More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley's Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity
- Downloads：1849
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2025-05-13 07:20:23
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Adam Becker
- ISBN：B0D3DV4PW2
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
Reviews
Rob
，
Discovered via: Silicon Valley billionaires literally want the impossible - Ars Technica Discovered via: Silicon Valley billionaires literally want the impossible - Ars Technica 。。。more
mahnoor
，
i only read this to validate my own schizo ramblings about certain People™ who shall not be named that are currently in the news but。。。。。。。this is so much worse than i thought。 i'm not crazy but it's so much more over than i clocked😭😭😭🙏🙏🙏 i only read this to validate my own schizo ramblings about certain People™ who shall not be named that are currently in the news but。。。。。。。this is so much worse than i thought。 i'm not crazy but it's so much more over than i clocked😭😭😭🙏🙏🙏 。。。more
Dave Bacon
，
Using this review to solicit Bayesian updates on my model of my friends :）
Erik Champenois
，
"More Everything Forever" is one of the most interesting and entertaining books I've read this year。 It covers billionaire and tech bro fantasies on AI and the singularity， Mars， space exploration， and the ethics of effective altruism， longtermism， and rationalism。 For sheer pleasure of reading enjoyment， I would have given this book five stars。 I ended up giving it four stars due to some caveats: occasionally the author overstates things， can be too polemical （I noticed the reliance on Twitter/ "More Everything Forever" is one of the most interesting and entertaining books I've read this year。 It covers billionaire and tech bro fantasies on AI and the singularity， Mars， space exploration， and the ethics of effective altruism， longtermism， and rationalism。 For sheer pleasure of reading enjoyment， I would have given this book five stars。 I ended up giving it four stars due to some caveats: occasionally the author overstates things， can be too polemical （I noticed the reliance on Twitter/X debates in some of the endnotes）， does not delve deeply enough into arguments and counter-arguments on certain issues， implicates people using guilt by association， and overgeneralizes/overjudges in favor of presenting a more nuanced picture。 Those caveats aside （and I don't want to overstate them）， this is a very worthwhile book and it definitely helped me to more clearly see how ideological presuppositions are guiding the current hype around AI and AGI， how misplaced techno-utopian visions of the singularity are， and even how misplaced visions of colonizing Mars are。 It was fascinating to see how Silicon Valley tech billionaires who buy into the utilitarian long-termism ethics rationalize their investments in technology and space rockets as ultimately benefiting humanity more than actually helping real people on the planet right now （while， incidentally， lining their own pockets）。 As well as the trends of the tech industry seeing every problem as problems about technology， with the solutions to be offered by them/their technology， while lining their pockets。 Certainly， the hype around LLMs moving us towards AGI illuminates the hubris and the ignorance of the tech bros。 Without a grounded understanding in other sectors （and notably， without a grounding in history and the liberal arts）， tech bros think that they will achieve AGI replacing human labor， without really understanding how different labor sectors actually work: witness， most recently， DOGE's interventions in the federal government， as an example of tech bros thinking that their technology alone can resolve ultimately much more complex matters。 Becker calls this "engineer's disease": "the belief that expertise in one field （usually in STEM） makes you an expert on everything else too" （p。 268）。 Kurzweil's thinking on the singularity is covered in depth and persuasively refuted: unending accelerated growth is unlikely， accelerating returns usually diminish， keeping Moore's law on track today is much more expensive than it was in the 1970s， Moore's law is slowing down anyways， and there are real physical limits to overcome to get to universal nanobots and mind uploads。 Visions of space exploration that ignore physics are demolished as unrealistic utopianisms。 Even ideas about colonizing and terraforming Mars are shown as absurd distractions from the real issue of solving climate change on planet Earth。 The space dreams of billionaires like Musk and Bezos， as well as singularitarians like Kurzweil， are argued as reflecting a fear of death and a desire to escape death。 In the case of Kurzweil， this motivation is explicit: Kurzweil himself has declared his father's early death as one reason he hopes to see the singularity - with Kurzweil having had an LLM created for him to talk with a machine version of his dead father。 