What do you think?
Rate this book
Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies — And What it Means to Be Human
Taking us behind the scenes with today's foremost researchers and pioneers, Garreau reveals that the super powers of our comic-book heroes already exist, or are in development in hospitals, labs, and research facilities around the country -- from the revved up reflexes and speed of Spider-Man and Superman, to the enhanced mental acuity and memory capabilities of an advanced species.
In Radical Evolution, bestselling author Joel Garreau, a reporter and editor for the Washington Post, shows us that we are at an inflection point in history. As you read this, we are engineering the next stage of human evolution. Through advances in genetic, robotic, information and nanotechnologies, we are altering our minds, our memories, our metabolisms, our personalities, our progeny - and perhaps our very souls.
Taking us behind the scenes with today's foremost researchers and pioneers, Garreau reveals that the super powers of our comic-book heroes already exist, or are in development in hospitals, labs, and research facilities around the country -- from the revved up reflexes and speed of Spider-Man and Superman, to the enhanced mental acuity and memory capabilities of an advanced species.
Over the next fifteen years, Garreau makes clear, these enhancements will become part of our everyday lives. Where will they lead us? To heaven - where technology's promise to make us smarter, vanquish illness and extend our lives is the answer to our prayers? Or will they lead us, as some argue, to hell - where unrestrained technology brings about the ultimate destruction of our entire species? With the help and insights of the gifted thinkers and scientists who are making what has previously been thought of as science fiction a reality, Garreau explores how these developments, in our lifetime, will affect everything from the way we date to the way we work, from how we think and act to how we fall in love. It is a book about what our world is becoming today, not fifty years out. As Garreau cautions, it is only by anticipating the future that we can hope to shape it.
In Radical Evolution, bestselling author Joel Garreau, a reporter and editor for the Washington Post, shows us that we are at an inflection point in history. As you read this, we are engineering the next stage of human evolution. Through advances in genetic, robotic, information and nanotechnologies, we are altering our minds, our memories, our metabolisms, our personalities, our progeny - and perhaps our very souls.
Taking us behind the scenes with today's foremost researchers and pioneers, Garreau reveals that the super powers of our comic-book heroes already exist, or are in development in hospitals, labs, and research facilities around the country -- from the revved up reflexes and speed of Spider-Man and Superman, to the enhanced mental acuity and memory capabilities of an advanced species.
Over the next fifteen years, Garreau makes clear, these enhancements will become part of our everyday lives. Where will they lead us? To heaven - where technology's promise to make us smarter, vanquish illness and extend our lives is the answer to our prayers? Or will they lead us, as some argue, to hell - where unrestrained technology brings about the ultimate destruction of our entire species? With the help and insights of the gifted thinkers and scientists who are making what has previously been thought of as science fiction a reality, Garreau explores how these developments, in our lifetime, will affect everything from the way we date to the way we work, from how we think and act to how we fall in love. It is a book about what our world is becoming today, not fifty years out. As Garreau cautions, it is only by anticipating the future that we can hope to shape it.
400 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
70 people are currently reading
1067 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews
December 1, 2012
Radical Evolution is a look at how rapid and fundamental advances in technology could produce enormous changes in human life and even in what we define as "human" in a relatively short time. It's by Joel Garreau, a Washington Post writer who wrote two books I enjoyed immensely: The Nine Nations of North America (about regional differences in and around the U.S.A.) and Edge City (about the new urban landscape of suburban development).
In Radical Evolution he tackles the potentially world-changing effects of what he calls the "GRIN technologies" -- Genetic engineering, Robotics, Information, and Nanotechnology. Any one of those four fields has the potential to change the world, and the four of them have synergistic effects on each other, so that advances in one can spawn other advances in the others, which create still more advances, and so on in a process of asymptotic technological change Garreau calls "The Curve."
We're reaching a point where those four areas of technology have the potential to change humanity in unprecendented ways. Genetic engineering can make us healthier, longer-lived, and smarter. Robotics and information technology holds the promise of giving humans access to almost infinite amounts of information -- and the possibility of artificial intelligences as smart or smarter than ourselves. And nanotechnology lets us reshape the physical world down to the level of individual atoms. How will we deal with these tremendous changes?
