Among the arguments is that wood was far more important to humanity until about the 19th century than any other resource that gets its own age (i.e. stone, bronze, iron). There's some evolutionary biology stuff in it that I find a bit far-fetched, but at least is an original take on things.
Among the arguments is that wood was far more important to humanity until about the 19th century than any other resource that gets its own age (i.e. stone, bronze, iron). There's some evolutionary biology stuff in it that I find a bit far-fetched, but at least is an original take on things.
If you'd rather just read a review, this one is pretty good: https://newrepublic.com/article/160298/age-wood-roland-ennos...