non-fiction Archives - Page 2 of 7

Yzabel / February 18, 2020

Review: Why We Can’t Sleep: Women’s New Midlife Crisis

Why We Can’t Sleep: Women’s New Midlife Crisis by Ada Calhoun
My rating: ★★★☆☆

Blurb:

When Ada Calhoun found herself in the throes of a midlife crisis, she thought that she had no right to complain. She was married with children and a good career. So why did she feel miserable? And why did it seem that other Generation X women were miserable, too?

Calhoun decided to find some answers. She looked into housing costs, HR trends, credit card debt averages and divorce data. At every turn, she saw a sandwiched between the Boomers and the Millennials, Gen X women were facing new problems as they entered middle age, problems that were being largely overlooked.

Speaking with women across America about their experiences as the generation raised to ‘have it all,’ Calhoun found that most were exhausted, terrified about money, under-employed, and overwhelmed. Instead of their issues being heard, they were told instead to lean in, take ‘me-time’ or make a chore chart to get their lives and homes in order.

In Why We Can’t Sleep, Calhoun opens up the cultural and political contexts of Gen X’s predicament and offers solutions for how to pull oneself out of the abyss – and keep the next generation of women from falling in. The result is reassuring, empowering and essential reading for all middle-aged women, and anyone who hopes to understand them.

Review:

[I received a copy through NetGalley, in exchange for an honest review.]

A hit in some ways, a miss in others for me.

I am technically a Gen-Xer, after all, and have been curious about what it’s like for other people—what it’s like, hitting your forties? Are their experiences the same as mine? Am I even experiencing the frightful middle-life crisis, or not yet, and how can I tell? The author worked with her own experiences, as well as those of friends, and from research, too, so the result was a good mix, I think, of personal plus scientific/psychological. And it is definitely interesting to see all these experiences, some very close to each other, others pretty varied, all the more since a lot of women I know then to bag it all and have less visibility when it comes to reaching middle-age.

That said, it was also a miss, because a lot of the aforementioned also didn’t resonate with me. (Mostly it’s about cisgender, middle/upper class women.) I identify as agender and aro-ace; I’m not nor do I want to be in a romantic relationship; I don’t have nor do I want children; my background and career path place me much more among millennials than xennials; I never felt the pressure of “having it all” (no family to take care of), I don’t particularly feel “invisible” (I probably am, but I don’t feel it since I’m not interested in romantic love, and I’m enough of a nerd, in a branch where this is desirable, for people to notice me regardless). So, this was all interesting, but in a distanced way. I didn’t relate that much. Is it because I haven’t reached that point yet? Or because my path is different enough that my experience will never be so close to what’s most often depicted here?

I guess I did enjoy this book, although it didn’t particularly “speak” to me. I’d recommend it only to someone who matches that demographic and is interested in a mirror—“I’m not alone and this comforts me”.

P.S. It’s not about how to cure insomnia.

Yzabel / January 30, 2020

Review: Adventures of a Computational Explorer

Adventures of a Computational Explorer by Stephen Wolfram
My rating: ★★☆☆☆

Blurb:

Through his pioneering work in science, technology and language design, Stephen Wolfram has developed his own signature way of thinking about an impressive range of subjects. In this lively book of essays, Wolfram takes the reader along on some of his most surprising and engaging intellectual adventures.From science consulting for a Hollywood movie, solving problems of AI ethics, hunting for the source of an unusual polyhedron, communicating with extraterrestrials, to finding the fundamental theory of physics and exploring the digits of pi, Adventures of a Computational Explorer captures the infectious energy and curiosity of one of the great pioneers of the computational world.

Review:

[I received a copy through NetGalley, in exchange for an honest review.]

I’ve been mulling over this review for a while now, and have to conclude that I’m still pretty much on the fence about this collection of essays and articles.

On the one hand, it makes no doubt that the author is a smart and clever person, with such an insatiable curiosity for a lot of things, and this for his whole life, that in itself, his writing is lifting and passion-inducing. I was absolutely fascinated, with the first essay, where he chronicles his participation to the “Arrival” movie (he was asked to come up with plausible science to use during certain scenes), partly because I liked this movie, and partly because I love physics even though I don’t have an actual scientific background.