Garreau is a member of the Global Business Network, which is a futurist think-tank kind of like a cross between the Bavarian Illuminati and the Justice League. Their specialty is "scenario planning," a method of boiling the infinite possibilities of the future down into a handful of distinct pathways. He applies that technique to transhumanism in Radical Evolution, showing us three possible outcomes which he nicknames "Heaven," "Hell," and "Prevail."
The "Heaven" scenario is obviously the most rosy. All the optimistic predictions about increased lifespan, increased intelligence, and increased wealth come true, and soon. The people reading Garreau's book will live like gods, and their descendants will pretty much be gods. Amen and hosanna.
The "Hell" scenario centers on the kind of dystopia familiar to readers of cyberpunk science fiction. In the future rich people will have all kinds of neat toys and live forever, poor people will be useless in a world of automation, all this new tech will ravage the environment, and in the background superintelligent artificial intelligences will take over the world and prepare to exterminate us.
And finally there's the "Prevail" scenario, which is sort of "Heaven"-lite. We'll only become semi-godlike, there will be some problems along the way, but we'll rise to the occasion and muddle through.
However, one comes away with the strong suspicion that Garreau isn't presenting these three as possible futures, but rather as a kind of Hegelian "thesis -- antithesis -- synthesis." He's stacking the deck in favor of the "Prevail" scenario, and the result is that the book comes across as more of a polemic in favor of transhumanism than an impartial analysis. It lacks the wisecracking skepticism of Ed Regis's Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition, an early investigation into some of the same topics. Regis looked at both the visionaries and the crackpots, and wondered aloud if there was any real difference between them.
In addition to the author's obvious axe-grinding, the book is too journalistic. It reads like a very long Sunday feature article. Garreau falls into a pattern: he introduces a topic with some historical references (Thoreau, Bacon, Thomas Kuhn), then interviews some of the modern visionaries in whatever technology field he's talking about. He describes people's offices, usually gives some biographical background including the sort of cod-Freudian "telling detail" which fools the reader into thinking they understand the subject's motives, and provides some punchy quotes. Feature-section editors love quotes and biographical details, and descriptions of offices. In his account of computer scientist Jaron Lanier, Garreau somehow manages to spend more than a page talking about driving around New Mexico drinking in biker bars and eating huevos rancheros. It's fine travel writing, but it's kind of out of place.
And like far too much journalism on technical topics, Garreau stints when talking about the actual nitty-gritty details. He explains Moore's Law well enough, but his depictions of nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and genetic engineering feel cursory. Now, Joel Garreau is not a scientist, and one could probably argue that it's better to chase down some of the more technical works in the (extremely useful) "Recommended Reading" section of Radical Evolution rather than depend on the author's ability to explain topics in which he has no personal expertise.
But the book also feels cursory when it delves into the topics Garreau really is something of an expert on: the political, legal, and social issues at stake in his three scenarios. By relying on feature-section quotes from his interview subjects he misses the chance to present their arguments in detail. The result is as insubstantial as a local TV news story: "Here's something which could be very good, or very bad. This person says it will be good [insert clip], this person says it will be bad [insert clip]. Next up: sports and weather!"
Maybe I'm expecting too much. Garreau applied the same personality-driven journalistic approach to his other two books, both of which I enjoyed immensely, and as a study of the people involved in creating the future -- for good or ill -- it's interesting and entertaining. But it could have been so much more.
In Radical Evolution he tackles the potentially world-changing effects of what he calls the "GRIN technologies" -- Genetic engineering, Robotics, Information, and Nanotechnology. Any one of those four fields has the potential to change the world, and the four of them have synergistic effects on each other, so that advances in one can spawn other advances in the others, which create still more advances, and so on in a process of asymptotic technological change Garreau calls "The Curve."
We're reaching a point where those four areas of technology have the potential to change humanity in unprecendented ways. Genetic engineering can make us healthier, longer-lived, and smarter. Robotics and information technology holds the promise of giving humans access to almost infinite amounts of information -- and the possibility of artificial intelligences as smart or smarter than ourselves. And nanotechnology lets us reshape the physical world down to the level of individual atoms. How will we deal with these tremendous changes?