No wonder that multi-millionaires and billionaires - people who from most of the world's perspective have it all （financially speaking）， would look to use their power to achieve what they want and don't have。 Becker ends on a note that only partially addresses the issues we're facing: focusing on the need to eliminate the existence of billionaires in our world。 As he puts it: "The fact that our society allows the existence of billionaires is the fundamental problem at the core of this book。 They're the reason this is a polemic rather than a quirky tour of wacky ideas。 Without billionaires， fringe philosophies like rationalism and effective accelerationism would stay on the fringe， rather than being pulled into the mainstream through the reality-warping power of concentrated wealth" （p。 287）。 Certainly， reforming the increasingly oligarchic nature of the U。S。 political and economic system would go a long way towards restoring a sense of sanity， dynamism， and checks and balances in a country fast headed the other way。 。。。more
Austin Zheng
，
A bracing， surprisingly thorough overview of the Aum Shinrikyo-with-venture-funding death cult that dominates what passes as intellectual discourse in Silicon Valley these days。 Topics discussed include singularitarianism， AI safety， effective altruism， tech-adjacent notions of space colonization， and the mindset of the billionaires who are behind many of these rather malignant ideas。
Maya
，
It's nice how the author makes it a point to explain scientifically why these billionaires believe and do what they do， trying to show the reader that the 1% leading the world （and ruining people's lives while doing so） are not completely nuts and that their behavior comes from somewhere almost sound， even if it's absolutely wrong and damaging。I， however， do think tech billionaires are fucking crazy and their overflowing ego， delusions of grandeur， lack of human empathy， and unhealthy obsession It's nice how the author makes it a point to explain scientifically why these billionaires believe and do what they do， trying to show the reader that the 1% leading the world （and ruining people's lives while doing so） are not completely nuts and that their behavior comes from somewhere almost sound， even if it's absolutely wrong and damaging。I， however， do think tech billionaires are fucking crazy and their overflowing ego， delusions of grandeur， lack of human empathy， and unhealthy obsession with being ultrarich and relevant forever just might kill us all if they don't stop or die soon。Fuck AI， and fuck the people that keep pushing it in everyone's face while obliterating the only livable planet we have。 。。。more
John-Paul Teti
，
Really， really good。 I know a lot about these freaks and I still felt it was pretty informative， and Becker is refreshingly clear-eyed about just how bad and dumb the EA/singularity/AI crowd is。 Bonus points for tying in Teilhard de Chardin。
Ari
，
Let me start by disclosing that the author was a college classmate and a friend of mine， and that I very much liked his previous book and quantum mechanics。 Let me also say that I have been adjacent to the rationalist and effective altruist world for many years， and I am pretty well engaged with the topic and the community。 I thought the book was bad。 The author cannot resist the urge to be smug and sneering instead of thoughtful about the topic。 And in a bunch of places， that attitude trips hi Let me start by disclosing that the author was a college classmate and a friend of mine， and that I very much liked his previous book and quantum mechanics。 Let me also say that I have been adjacent to the rationalist and effective altruist world for many years， and I am pretty well engaged with the topic and the community。 I thought the book was bad。 The author cannot resist the urge to be smug and sneering instead of thoughtful about the topic。 And in a bunch of places， that attitude trips him up and leaves him saying things that look foolish。The book's attitude towards AI has aged badly。 The author very much takes the "stochastic parrot" view that language models do not think and cannot be made to think and are a distraction from deeper AI。 This was a plausible dissenting view in the year 2020 when Gebru et al wrote their paper。 But in the year 2025 it is absurd since the language-model based machine intelligence is obviously useful and are genuinely replacing human intelligence in a great many contexts。 The pace of progress is pretty rapid and it would be *surprising* if the machines do not continue to improve for the next few years。 To the extent that the AI agents do not think， it is obvious that neither do most humans most of the time。 The author expresses doubts about the possibility of machine intelligence， in general。 