On the other hand, there didn’t seem to be any thread truly linking these articles, and I felt more like I was grabbing posts at random from a blog, some of which (like the one above) were really exciting, and some others I had no interest about. (I’ll be very honest and say that I couldn’t care less about his filing system, for instance, or statistics about his e-mail activity habits…) Because of the originally standalone nature of these “chapters”, there was also a lot of repetition and overlap, such as the many mentions to Mathematica and Wolfram|Alpha. Again, on a blog with updates at different times, it’s OK, but as a book, it didn’t work so well. The whole, in the end, felt more “promotional”, where I had expected (and wanted) something that would appeal more to the computer/science geek in me.

Conclusion: 2.5 stars. Had more of the “chapters” been on the level of the first one, I would definitely have liked this collection much more.

Yzabel / December 31, 2019

Review: Tiny Habits: The Small Changes That Change Everything

Tiny Habits: The Small Changes That Change Everything by B.J. Fogg
My rating: ★★★☆☆

Blurb:

Improving your life is much easier than you think. Whether it’s losing weight, sleeping more, or restoring your work/life balance – the secret is to start small.

For years, we’ve been told that being more healthy and productive is a matter of willpower: that we should follow the latest fad and make constant changes to our lifestyles. But whether in our diets, fitness plans or jobs, radical overhauls never work. Instead we should start with quick wins — and embed new, tiny habits into our everyday routines.

The world expert on this is Silicon Valley legend BJ Fogg, pioneering research psychologist and founder of the iconic Behaviour Design Lab at Stanford. Now anyone can use his science-based approach to make changes that are simple to achieve and sticky enough to last.

In the hugely anticipated Tiny Habits, BJ Fogg shows us how to change our lives for the better, one tiny habit at a time. Based on twenty years research and his experience coaching over 40,000 people, it cracks the code of habit formation. Focus on what is easy to change, not what is hard; focus on what you want to do, not what you should do. At the heart of this is a startling truth — that creating happier, healthier lives can be easy, and surprisingly fun.

Review:

[I received a copy through NetGalley, in exchange for an honest review.]

I can’t decide if this book taught me a lot, or if, all in all, it was all logical stuff and I already knew it without knowing it. I’d say, it’s both.

In hindsight, it makes a lot of sense and is definitely logical: of course starting with baby steps / tiny habits is much more manageable than gunning for some huge change (hello, New Year Resolutions that 99.5% of people never uphold past the first week, and are basically one huge permission we give ourselves to fail, which is why I’ve stopped making them for years). On the other hand, it all *sounds* easy, but if it *was* so easy, we’d all be doing it naturally in a snap of fingers. And it’s absolutely obvious by now that a lot of people, myself included, are pretty much rubbish at “naturally” starting this kind of thing.

All in all, for me, the book wasn’t ground-breaking in itself—the basic theory was more of a “duh!” moment than anything else. However, the author gives pointers and exercises that seem in general useful, and give ideas to start if the whole thing appears really overwhelming. It’s possibly even more useful for people who tend to approach things with an all-or-nothing mentality, since going “all” with a tiny habit (ex: flossing one tooth) is easy to achieve, leads without too much trouble to doing the rest while we’re at it, but sill consists in a success. (Although, for anyone who’s remotely like me, doing more than you planned for also easily leads to unconsciously viewing the “more” as the only possible way of succeeding, which defeats the purpose. But that’s not what the book tells us to do anyway—that’s a personal pitfall.)

Yzabel / December 15, 2019

Review: Equal: A Story of Women, Men and Money

Equal: A Story of Women, Men and Money by Carrie Gracie
My rating: ★★★★☆

Blurb:

Equal pay has been the law for half a century. But women often get paid less than men, even when they’re doing equal work.

Mostly they don’t know because pay is secret. But what if a woman finds out? What should she do? What should her male colleague do? What should the boss do?