Garreau is a member of the Global Business Network, which is a futurist think-tank kind of like a cross between the Bavarian Illuminati and the Justice League. Their specialty is "scenario planning," a method of boiling the infinite possibilities of the future down into a handful of distinct pathways. He applies that technique to transhumanism in Radical Evolution, showing us three possible outcomes which he nicknames "Heaven," "Hell," and "Prevail."
The "Heaven" scenario is obviously the most rosy. All the optimistic predictions about increased lifespan, increased intelligence, and increased wealth come true, and soon. The people reading Garreau's book will live like gods, and their descendants will pretty much be gods. Amen and hosanna.
The "Hell" scenario centers on the kind of dystopia familiar to readers of cyberpunk science fiction. In the future rich people will have all kinds of neat toys and live forever, poor people will be useless in a world of automation, all this new tech will ravage the environment, and in the background superintelligent artificial intelligences will take over the world and prepare to exterminate us.
And finally there's the "Prevail" scenario, which is sort of "Heaven"-lite. We'll only become semi-godlike, there will be some problems along the way, but we'll rise to the occasion and muddle through.
However, one comes away with the strong suspicion that Garreau isn't presenting these three as possible futures, but rather as a kind of Hegelian "thesis -- antithesis -- synthesis." He's stacking the deck in favor of the "Prevail" scenario, and the result is that the book comes across as more of a polemic in favor of transhumanism than an impartial analysis. It lacks the wisecracking skepticism of Ed Regis's Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition, an early investigation into some of the same topics. Regis looked at both the visionaries and the crackpots, and wondered aloud if there was any real difference between them.
In addition to the author's obvious axe-grinding, the book is too journalistic. It reads like a very long Sunday feature article. Garreau falls into a pattern: he introduces a topic with some historical references (Thoreau, Bacon, Thomas Kuhn), then interviews some of the modern visionaries in whatever technology field he's talking about. He describes people's offices, usually gives some biographical background including the sort of cod-Freudian "telling detail" which fools the reader into thinking they understand the subject's motives, and provides some punchy quotes. Feature-section editors love quotes and biographical details, and descriptions of offices. In his account of computer scientist Jaron Lanier, Garreau somehow manages to spend more than a page talking about driving around New Mexico drinking in biker bars and eating huevos rancheros. It's fine travel writing, but it's kind of out of place.
And like far too much journalism on technical topics, Garreau stints when talking about the actual nitty-gritty details. He explains Moore's Law well enough, but his depictions of nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and genetic engineering feel cursory. Now, Joel Garreau is not a scientist, and one could probably argue that it's better to chase down some of the more technical works in the (extremely useful) "Recommended Reading" section of Radical Evolution rather than depend on the author's ability to explain topics in which he has no personal expertise.
But the book also feels cursory when it delves into the topics Garreau really is something of an expert on: the political, legal, and social issues at stake in his three scenarios. By relying on feature-section quotes from his interview subjects he misses the chance to present their arguments in detail. The result is as insubstantial as a local TV news story: "Here's something which could be very good, or very bad. This person says it will be good [insert clip], this person says it will be bad [insert clip]. Next up: sports and weather!"
Maybe I'm expecting too much. Garreau applied the same personality-driven journalistic approach to his other two books, both of which I enjoyed immensely, and as a study of the people involved in creating the future -- for good or ill -- it's interesting and entertaining. But it could have been so much more.
October 23, 2016
I hate this book with a passion, not for its content but for its form. He basically just mushed a ton of research into paragraph form, and a lot of it is so hard to follow. And his incessant use of random quotes from random people whom he only mentions once in the entire book.... aaargh stop it! It was like he was just trying to fill up space so he searched every possible quote about each topic in google and just threw it in there. So poorly written.
August 21, 2018
Technology is advancing faster than it ever has, and that brings challenges with it. Garreau traveled around and interviewed experts in various fields, not only asking what was happening now, but what might happen in the future and how that would effect humans in general. The book confronts technological and ethical issues. Where are we going with our inventions, and who or what will we be when we get there?
These are complicated issues, and there are opposing viewpoints. We might create a Utopia. We might manage to destroy ourselves. Life might continue largely as it has been, allowing for changes along the way. After all, people in the 70's probably couldn't imagine our lives now, with the Net, cell phones, and drones.
It's a lot of interesting information that makes you think. A very intriguing look at current technology in genetics, robotics, and several other fields.