Sometimes this is conflated with mind-uploading， which I agree is a harder problem。 But the basic question of machine intelligence seems to me basically closed， scientifically。 There's a long history of people saying "a machine clearly could not reach human intelligence because it obviously can't {play chess， prove theorems， make art， write love poems}，" and then the machines do those things。 For eighty years， the ultimate scientific version of this was the Turing Test -- can humans distinguish between humans and machine intelligence。 At this point， the machines pass the test; humans cannot tell them apart。 That seems like pretty strong evidence for AI。 The author spends many paragraphs belaboring how ambiguous our notion of intelligence is and how statistically fragile the IQ construct is。 I understand all those hesitations but it seems beside the point。 The modern AI agents are clearly doing *something* they weren't a few years ago， and are clearly improving in some way and if you don't want to call it intelligence， what is it？ There is an incontestable economic and technical phenomenon and we need words for it。In many places the author takes an odd or controversial claim and either sneers or does a guilt-by-racist-association。 Unfortunately a number of the weird claims that the rat/EAs make are extremely well grounded。 Becker makes fun of the utilitarianism in general and the population ethics in particular。 I do not think these are so easily dismissed。 If you think people have preferences between pairs of outcomes， and accept some pretty plausible assumptions about what those preferences look like， you can define a utility function。 This is Savage's Theorem。 If you don't have complete preferences， I believe you still have a family of functions。And that function has to attach value to questions about who should exist。 Whether or not you are a utilitarian， Population Ethics is asking concrete questions about real decisions。 Should you have a child？ If you have information about the likely future health， happiness etc of the child， how should your answer change？ How do you weigh the happiness of the potential child versus existing persons， such as the siblings and parents？ What about making a machine？ If you don't like the total-utility answer， you need to substitute something there to explain your concrete preferences， and many of the alternatives are way worse。 The author likes to use "eugenics" as an epithet but he uses it so vaguely and broadly that it includes lots of calculations that any responsible parent or public health officer would do。 The author doesn't seem to object to particular answers， he objects to the questions being asked at all。All this comes to a head with the questions about the ethics of AI research。 Sometimes the author implies that machine intelligence is impossible and it is absurd of the EAs to emphasize AI。 Other times， the author implies that making a machine suffer is both possible and undesirable。 These are in tension！ If you think it would be a moral catastrophe to create millions of suffering AIs， that implies that AI research is highly morally dangerous and needs supervision。 But if suffering matters， wouldn't joy also matter？ If it is possible and morally desirable to make millions of happy joyful AIs， why isn't that extremely important？ The author seems to despise the Rat-EAs for asking these questions but these are not going away and it seems pigheaded to object to their consideration。There's a good topic here， but I do not think this is a good book about it。 。。。more
Kevin
，
A critique of simplistic hallucination， we imagine tech because we bought into mythology， hook line sinker。 Why blame the messengers？ Why no blame the message that starts with contradiction？ Settlement， marriage， patriarchy， words， laws， centers， stories， mass communication rendered arbitrarily。 All these overlords are practitioners of the original sin of cause and effect， they're nothing new。 Study the forms and formats。 These are the illness， not these symptoms。 This is like claiming proximity A critique of simplistic hallucination， we imagine tech because we bought into mythology， hook line sinker。 Why blame the messengers？ Why no blame the message that starts with contradiction？ Settlement， marriage， patriarchy， words， laws， centers， stories， mass communication rendered arbitrarily。 All these overlords are practitioners of the original sin of cause and effect， they're nothing new。 Study the forms and formats。 These are the illness， not these symptoms。 This is like claiming proximity causes syphillis。 。。。more
Bren Nelson
，