Equal is the inside story of how award-winning journalist Carrie Gracie challenged unequal pay at the BBC, alongside a wider investigation into why men and women are still paid unequally. It’s a book that will open your eyes, fix your resolve and give you the tools to act – and act now.

Review:

[I received a copy through NetGalley, in exchange for an honest review.]

A very interesting book in many ways, that also takes into account difficulties experienced by more women than just the author herself.

Carrie Gracie is/was obviously in what I’m going to call a “position of power” when this happened to her—in spite of not having equal pay, she still had very high pay (the kind of pay a high majority of people don’t and will never relate to), and in itself, this probably doesn’t invite readers in general to, well, relate (a.k.a “cry me a river, at least you’re not on a zero-hour contract). And I agree that this may easily lead readers, myself included, to see such reads as indeed interesting, but also too far away from most people’s daily reality.

This said, Gracie acknowledged this, and also definitely have a point when she states that, because of her advantages here, she was in a position to raise a dint about pay inequality problems, where women in more precarious jobs, earning much less and unable to get any kind of legal counsel (not to mention representation), wouldn’t have any other choice than either shut up or get fired, and probably end up in very dire straits. And -that- is without a doubt part of the problem: there’s still (too) much pressure applied on women, in too many places, when they don’t have the resources to push back, when even finding information about how to start pushing back is not easily available. If the ones who have enough resources to push back don’t do it, who is left?

After the list of the highest paid BBC employees was made public, Gracie wasn’t the only one who had concerns and was not just a little annoyed at what it revealed. Very interesting were the various “arguments” raised to justify why, as China editor, she didn’t earn as much as the (male) USA editor, such as suddenly mentioning that she was “in development” (after 3 years on the job?) when that had never been raised before. I don’t know how good (or not) she was at the job, but this should definitely not come out of the blue, “what a coincidence”, just after one demands equal pay. In the same way, sure, a company can justify higher salaries being paid to men because they’re more senior in their jobs—but that also begs the question, how come that, “what a coincidence”, those senior roles are still so often offered to (white) men? Obviously, when things are skewed in such a way, then yes, sure, “these salaries are higher.”

It was good to see, too, that many other women at the BBC took part in pushing back. Not all of them had the same resources as Gracie, but they worked together nonetheless to get things to progress. The book clearly acknowledges this, and also delves a little deeper into examples of what can happen in a workplace that tries to hide its pay inequality, how to recognise the signs, how to start the process to fight against it (for instance, the BBC didn’t want Gracie’s statements to be recorded, which led to many times rewritten transcripts—and a lot of wasted time—so this is something to keep in mind). Other examples highlight what men can do to help as well, all the more when they’re themselves in high positions, with high pay, but not only: anyone, at any level, can be an ally. Same for employers.

I’m not always sure about all the figures cited—I admit I didn’t cross-check absolutely everything, and sometimes it’s not always clear what exactly was taken into account (all jobs in a company, regardless of what they are? Or all jobs at the same level in a company?). The advice mentioned is also specific to the UK, so I’m not sure how useful it is for other countries. But at least it provides a basis, which is a good thing.

Yzabel / October 17, 2019

Review: Messengers: Who We Listen To, Who We Don’t, And Why

Messengers: Who We Listen To, Who We Don’t, And Why by Stephen Martin
My rating: ★★★☆☆

Blurb:

Why are self-confident ignoramuses so often believed?
Why are thoughtful experts so often given the cold shoulder?
And why do apparently irrelevant details such as a person’s height, their relative wealth, or their Facebook photo influence whether or not we trust what they are saying?

When deciding whether or not someone is worth listening to, we think we carefully weigh their words and arguments. But those are far from being the only factors that hold sway with us.

In this groundbreaking new book behavioural experts Stephen Martin and Joseph Marks pinpoint the eight powerful traits that determine who gets heard and who gets ignored. They show how such apparently irrelevant details as a person’s appearance or their financial status influence our response to what they have to say, regardless of its wisdom or foolishness. They explain how trust is won, even when it may not be deserved. They analyse the nature of the charismatic speaker and the verbal and physical cues they employ. And they demonstrate how the tiniest of signals – from the shoes we wear, to the pitch of our voice and the warmth of our smile – can transform how others perceive us and so determine whether they are prepared to pay heed to what we have to say.

