Skip to main contentSkip to solution

The biggest challenge [The Nutmeg’s Curse by Ghosh] throws down is to the prevailing understanding of when the climate crisis started. Most of us have accepted... that it started with the widespread use of coal at the beginning of the Industrial Age in the 18th century and worsened with the mass adoption of oil and natural gas in the 20th. Ghosh takes this history at least three centuries back, to the start of European colonialism in the 15th century. He [starts] the book with a 1621 massacre by Dutch invaders determined to impose a monopoly on nutmeg cultivation and trade in the Banda islands in today’s Indonesia. Not only do the Dutch systematically depopulate the islands through genocide, they also try their best to bring nutmeg cultivation into plantation mode. These are the two points to which Ghosh returns through examples from around the world. One, how European colonialists decimated not only indigenous populations but also indigenous understanding of the relationship between humans and Earth. Two, how this was an invasion not only of humans but of the Earth itself, and how this continues to the present day by looking at nature as a ‘resource’ to exploit...

We know we are facing more frequent and more severe heatwaves, storms, floods, droughts and wildfires due to climate change. We know our expansion through deforestation, dam building, canal cutting - in short, terraforming, the word Ghosh uses - has brought us repeated disasters... Are these the responses of an angry Gaia who has finally had enough? By using the word ‘curse’ in the title, the author makes it clear that he thinks so. I use the pronoun ‘who’ knowingly, because Ghosh has quoted many non-European sources to enquire into the relationship between humans and the world around them so that he can question the prevalent way of looking at Earth as an inert object to be exploited to the maximum.

As Ghosh’s text, notes and bibliography show once more, none of this is new. There have always been challenges to the way European colonialists looked at other civilisations and at Earth. It is just that the invaders and their myriad backers in the fields of economics, politics, anthropology, philosophy, literature, technology, physics, chemistry, biology have dominated global intellectual discourse...

There are other points of view that we can hear today if we listen hard enough. Those observing global climate negotiations know about the Latin American way of looking at Earth as Pachamama (Earth Mother). They also know how such a framing is just provided lip service and is ignored in the substantive portions of the negotiations. In The Nutmeg’s Curse, Ghosh explains why. He shows the extent of the vested interest in the oil economy - not only for oil-exporting countries, but also for a superpower like the US that controls oil drilling, oil prices and oil movement around the world. Many of us know power utilities are sabotaging decentralised solar power generation today because it hits their revenues and control. And how the other points of view are so often drowned out.

Which one of the following, if true, would make the reviewer's choice of the pronoun "who" for Gaia Inappropriate?

Solution

✅ Correct Option: 4

We need to understand why the reviewer chose "who" for Gaia in the first place.

From passage: "I use the pronoun 'who' knowingly, because Ghosh has quoted many non-European sources to enquire into the relationship between humans and the world around them so that he can question the prevalent way of looking at Earth as an inert object to be exploited to the maximum."

The reviewer uses "who" because -> Ghosh quotes non-European sources -> these sources see Earth as alive/animate -> not as an "inert object" -> so "who" (for living beings) makes sense instead of "which" (for objects).


To make "who" inappropriate, we need something that breaks this logic chain. What would destroy the foundation for using "who"?

If the non-European sources actually saw Earth as non-living, then there's no basis for treating Earth like a living being deserving of "who."


🟠 Option 1 -> irrelevant -> cause-effect relationship doesn't change whether Earth is seen as living or dead

🟠 Option 2 -> irrelevant -> book title has nothing to do with pronoun choice for Gaia

🟠 Option 3 -> context-shift -> focuses on western science, but the "who" is based on non-European perspectives, not western views

🟢 Option 4 is correct -> directly contradicts the foundation -> if non-European societies saw Earth as "non-living," then using "who" (which implies life/personhood) becomes inappropriate

The key insight: The reviewer's choice depends entirely on non-European societies viewing Earth as alive. Option 4 destroys this assumption completely.

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question