Captivating and pragmatic， More Everything Forever strikes the perfect balance between engaging and descriptive， parsing through a labyrinth of concepts and postulations that center around AI and the fate of humanity。 Digesting so many philosophical ideas， stories， careers， and even old forums and mailing lists is a daunting task， but Becker deftly arranges a comprehensible and fascinating narrative about the ways tech billionaires use shoddy science to shape the future of our world。Those most c Captivating and pragmatic， More Everything Forever strikes the perfect balance between engaging and descriptive， parsing through a labyrinth of concepts and postulations that center around AI and the fate of humanity。 Digesting so many philosophical ideas， stories， careers， and even old forums and mailing lists is a daunting task， but Becker deftly arranges a comprehensible and fascinating narrative about the ways tech billionaires use shoddy science to shape the future of our world。Those most consumed by artificial intelligence connect through several overlapping philosophies （longtermism， effective altruism， transhumanism， rationalism， effective acceleration， etc。） which are reviewed here with both broadness and depth。 By linking these ideas to the actual people responsible for popularizing them in tech spaces and those with the power to affect change at high levels， they move far past their hypotheticals。 Through analyzing the prophetic arrival of an AI superpower heralded by an understanding of reality that leans more towards worship than the scientific method， this book explores how belief and faith shape both techno-optimism and techno-doom and the avaricious people who profit from it。 The science fiction slant to it all cannot be ignored—while half the AI obsessed attempt to bubble-wrap the world and elude death like they’re outwitting the universe， the other half prepare for unmitigated disaster in a misaligned AI that destroys humanity and consumes the cosmos from crude instructions。 Calling attention to hypocrisy， Becker highlights the insincerity of claiming ethical superiority in fighting to control a theoretical superintelligent creation while an actual climate catastrophe threatens to ravage the communities who least contributed to it。 Unafraid of exhuming skeletons from closets， he does not shy away from discussing the many overt instances of racism and misogyny and how bigotry is bred into the bones of the ideology itself—even as fundamentally as asking how to quantify true “intelligence” for a computer。 Still， Becker is fair towards the characters at the center of these movements， pointing out expertise and recognizing merit when applicable and without compromising accountability。The expert usage of well-contextualized quotes throughout the book’s entirety better illuminates these characters and builds between thoughts， but Becker’s own writing always shines through as our north star。 It’s important to emphasize that this isn’t a good book purely due to its content—it’s also just a good book， one you want to continue reading and thinking about。 It’s a conversation with the author where each tangent proves to be not so tangential and ideas are developed concretely and organically。 We may not actually be able to exchange ideas with the author， but it is written in a way that mimics open dialogue。 Each chapter is grounded in a desire to understand， wrapped in complete and satisfying arguments with recurring motifs and impressive throughlines， but the real treat is near the book's end when Becker writes of stars and black holes and the entropic end of the universe。 The passion and fondness radiate from each sentence and you’re reminded why reality is just as compelling and awe-inspiring as science fiction。 More Everything Forever lays bare Silicon Valley’s empty promises and tempers their threats with proficiency and realism。 。。。more
E。R。 Burgess
，
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 In many ways， More Everything Forever is the angry rant that all sensible people want to hear right now。 The consolidation of power that is happening in Big Tech and the AI space in particular is frightening because of the clear lack of empathy and compassion that its leaders show the world。 The book is at its best when it is skewering so many of the single-minded concepts that drive the extremely rich to believe that they have the answers for everything。 Really， that only answer is more， better In many ways， More Everything Forever is the angry rant that all sensible people want to hear right now。 The consolidation of power that is happening in Big Tech and the AI space in particular is frightening because of the clear lack of empathy and compassion that its leaders show the world。 The book is at its best when it is skewering so many of the single-minded concepts that drive the extremely rich to believe that they have the answers for everything。 Really， that only answer is more， better， faster technology。Becker rightly points out that the celebration of focus， business progress， and action we see from many of these technology leaders is always coupled with a suspicion of the humanities and fulfilling the goal of a college education to make a person whole。 