Above all, Martin and Marks show how looking and sounding right is often far more persuasive than actually being right.

In a world of ambiguity, uncertainty and fake news they compellingly demonstrate how, increasingly, the Messenger is the Message.

Review:

[I received a copy through NetGalley, in exchange for an honest review.]

An interesting read altogether, although I sometimes found it too ‘light’ and superficial. Perhaps because of the many anecdotes it contains? On the one hand, they do help in getting the point, for sure, but after a while I felt that the book would be definitely more of an introduction (with the research quoted in it having to become the actual focus at some point) than a reference all of itself. Perhaps that was the goal all along, though.

In any case, I did find this research thought-provoking. It’s not the first time that I’m faced with concepts such as ‘we believe ourselves super good at judging people, circumstances etc, but in fact we’re lousier at it than we’d think’; and, let’s be honest, when I look around me at the kind of messages we get, at who broadcasts them, at how people listen to them… Yes, I’m willing to believe that -who- delivers the message is often better heard than the message itself (or allows for the message to be misunderstood in part). Is that a constant? Not necessarily, since behaviours, physical traits, and how we read them are much more complex than meet the eye; but it doesn’t hurt to keep in mind that, yes, we may just as well be influenced by a “dominant” or “handsome” appearance rather than by sound judgement, while remaining convinced our decision is perfectly rational and informed. If this only leads to think twice and get back to finding facts and information before deciding, it’s a good thing.

(I must also admit that the book gives a few good ideas about things like posture and tone of voice to use if wanting to impress people or convey a specific meaning. After all, once aware of what people in general tend to respond to, well, might as well try to use it and see if it helps when trying to convince them myself, right?)

Conclusion: 3 to 3.5 stars. It was informative in a general way, yet I think it would’ve benefitted from a deeper analysis as well.

Yzabel / October 7, 2019

Review: Gender Mosaic: Beyond the Myth of the Male and Female Brain

Gender Mosaic: Beyond the Myth of the Male and Female Brain by Daphna Joel
My rating: ★★★★☆

Blurb:

With profound implications for our most foundational assumptions about gender, Gender Mosaic explains why there is no such thing as a male or female brain.
For generations, we’ve been taught that women and men differ in profound and important ways. Women are more sensitive and emotional, whereas men are more aggressive and sexual, because this or that region in the brains of women is smaller or larger than in men, or because they have more or less of this or that hormone. This story seems to provide us with a neat biological explanation for much of what we encounter in day-to-day life. But is it true?
According to neuroscientist Daphna Joel, it’s not. And in Gender Mosaic, she sets forth a bold and compelling argument that debunks the notion of female and male brains. Drawing on the latest scientific evidence, including the groundbreaking results of her own studies, Dr. Joel explains that every human brain is a unique mixture — or mosaic — of “male” and “female” features, and that these mosaics don’t map neatly into two categories.
With urgent practical implications for the way we understand ourselves and the world around us, Gender Mosaic is a fascinating look at the science of gender, sex and the brain, and at how freeing ourselves from the gender binary can help us all reach our full human potential.

Review:

[I received a copy through NetGalley, in exchange for an honest review.]

That was pretty much preaching to the choir here, so I’ll admit my bias from the beginning—I’m absolutely not convinced, science or no science, that gender has very legitimate foundations, and that your genitals determine how you behave, what you like, who you are, and so on. It doesn’t make sense to me that so many people insist putting everybody in a tidy little “man OR woman” box (and when you stand out of the box, you’d think it threatens the very foundations of -their- identity, which makes me think that there’s something fishy here anyway). So, I was definitely interested in reading more about this concept of gender mosaic, and… well, -this-, on the other hand, makes sense to me.

