Half-Earth: Our Planet's Fight for Life is a book written by biologist E. O. Wilson in 2016. It is the final book in a series that includes The Social Conquest of Earth (2012) and The Meaning of Human Existence (2014). In Half-Earth, Wilson suggests that half of Earth's surface should be set aside as areas where humans do not live to protect plant and animal life. Wilson explains that the term "Half-Earth" was introduced for this idea by Tony Hiss in his article titled "Can the World Really Set Aside Half the Planet for Wildlife?" published by the Smithsonian.

Reception

Ecologist Christine Griffiths, writing in Science, described Wilson's plan as a "strong argument based on evidence that challenges the belief that humans can survive without nature." However, she asked if Wilson's plan was realistic, noting that in 2015, only 15% of land and 2.8% of ocean areas were protected. She praised Wilson for encouraging readers to take personal responsibility to protect the biosphere.

Dean Kuipers from Outside magazine wrote that Half-Earth is more of an inspiring goal than a detailed plan. He questioned practical issues, such as whether people living in protected areas would be moved or allowed to stay, and whether governments would support such protections. He noted that Wilson criticizes "new conservationists," who support smart economic development, but later in the book, Wilson argues for fast and smart development.

The Guardian said Wilson did an excellent job explaining the serious state of the environment, calling it a response to those who believe everything is fine in the natural world. However, the review criticized the book for not providing specific steps, such as which areas should be protected, how funding would work, or what agreements would be needed to achieve Wilson's goals.

Jedediah Purdy, in The New Republic (April 2016), carefully reviewed Wilson's earlier work and ideas, unlike other reviewers. He pointed out that Wilson's strengths and weaknesses come from his background in 20th-century United States, where he assumes nature is mostly harmless and best found in untouched wilderness. Purdy criticized Wilson for not addressing political challenges, calling the book "ambitious but unbalanced," for example, when Wilson briefly mentions artificial intelligence or spends time discussing the term "Anthropocene." Purdy said the book suffers from Wilson's limited understanding of people, both as readers and as the subject of his work.

Kirkus Reviews said Wilson is very knowledgeable about the environmental crisis but unclear about how to solve it. The review called the book "not a strong plan but another call for humans to act as caretakers of the Earth."

In November 2017, Richard Horton, writing in The Lancet, mentioned Half-Earth and noted that Wilson argues for investing in understanding ecosystems that support life.

In 2015, Audubon magazine wrote that Wilson, a respected scholar, is taking a bold risk by promoting such a radical idea. However, he believes he is not being radical, but rather shocked by how people have become used to destroying habitats.

Library Journal’s Barbara Hoffert listed Half-Earth as one of her top five nonfiction books for March 2015, but did not provide a critical review.