Title may be a bit unlucky because what do we want to repair the world? There is nothing to be repaired because it was never working unless you call the problems we had in e.g. the stone age as the desirable non plus ultra state.
The sustainability (being close to nature et alia) and resource-awareness/waste or whatever did not change either, lords (from land owner to kaiser) in all times virtually never took care of nature or something when there were goals to achieve (and there were). If anything then it was only locally and time scoped okay.
MAGNITUDE OF RESOURCES REQUIRED IS OVERSHOOTING AVAILABILITY LONG TERM
Isn’t it that the scale is just getting too big for what our available resources within mankind’s reach can provide?
The title thereby is not helpful and plays critics of our movement into the hand. „Volksverhetzer“ also often talk about repairing the world. „Repairable“ is what I had preferred as title. This is subjective of course. But I have some reasons for my criticism because I have been a part of this movement for long, am a long-time active open source contributor across various fields and countries and there have been both harsh real life critics and virtual critics at many places (tagesschau.de, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, forums, e.g. here on forum.opensourceecolgoy.org where we were linked to/accused of indirectly supportimg extremists, and also Security organizations (Police, private sectors, …) and Industries have our developments within their inspections, e.g. the bending machine company from Switzerland Haemmerle Zofingen has neglected to repair our Electronics at HAMAG and want to sell us a new machine which is counter open source ecology constitution of sustainability, which also includes repairability).
Also it is not wise to just ignore terrorism because in fact people are afraid of terrorism and it is unwise to neglect that terrorists have an eye on open source technology. We have to actively counter this and our machines at worlddevelopment are either algorithmitically harmless or have security measures against misuse.
Consider e.g. an autonomous mobile machine like a 6 axis robotic manipulator on a chassis being reprogrammed to a killing machine. It is important that we face these facts. Then we will be able to counter this as far as possible e.g via using joints that do not wihstand mounting a machine gun at the robot wrist or by using stepper motors which are only slow such that no sword fighting machine or something can be created without substantial knowledge)…
And then and only then open source ecological thinking has a chance to become virtually mainstream. Currently only few not laugh at us or do trust us or do believe in us. Also few do think it is wise to openly provide full machine plans.
(source: feedback I got at university, at work, or at surrounding villages and yes I have grown up on a nasty farm while having actually largely intellectual family members, having finished studies, worked for the local commune, am a farmer by trade and working as electrical and software engineer at the same time and this means I am close to the poor working people and close to the no less but differently working intellectual elite at the same time, being an open source enthusiast I confronted many hundreds of people with the topics.)
Contrary to open source ecology, Linux does not have the requirement to become mainstream though because people are free and shall use what they like most (at their current state of knowledge). Ecological, sustainable thinking on the other hand is not significant if only a small portion of the people think this way. It is like with counter climate extrema and non-renewable (oil,…) dependency actions: If only a small portion uses their bikes then this will have no significant effect.
BACK TO THE BOOK
And while the title being easy to misread may help Volksverhetzern and Weltuntergangspropheten so still it does not mean that the book is not a good, informative read especially as it likely is meant as „Repair the world when it breaks to your best avail“.