“Gender Mosaic” explores the binary perception of gender, how people in general tend to ascribe this behaviour as “masculine” and that behaviour as “feminine”, but also how we’re actually very, very seldom made of only masculine or only feminine traits. Most people have a bit of both, but due to the importance placed on gender (re: the little boxes I mentioned), what is seen as “deviations from the perceived norm” is usually also seen as something to stamp out, to hide, to reject (another of these things that make no sense to me: what does it matter that a little boy likes playing with dolls? What’s so frightening about it? That this kid will become a good father later?). Our genitals are part of our biology, sure, but they’re not the only factor that plays a part in how our brains develop: it’s not only about hormones, it’s also about external influences, social ones, stress, etc. Especially stress: this isn’t something I would have researched in relation to gender, not at first sight, and yet, in hindsight, studies that focus on this don’t look out of place.

Which begs the question: what truly affects us? Does a man behave “like a man “because he was born with a penis, or because external (social) pressures exerted on him since birth have affected him? If “boys don’t cry”, is it because they can’t (beats me why they have tear ducts, then), or because they are repeatedly told almost since birth that “real men don’t cry” (and shunned accordingly if they dare cry)? Are girls naturally better at cooking because they have a vagina, or because they’ve been traditionally stuck into staying at home and cooking? Are such differences between genders valid, or are they here in the first place because social expectations have increased them? And what of people whose traits don’t lean enough towards one gender—too often, they’re dismissed and conflated into the gender other people think is theirs, and this is harmful. A mosaic is a much healthier approach to this, to understanding what makes us human first and foremost.

Having a look at the various studies referenced throughout the book, I don’t think I’m an exception in leaning towards the latter explanations rather than the former ones. Said studies are also quoted in understandable, laypeople terms, and I found their relevance easy to grasp. Finally, I liked that “Gender Mosaic” discusses the scientific side, but also goes further in exploring what it means from a societal point of view: how we raise children, especially, and how so many pervasive behaviours that look “innocent” are actually deeply biased.

While I enjoyed these aspects, though, I’d also have liked seeing more clarity in terms of actual differences. “Men are like this and women are like that” arguments are all too easily used to claim that “men are superior to women” or “women make better parents”. However, science has also shown that there are physiological differences (not necessarily in brains—for instance, the way symptoms announcing impending cardiac arrest aren’t exactly the same in women as in men, causing too many of the former to be misdiagnosed, just like “male” is still too often used as the default template for “human” in many medical studies). It’s not that “Gender Mosaic” doesn’t mention it at all, but I found the line a little blurred here. For me, the problem is with gender (= the social & formative aspect, what it imposes on human beings, how it shapes them through peer pressure), which doesn’t mean that sex (the biological/genetical aspect) should be downplayed. I think the book wasn’t too clear on that, or perhaps went a little too quickly about it, and as a result, it would be easy to misunderstand it in parts.

This said, when it comes to genders, behaviours perceived as associated to genders—then, yes, my own perception of it, my own experience, definitely point me towards “this is indeed blurry, because we’re not made of all or nothing, and that blurriness is expected”.

Yzabel / July 13, 2019

Review: The Science of Storytelling

The Science of Storytelling by Will Storr
My rating: [usr 3.5]

Blurb:

Who would we be without stories?

Stories mould who we are, from our character to our cultural identity. They drive us to act out our dreams and ambitions, and shape our politics and beliefs. We use them to construct our relationships, to keep order in our law courts, to interpret events in our newspapers and social media. Storytelling is an essential part of what makes us human.

There have been many attempts to understand what makes a good story – from Joseph Campbell’s well-worn theories about myth and archetype to recent attempts to crack the ‘Bestseller Code’. But few have used a scientific approach. This is curious, for if we are to truly understand storytelling in its grandest sense, we must first come to understand the ultimate storyteller – the human brain.

Review:

[I received a copy through NetGalley, in exchange for an honest review.]

Pretty interesting both regarding the science part (how our brains work) and the writing part (how this translated into fiction, and more specifically creating compelling characters with a ‘fatal flaw’). The author illustrates those points with examples from a few well-known books, like ‘Lolita’ and ‘The Remains of the Day’, an approach that could easily be problematic. On the one hand, illustrating the theory with examples is always better. On the other hand, if one hasn’t read those books…spoilers! (I had read those in the past, so I was good here.) At any rates, these examples were good ones in my opinion, especially where ‘Lolita’ is concerned: Humbert Humbert is clearly not the kind of character one is supposed to root for, so for Nabokov to make him and the story compelling, specific techniques had to be used. And once analysed the way they are in “The Science of Storytelling”, they do make a lot of sense. (Please note that this has likely been explored in studies about ‘Lolita’ as well, but I haven’t read them, so I can’t tell whether there’s anything original in here, or not at all.)