These are complicated issues, and there are opposing viewpoints. We might create a Utopia. We might manage to destroy ourselves. Life might continue largely as it has been, allowing for changes along the way. After all, people in the 70's probably couldn't imagine our lives now, with the Net, cell phones, and drones.
It's a lot of interesting information that makes you think. A very intriguing look at current technology in genetics, robotics, and several other fields.
December 15, 2022
There was a recent Family Guy episode where Joe Swanson sings about all the wonderful technology available to us but then asks "But what does the military have?!" Well, my friends, this book may have some of the answers.
I did not search this book out. It found me on the grimy shelves of the local St. Vinny's. I thought it sounded interesting....and it was. About 50 pages in I was starting to get both excited and frightened by the future. That's when I checked the copyright date. 2005!!!??!
Then I got REALLY scared.
As I am wont to do, I fell down a rabbit hole of youtube videos about DARPA and some of the technology mentioned in this book. The interesting thing about having almost 2 decades of hindsight while reading it, is seeing how almost ALL of the things mentioned in this book have started trickling into our lives.
Super viruses? Check.
Superheros inundating our culture? Check.
People falling in love with their devices?
Watch the delightful movie HER with Joaquin Phoenix. Or maybe just Jexi on Netflix. The telepathic monkey experiment has made it to human trials. I repeat: HUMANS ARE FLYING DRONES WITH THEIR BRAINS RIGHT NOW.
Since starting this book I have had breathy, passionate (somewhat drooling) monologues over dinner to friends about how exponential growth is real and nanobots are the future. Their initial response was "we're doomed" and it is easy to think that. We are often taught to fear the unknown.
What I really enjoyed most about this book was that it did not leave me feeling scared in the end. Its ending premise *SPOILER* is that advancement is coming whether we like it or not. It is our responsibility to guide it. We can either transcend as a human race or delete ourselves from existence.
You may be thinking "yeah but most people suck, so we are definitely headed for annihilation".
While I would usually agree, Garreau did make a good point: In the 1950's people all thought we would be dead from nuclear fallout. My dad said, as a child, they would practice drills for this. Upon writing this at the end of 2022 we are all still alive and the Cold War has remained cold (knock on wood).
With every advancement, there were always naysayers. Cars will never replace horses, the written word will make people forget things. Why would anyone want a telephone when writing letters and waiting six weeks is just fine?
Humans have a capacity much like infinity. They can simultaneously be unimaginatively cruel while also being overwhelmingly altruistic. As a society, we will have to come together and reshape our culture, traditions, and beliefs to embrace these new giant steps for mankind.
In my opinion, it's about time.
See you at the Singularity. <3
I did not search this book out. It found me on the grimy shelves of the local St. Vinny's. I thought it sounded interesting....and it was. About 50 pages in I was starting to get both excited and frightened by the future. That's when I checked the copyright date. 2005!!!??!
Then I got REALLY scared.
As I am wont to do, I fell down a rabbit hole of youtube videos about DARPA and some of the technology mentioned in this book. The interesting thing about having almost 2 decades of hindsight while reading it, is seeing how almost ALL of the things mentioned in this book have started trickling into our lives.
Super viruses? Check.
Superheros inundating our culture? Check.
People falling in love with their devices?
Watch the delightful movie HER with Joaquin Phoenix. Or maybe just Jexi on Netflix. The telepathic monkey experiment has made it to human trials. I repeat: HUMANS ARE FLYING DRONES WITH THEIR BRAINS RIGHT NOW.
Since starting this book I have had breathy, passionate (somewhat drooling) monologues over dinner to friends about how exponential growth is real and nanobots are the future. Their initial response was "we're doomed" and it is easy to think that. We are often taught to fear the unknown.
What I really enjoyed most about this book was that it did not leave me feeling scared in the end. Its ending premise *SPOILER* is that advancement is coming whether we like it or not. It is our responsibility to guide it. We can either transcend as a human race or delete ourselves from existence.
You may be thinking "yeah but most people suck, so we are definitely headed for annihilation".
While I would usually agree, Garreau did make a good point: In the 1950's people all thought we would be dead from nuclear fallout. My dad said, as a child, they would practice drills for this. Upon writing this at the end of 2022 we are all still alive and the Cold War has remained cold (knock on wood).