It is indeed this lack of an education in art， literature， history， the social sciences， and philosophy beyond reading Golden Age science fiction and possibly the creepy works of Ayn Rand that makes so many of these tech billionaires believe that every solution is technological。 While he misses this moment’s weird Silicon Valley shift further right and into religious sensibilities that probably slipped more starkly into the light after he finished composing the book， this discussion is where the book is most astute。While Becker speaks the language of so many of the subcultures of futurists， it does feel like he sometimes discounts the value of an idea because they are being applied in a ham-fisted way by people who lack any concern about the comity of man。 While this longtime science fiction reader appreciates him unpacking the value of this genre for its speculative power， he denounces its value based on the authors rather than the ideas， writers from a certain moment in time， and whose values may not align with our own。 Just because a bunch of billionaires choose to read a certain novel only for how they seem to inform their personal philosophy， it certainly doesn’t mean these books don’t have value and that they have not formed the building blocks to get us to future works that provide an enormous amount of value。 I’m not going to discount the value that Isaac Asimov had in advancing our way of thinking about robotics （and so much more） just because he had some views and took some actions that are not aligned with modern morality。 The book does the same with long-term thinking in general， but that’s a larger subject to unpack that warrants a future blog post。Those quibbles aside， the book shines brightest when creating effective arguments against the assertions of extremely rich people who believe that their business success means they understand exactly how the future should be built。 Becker is correct in saying that we cannot take directly from science fiction to plan the future。 Many genre books are cautionary， and deeply misreading them seems to be more popular these days than ever before。 His points here are thoughtful and useful for those engaged in direct discussion about how we need to weigh the value of long-term planning against the opportunity cost for helping people right now。I’m reluctant to criticize the book too much for its shortcomings because we need this perspective。 His intense dislike for What We Owe The Future is warranted and well-explained， even if mocking actor Joseph-Gordon Leavitt for his tearful read of the tome might be a trifle mean。When Becker concludes that - Spoiler Alert - the fact that we have 3，000 people working hard to get further up the Forbes Billionaires list is the crux of the problem， he’s provided ample evidence。 This extreme inequality being celebrated while we know people are starving， climate change is going to affect the poor disproportionately， and the breakdown of democracy is in full swing means we need to act。 His simple acknowledgment that we used to have a sensible approach called progressive taxation that made sure people didn’t become too powerful and power-mad is salient。While addressing this issue is important， the book leaves solutions to the reader。 That’s fair， although I don’t think we need to throw the concept of space travel out the window because we know that there are so many problems on Earth。 Solving the problem of extreme wealth inequality should allow us to do both， with a deep focus on solving immediate problems， and not just dreaming that all problems will be solved in the future by the advent of technology and， particularly， artificial intelligence。Definitely a thoughtful book and one worth reading。。Thanks to NetGalley， the publisher， and the author for access to an ARC。 。。。more
David
，
With the rise of disproportionately powerful people like Sam Altman and powerful software tools like ChatGPT， and Elon Musk running amok through the highest levels of government， this is an extremely timely read。 As stated in the subtitle， this is a polemic against the "tech bro" attitude that is wielding a disproportionate influence on economics and politics。 The gloves are off， and although I largely agree with the author， his obvious disdain and outright cynicism sometimes get in the way of t With the rise of disproportionately powerful people like Sam Altman and powerful software tools like ChatGPT， and Elon Musk running amok through the highest levels of government， this is an extremely timely read。 As stated in the subtitle， this is a polemic against the "tech bro" attitude that is wielding a disproportionate influence on economics and politics。 The gloves are off， and although I largely agree with the author， his obvious disdain and outright cynicism sometimes get in the way of the point he's trying to make。 