Having plenty of examples, though, was perhaps a little overkill in places, in that it left less room to explore more in terms of neuroscience / how the human brain works. I chose to take this book as one I can go back to for ‘writing advice’, but I admit that I felt a little down regarding the science part (I expected more, in a more scientific way). So best is to approach this book as one about writing rather than as a bona fide ‘science’ book’.

(I also didn’t care much for the few moments when the author went more into political opinions. This I found jarring, and it pulled me out of my funk.)

Probably my favourite section was actually the last one (as in, the appendix), which gives good pointers into creating and fleshing out characters based on what the author developed throughout the book. In hindsight, it’s probably ‘logical’ advice, and I suppose that there are quite a few authors out there who’re doing that (consciously or not) as something that is completely obvious and/or logical to them; for me, it was definitely interesting, and I need to keep it in mind when developing my own characters. Which isn’t necessarily easy when you have more than one main character to focus on, but that’s a whole other conundrum.

Conclusion: 3.5 stars

Yzabel / April 23, 2019

Review: Space 2.0

Space 2.0: How Private Spaceflight, a Resurgent NASA, and International Partners are Creating a New Space Age by Rod Pyle
My rating: [usr 4.5]

Blurb:

We’re on the cusp of new era in the great adventure of space exploration.

More than a half-century ago, humanity first hurled objects into space, and almost 50 years ago, astronauts first walked on the moon. Since then, we have explored Earth’s orbit with shuttles, capsules, and space stations; sent robots to Mars, Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus; sampled a comet; sent telescopes into orbit; and charted most of our own planet.

What does the future hold?

In Space 2.0, space historian Rod Pyle, in collaboration with the National Space Society, will give you an inside look at the next few decades of spaceflight and long-term plans for exploration, utilization, and settlement.

No longer the exclusive domain of government entities such as NASA and other national agencies, space exploration is rapidly becoming privatized, with entrepreneurial startups building huge rocket boosters, satellites, rocket engines, asteroid probes, prospecting craft, and even commercial lunar cargo landers to open this new frontier. Research into ever more sophisticated propulsion and life support systems will soon enable the journey to Mars and destinations deeper in our solar system. As these technologies continue to move forward, there are virtually no limits to human spaceflight and robotic exploration.

While the world has waited since the Apollo lunar program for the next “giant leap,” these critical innovations, most of which are within our grasp with today’s technology, will change the way we live, both in space and on Earth. A new space age—and with it, a new age of peace and prosperity on Earth, and settlement beyond our planet—can be ours.

Speaking with key leaders of the latest space programs and innovations, Pyle shares the excitement and promise of this new era of exploration and economic development. From NASA and the Russian space agency Roscosmos, to emerging leaders in the private sector such as SpaceX, Blue Origin, Moon Express, Virgin Galactic, and many others, Space 2.0 examines the new partnerships that are revolutionizing spaceflight and changing the way we reach for the stars.

Review:

[I received a copy of this book through NetGalley, in exchange for an honest review.]

As a NetGalley ARC, I got a digital copy, but getting a printed one is very, very tempting, since the book contains plenty of beautiful pictures: from archives, from “current” events (taken during SpaceX launches, for instance), and from art depicting projects as of yet unrealised, but that look definitely exciting.

This book takes us on a journey from the early days of space-faring into current projects, as well as what could very well be in store for the future. The space conquest started strongly during the Cold War, but it is true that after a while, those efforts kind of dwindled compared to what they could have been, what a lot of people no doubt expected them to be. I remember when the shuttle was decommissioned, and that was heartbreaking in its own way. Now, as the space industry is not relying only on public agencies but also on investors from the private sector—while I’m not a huge fan of Musk and Bezos, let’s be honest, we need people like them to carry on with the effort—may we hope that it’s not going to stop here?

