subject. If you want to hunt with confidence, than here ya' go.