Rather than just attack the handful of odious figures he profiles （although he does plenty of that too）， most of the book is attempt to dismantle the underlying philosophy and ideologies that motivate the often appalling business practices of companies like SpaceX and Amazon。 The early parts of the book revolve around the likelihood of achieving AGI （i。e。 human level artificial intelligence） anytime soon， and whether we should welcome or fear such an advance。 This ties in with related issues such as transhumanism and the Singularity （i。e。 artificial superintelligence）。 Becker goes particularly hard after William MacAskill （What We Owe the Future） and Ray Kurzweil （The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology）， scoffing at their ideas of Effective Altruism/Long-termism and exponential technological growth， respectively。 He also takes aim at Eliezer Yudkowsky and his Rationalist approach， and Nick Bostrom for his views on The Alignment Problem。 Finally， he turns to space exploration， debunking Elon musk's plans to colonize Mars and Jeff Bezos's desire to establish floating space habitats。 I had three main problems with the book。 First， it's extremely focused on the US （with a brief foray to Oxford， UK）， specifically on Silicon Valley tech bros， and mostly limited to a handful of particularly obnoxious tech billionaires。 It would have been interesting and instructive to also gain an understanding of how researchers and business leaders in the rest of Europe， China， Japan， and other high-tech regions are approaching the challenges。 He talks a lot about the perils of algorithmic bias and how rich white dudes have too much power， but then exclusively lavishes his attention on them。 Secondly， he ultimately fails to adequately differentiate between the lofty idealistic goal of using technology to improve society and the handful of asshole billionaires who have perverted those ideals to their own gain。 As a result， some of his arguments are reduced to ad hominin attacks against easy targets like Marc Andreessen and Peter Thiel。 Similarly， he does the guilt-by-association thing by loudly pointing out the initiatives that baddies like Jeffrey Epstein and Sam Bankman-Fried supported financially。 Finally， he dismisses too many possibilities for future advancements based on the current state of technology。 Just because it currently takes 6-9 months to get to Mars doesn't mean that next gen rockets won't be able to get there much faster。 Similarly for the prospect of building a space elevator。 Or mining asteroids。 Or developing a computer that's as smart as people。 Sure， we can argue about the practicalities and costs and whether these things will like be feasible in 5 years， 50 years， or 500 years， but on a philosophical level the timing isn't really all that important。 His solution to the thorny ethical dilemmas and inherent uncertainty involved with predicting future technological advancements？ Get rid of billionaires！ Cap wealth at $500 million， and use the rest to address problems in the here and now， rather than squander money on frivolous pipe dreams。 To me this seemed like a petty and rather limited answer to deep and important issues。 Becker talks about the utopian visions of people like Isaac Asimov， Gene Roddenberry， and Carl Sagan， and I felt like he was too easily derailed by his obvious hatred towards the small group of rich white men and hence lost focus of the larger goals and possibilities。 I listened to the audiobook ARC on NetGalley， which was nicely narrated by Greg Tremblay。 Although he did get carried away a couple of times with the dripping scorn， much like the author。 。。。more
Logan Kedzie
，
。。。or， how to con a billionaire。This is a beautiful mess of a book。 It is a critique， really a polemic， of Silicon Valley。 Yet it is not limited to Silicon Valley in any scope。 It uses individuals， usually those associated with Silicon Valley， as a way to focus its discussion。It is about Futurism， but not in general， and not exclusive。 It is about an ethos， associated with Silicon Valley and the wealthiest of its cohort。 This ideology always has some relationship with Futurism。 It often has a re 。。。or， how to con a billionaire。This is a beautiful mess of a book。 It is a critique， really a polemic， of Silicon Valley。 Yet it is not limited to Silicon Valley in any scope。 It uses individuals， usually those associated with Silicon Valley， as a way to focus its discussion。It is about Futurism， but not in general， and not exclusive。 It is about an ethos， associated with Silicon Valley and the wealthiest of its cohort。 This ideology always has some relationship with Futurism。 It often has a relationship with Rationalism。 