“Space 2.0” is a very pleasant read, both in an entertaining and in an informative manner, and doesn’t restrict itself to covering NASA: it also presents recent and currents efforts from other agencies, whether in Europe with the ESA or in Asia with the growing importance of China and India. And while it doesn’t shy away from all the hurdles in conquering space, the past as well as the future ones, it provides plenty of technical details, and a clearly hopeful vision (complete with contacts and organisations to get involved as individuals in space-related endeavours in general).

Yes, I really want to get the printed version now. If I have one critique, it’s that I wouldn’t have minded if the book has been a little longer, with even more pictures and details!

Yzabel / April 14, 2019

Review: Hacking Darwin

Hacking Darwin: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humanity by Jamie Metzl
My rating: [usr 4.5]

Blurb:

After 3.8 billion years humankind is about to start evolving by new rules…

From leading geopolitical expert and technology futurist Jamie Metzl comes a groundbreaking exploration of the many ways genetic-engineering is shaking the core foundations of our lives — sex, war, love, and death.

At the dawn of the genetics revolution, our DNA is becoming as readable, writable, and hackable as our information technology. But as humanity starts retooling our own genetic code, the choices we make today will be the difference between realizing breathtaking advances in human well-being and descending into a dangerous and potentially deadly genetic arms race.

Enter the laboratories where scientists are turning science fiction into reality. Look towards a future where our deepest beliefs, morals, religions, and politics are challenged like never before and the very essence of what it means to be human is at play. When we can engineer our future children, massively extend our lifespans, build life from scratch, and recreate the plant and animal world, should we?

Passionate, provocative, and highly illuminating,Hacking Darwin is the must readbook about the future of our species for fans ofHomo Deus and The Gene.

Review:

[I received a copy of this book through NetGalley, in exchange for an honest review.]

This book is not heavy on the actual science details—if you’re looking for those, you’ll be better to get another book, but if you don’t know that much about genetics, then there won’t be anything in there impossible to follow. It focuses instead on the various advances in genetics in terms of “what do they do”, “what do they entail”, “what could the results be”, and “how should be approach those?” (You can tell that the author has also written novels, because there’s a definitive storytelling thread throughout some of the chapters, especially when he deals with IVF and the potential of modifying embryos to make their future selves healthier. This makes the reading all the more accessible and enjoyable.)

You can also tell that Jamie Metzl is probably more on the side of advocating gene-related manipulations than on the side of those who want them banned, but in a cautious way: it’s not all enthusiasm and sparks and giggles, and for every “good point” he lists, he also takes care to consider the negative sides (or potentially negative sides, since there are still many approaches that haven’t been tested, so we just have no idea how people would react when given the choice). And it is true that while the transhumanist in me is excited at so many prospects, the cynic is me is also convinced that, like we so many other things, humanity in general will bork its way through this and pervert it. But let’s keep hope, shall we?

“Hacking Darwin” considers the therapeutic potential of genetic intervention. Through current techniques such as CRISPR-Cas9, we are already able to cut material that leading to genetic diseases, although this hasn’t been approved so far on human embryos destined to be implanted, because the results are good, but more on a “60% good” scale than on a “95% good” one. Which leads to understandable caution about all this, and with reason. There is something frightening and sublime (in the philosophical and literary meanings of the word) to all these developing technologies, because when we contemplate them, we are put face to face with how we are, all in all, code; and code can be hacked, and modified, and this could be for the best or for the worst.

The best: if we had a chance of preventing babies with genes condemning them to Alzheimer’s or to Huntington’s disease, for instance, shouldn’t we take it and thus prevent future suffering? If we can make crops that yield more nutrients (Golden Rice comes to mind, and is actually even mentioned), shouldn’t we do it, so that people dying of malnutrition illnesses can get a chance at life? And if we could give our future children better health and strength in general, better chances in their future lifes through specific abilities, wouldn’t we want to do that? But the worst, too: who’s to tell that this won’t spiral downward (eugenics and the earluy 20th century come to mind), lead to less diversity (not a good thing), to people all wanting the same kind of child—or, perhaps more alarmingly, to a growing chasm between those who can afford to enhance tyheir future babies, and those who can, thus leading to a class of “superhumans” trampling “subhumans”?

