The Transhumanist Wager. Has anyone read this thing? The Wikipedia synopsis reads like a satirical description of a fictional book. This review is absolutely scathing, including of the ethics of the author-avatar protagonist; this one is a bit nicer. The author commented here very slightly.
I tried reading it, gave up around page 70. At first I was reading it as a self-satire B-movie thing about transhumanist stereotypes, but at some point it dawned upon me that it was apparently meant to be read in all seriousness.
The shark-jumping moment to me was the part in the novel where the President of the United States has called for a public meeting between bioconservative religious leaders and transhumanist scientists. The dialogue is stalled, until the main character, a fourth-year philosophy student, gets up and holds a speech. He says basically that state institutions that restrict research are evil, that scientific research must proceed freely and without limitations, and that furthering transhumanism is a moral obligation which will end up benefiting both national well-being and competitiveness. The “state institutions are evil” bit is mostly the only part that gets actual arguments supporting it, the rest of the points are just stated without really providing anything to back them up.
The crowd’s reaction:
The rotunda was silent for a long time after Jethro stopped speaking. In those moments every person believed in the speech’s common sense, in the potential of transhumanism, in modifying and improving the landscape of traditional human experience. The logic was inescapable. But then— slowly— their minds, egos, and fears lumbered around to the immediate tasks facing them. They remembered about their need to be elected to office; about what their constituents would say; how their churches would cast judgment; how their mothers, spouses, and friends would react; how they would be viewed, tallied, and callously spit out in public. Finally, they remembered their own fears of the unknown.
That’s, err, not the best job that I’ve seen of presenting the bioconservative viewpoint in a fair or charitable light.
Later on the philosopher goes to write his thesis, an essay praising transhumanism, and is almost failed by an Evil Bioconservative Professor for writing such garbage.
Later on he meets his love interest:
When she turned, however, Jethro’s luminous blue eyes met hers, and she felt stunned to be looking at a light-skinned man only a few years younger than she. The tingling on the back of Zoe’s neck told her he was neither handsome nor ugly, but intensely compelling. She felt aroused, and unconsciously adjusted her legs. There was a spiritual and nebulous connection she felt as well, but it was too much for her to immediately fathom.
Uh huh.
Later on the said love interest jumps off a cliff in order to persuade the main character of a philosophical point. Yes, really.
I’m sure transhumanists everywhere will be delighted at being depicted in popular culture (NYT bestseller!) as sociopathic Objectivists with a cryonics membership.
I didn’t make it past the one-page preview. Looks very Dan Brown-y stylistically. Also, the nicer review is by Giulio Prisco, who seems to be more of a general booster of transhumanism memes than a critical book reviewer. If even he can only muster lukewarm appreciation, I’d count that as a pretty bad sign.
Though I guess there is some poignancy in a book extolling the drive to achieve a state of all-encompassing superhuman cognition at all costs being itself the product of somewhat inept fiction writing skills.
The author is doing a great job of promoting transhumanism in the popular press. See, for example, this pro-cryonics article he wrote for the HuffingtonPost. He is the kind of person we should be working with.
The Transhumanist Wager. Has anyone read this thing? The Wikipedia synopsis reads like a satirical description of a fictional book. This review is absolutely scathing, including of the ethics of the author-avatar protagonist; this one is a bit nicer. The author commented here very slightly.
I tried reading it, gave up around page 70. At first I was reading it as a self-satire B-movie thing about transhumanist stereotypes, but at some point it dawned upon me that it was apparently meant to be read in all seriousness.
The shark-jumping moment to me was the part in the novel where the President of the United States has called for a public meeting between bioconservative religious leaders and transhumanist scientists. The dialogue is stalled, until the main character, a fourth-year philosophy student, gets up and holds a speech. He says basically that state institutions that restrict research are evil, that scientific research must proceed freely and without limitations, and that furthering transhumanism is a moral obligation which will end up benefiting both national well-being and competitiveness. The “state institutions are evil” bit is mostly the only part that gets actual arguments supporting it, the rest of the points are just stated without really providing anything to back them up.
The crowd’s reaction:
That’s, err, not the best job that I’ve seen of presenting the bioconservative viewpoint in a fair or charitable light.
Later on the philosopher goes to write his thesis, an essay praising transhumanism, and is almost failed by an Evil Bioconservative Professor for writing such garbage.
Later on he meets his love interest:
Uh huh.
Later on the said love interest jumps off a cliff in order to persuade the main character of a philosophical point. Yes, really.
Thanks for taking one for the team.
When I first read synopses, I seriously thought it was a parody by the person who writes Amor Mundi.
Its existence illustrates everything wrong with particular sub-parts of the the transhumanist/libertarian cluster.
I’m sure transhumanists everywhere will be delighted at being depicted in popular culture (NYT bestseller!) as sociopathic Objectivists with a cryonics membership.
I didn’t make it past the one-page preview. Looks very Dan Brown-y stylistically. Also, the nicer review is by Giulio Prisco, who seems to be more of a general booster of transhumanism memes than a critical book reviewer. If even he can only muster lukewarm appreciation, I’d count that as a pretty bad sign.
Though I guess there is some poignancy in a book extolling the drive to achieve a state of all-encompassing superhuman cognition at all costs being itself the product of somewhat inept fiction writing skills.
The author is doing a great job of promoting transhumanism in the popular press. See, for example, this pro-cryonics article he wrote for the HuffingtonPost. He is the kind of person we should be working with.
I would argue that this book at least undoes and possibly more everything else they did.
Far more people are going to read his HuffPost articles than his book.
Oh my gosh this book sounds amazing (though not for the reasons the author intended). There’s even seasteading!
EDIT: After reading some reviews, on the other hand, I’ll take a pass, sorry.