Dropped into a closing footnote is TESCREAL， standing for “Transhumanism， Extropianism， Singulatarianism， Cosmism， Rationalism， Effective Altruism， and Longtermism” a cluster that frustrates my computer’s spell checker in its and per the author， is more of a ‘yo dawg， I heard you liked jargon’ ism-orgy。 Maybe sum it up as ‘Why the Rich are Wrong。"The chapters are grouped by concept。 Largely about potential futures， such as extra-planetary （or -solar） exploitation， General AI， and Existential AI risk， they also include chapters on things like Rationalism or Effective Altruism。 It describes each， usually using one of its figures as a framing device， then brings in the critics to elaborate on the feet of clay each has。 The book is a great example of where the last chapter ought to have been the first。 The introduction and first few chapters come off as a series of independent essays。 Patterns arise， and are paid off in the conclusion， where the author talks about those patterns。 The journalistic qualities here are unimpeachable。 The author does the work that so few have， in finding credentialed responses or knowledgeable complaints。 Most writers on these subjects perform more of a Naked Emperor act， frequently with an exhortation to touch grass。 This book takes them seriously as a threat， and finds people who are capable to engage them: think “here is why the math is wrong。” This is invaluable。 It does the work that allows you， dear reader， to do the same and talk to someone who holds one or many of these beliefs and provide a substantive argument。The author manages to include interviews with many of the figures here。 These are impressive， not takedowns or gotchas， but doing what a good interview should do in allowing someone to present a reasoned articulation of their ideas， while providing what the reader needs to vet those ideas。 It is too bad that more of the people did not accept an interview request as all the people interviewed come off better than they appear from the facts， maybe still wrong but still reasonable。I do not feel bad about burying the lede here as the book itself does it， but the thesis is that the futurism of contemporary silicon valley is evil。 The surprise is always racism: eugenics， specifically。 The philosophy amounts to the idea that colonialism is great， but real colonialism has never been tried。It is extreme to write it that plainly。 It is not。 The bigotry and old-timey wrongness here is not hidden in dog whistles。 It is not merely that the originators of the ideas were wrong， but now we can separate the good parts from the bad。 Rather， the book has the receipts。 The number of shocking quotes from public figures will leave you irate at the U。S。 media。 Not since Postman have I been upset in this way。（The funny aside is that， （view spoiler）[Character Limit established that Musk has one plan。 He used it in Twitter and is using it as Czar。 But the “One Plan” is not limited to Musk， as others like Andreessen share it。 Not the having one plan， and not that one plan being something that would make the Elders of Zion blush but dressed up all capitalisty。 They all have the same plan。 They all want to be the same sort of global government。 I feel that the only reason why the whole tech sector does not realize it is one massive Molotov-Ribbentrop scenario is how under-reported some of this is。 （hide spoiler）]）There are two problems。 The first is that the book is inconsistent in its evisceration from a structural sense。 It feels more like a reference book than an consistent take， as different topics get different degrees of scrutiny， most notably the ones with too much rather than too little。The second is a few bad arguments on the part of the author。 I am omitting them from the review。 It is a polemic， and should be read in that spirit as someone out to make a point （but I will probably blog on them and link that here）。 The one one that I must mention is， comparable to the "poetically true" of the previous book is when the author has a ‘just [expletive] Google it moment。 I mean， I understand that they are not here to educate me OH WAIT THEY ARE THIS IS A NON-FICTION BOOK I PICKED UP TO DO JUST THAT。 Worse， the underlying assertion is， as far as I understand， “aggressively technically correct。” It is right， but through reductive phrasing。 It would have been better as a citation to someone else。 I feel like I overuse the 'if you are like me， you will love this book' formula， so let me be precise。 This book fills a need。 It is not unique in doing so， but it is rare。 If you want a detailed exploration of the contrary position to contemporary futurism， this is ideal。 It is clear to read and well-sourced investigation。 As an introduction it is scattershot; as a manifesto its call to action needs developing， and as a persuasive text it will not change hearts and minds。 It is still cool and readable。My thanks to the author， Adam Becker， for writing the book， and to the publisher， Basic Books， for making the ARC available to me。 。。。more
Rina B
，