The book considers these aspects, and other ones as well, including the major religion’s take on it (you’d be surprised at some of them) and approaches and pitfalls that humanity as a whole must consider here. It doesn’t hold all the answers, far from it. But it gives you a lot of food for thought. And even though it is perhaps too optimistic (again, seeing the world as it is today, I just don’t trust us in general to avoid creating worst societies based on even more inequalities, this time from before the womb), it does remain a very interesting start for more discussions about genetic engineering.

4.5 stars

Yzabel / March 30, 2019

Review: Evil

Evil: The Science Behind Humanity’s Dark Side by Julia Shaw

My rating: [rating=3]

Blurb:

What is it about evil that we find so compelling? From our obsession with serial killers to violence in pop culture, we seem inescapably drawn to the stories of monstrous acts and the aberrant people who commit them. But evil, Dr. Julia Shaw argues, is all relative, rooted in our unique cultures. What one may consider normal, like sex before marriage, eating meat, or being a banker, others find abhorrent. And if evil is only in the eye of the beholder, can it be said to exist at all? In Evil, Shaw uses case studies from academia, examples from and popular culture, and anecdotes from everyday life to break down complex information and concepts like the neuroscience of evil, the psychology of bloodlust, and workplace misbehavior. This is a wide-ranging exploration into a fascinating, darkly compelling subject.

Review:

[I received a copy of this book through NetGalley, in exchange for an honest review.]

Interesting in its own ways, and raising a lot of prompts to question oneself about how we define ‘evil’, if such definitions are actually applicable, what would make us think a person is evil, or whether we are all capable of evil (and if we are, then what prevents us from tipping that way). Most examples given I already knew (Hitler—obviously, or the Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments), but it didn’t make the questions less valid, of course. Like many things, the ‘evil’ label can be applied in haste, as a shortcut, and there are times when I believe it is indeed valid, and others when evil has nothing to do with it. Times when we tend to use the label to mean something that is too different from our own experience for us to want to acknowledge it and not treat it as ‘other’.

And it is definitely a tricky subject. It is not so easy to calmly consider, say, the case of paedophilia, and try to see people experiencing these urges as people who need help rather than just as ‘evil people who should be castrated’ (note that I wrote ‘experiencing urges’, which doesn’t necessarily mean ‘acting on them’). Are those people ‘evil’? Are they more victims of something they can’t control? And what would be more productive: just labelling them, or trying to find solutions to help before something bad happens? Probably your mileage may vary here, but I get the point, and I agree with it, that pointing the finger is seldom a solution in itself—and that saying ‘it’s evil’ is basically useless anyway if all we do is say it instead of acting. Which raises other questions, obviously: what does ‘acting’ mean here? Does it mean punishing, killing (and committing a harmful act as well)? Does it mean helping?

Regarding this kind of reflections leading to more reflections, the book is clearly interesting, and tends to push boundaries and make one feel uncomfortable: none of us want to realise ‘hey, wait, but I also have such thoughts at times’, or think ‘if I don’t call a murderer evil, then people will judge me as bad and reject me’. There’s a lot of philosophical aspects to go with here, and opportunities for good discussions.

This said, I found the ‘science’ side more lacking. While many examples presented in it do rest on actual experiments and reports, and some clinical reasons are given for certain behaviours (such as studies trying to pinpoint if specific areas of the brain are involved in psychopathic behaviours, etc.), for me, it didn’t go far enough in the scientific department (such as neurology), which is why I liked the book in general, but didn’t love it. The author also adds her own opinions, and does say they are opinions (= not trying to pass them as facts), and to be fair, I do agree with them (I never once considered that mental disorders were ‘evil’…); still, that is not what I expected here.

To conclude, this one is a good read for delving into more philosophical approaches, confronting ourselves when it comes to what we consider evil, and trying to understand what the latter entails. It is much less an actual scientific book, though.