With every advancement, there were always naysayers. Cars will never replace horses, the written word will make people forget things. Why would anyone want a telephone when writing letters and waiting six weeks is just fine?
Humans have a capacity much like infinity. They can simultaneously be unimaginatively cruel while also being overwhelmingly altruistic. As a society, we will have to come together and reshape our culture, traditions, and beliefs to embrace these new giant steps for mankind.
In my opinion, it's about time.
See you at the Singularity. <3
June 17, 2017
Within the GRIN technologies (Genetics, Robotics, Information, and Nanotechology), Garreau presents the latest advancements and how they could lead to four different scenarios: Heaven, Hell, Prevail, and Transcend. Ultimately, we are still in control of how technological advancements play out, for better or for worse.
March 24, 2021
Well this is what I get for taking 10+ years to get around to reading books on my to-read list. The time-sensitive ones become wildly out of date, speaking in hushed tones about this one guy that is on his Blackberry all the time - he even takes it into the bathroom - "My husband is a good man" the wife has to insist, defending such an unheard-of behavior as to even seem to sometimes prefer a device to real-live human interaction.
Oh, 2005. So innocent and quaint.
So maybe reading this book 15 years late is a decent exercise in just what it's talking about, how technology and society changes, as well as how bad we are at making timely predictions - many people seemed to have expected us to more or less be at the Singularity by now, or at least a lot closer. There should be plenty of interesting research papers on the ins and outs of which advances were made and which weren't, or what form they are taking, or what effect they're having, but the basic story is still relevant. I imagine the general topic of transhumanism or at least its related issues are at least somewhat more widely known now, but maybe the details in this book will be useful to someone who is decidedly not me, and hasn't been dreaming of transhumanism since long before this book was in the works. Someone who needs to be introduced to these ideas as if they're new and confusing, with their hand held and weak attempts at humor paving the way. Would I have enjoyed it more if I had read it 10 years ago? Probably. I think Garreau treats the wide range of opinions and predictions fairly, takes it all seriously (although has to constantly reassure the reader that it IS something to take seriously, not just far-off fantasy), and potentially even makes it palatable for whoever is out there that needs it to be made so. So although it wasn't a particularly enjoyable book for me, and I didn't learn a whole lot new, I can't really criticize the book for that. At the very least, an extra star for the fact that a good 5th of the book is actually just Suggested Readings.
Oh, 2005. So innocent and quaint.
So maybe reading this book 15 years late is a decent exercise in just what it's talking about, how technology and society changes, as well as how bad we are at making timely predictions - many people seemed to have expected us to more or less be at the Singularity by now, or at least a lot closer. There should be plenty of interesting research papers on the ins and outs of which advances were made and which weren't, or what form they are taking, or what effect they're having, but the basic story is still relevant. I imagine the general topic of transhumanism or at least its related issues are at least somewhat more widely known now, but maybe the details in this book will be useful to someone who is decidedly not me, and hasn't been dreaming of transhumanism since long before this book was in the works. Someone who needs to be introduced to these ideas as if they're new and confusing, with their hand held and weak attempts at humor paving the way. Would I have enjoyed it more if I had read it 10 years ago? Probably. I think Garreau treats the wide range of opinions and predictions fairly, takes it all seriously (although has to constantly reassure the reader that it IS something to take seriously, not just far-off fantasy), and potentially even makes it palatable for whoever is out there that needs it to be made so. So although it wasn't a particularly enjoyable book for me, and I didn't learn a whole lot new, I can't really criticize the book for that. At the very least, an extra star for the fact that a good 5th of the book is actually just Suggested Readings.
May 3, 2008
Whew!Very scary book.
I thought that the 80's was fast and furious with the internet coming of age. It pales in comparision to the what Mr. Garreau says is on the futures menu.
Mr Garreau talks about DARPA(Defensce Advance Research Projects Agency) and other agencies that are currently working on advanced technologies that will enhance our lives, or may destroy us.
Garreau talks about Moores Law, which he says is the reason that electronics capacity doubles every 18 months, and this time fram will shorten e.g. every 12 mons as we move to the future.
Garreau also discusses other concepts like Singularity,Cyberkinetics. He also gives examples for converging Technologies for improving Human performance.
After the above indoctrination to the different technologies coming on board Mr. Garreau continues on with possible future implications concerning the new technologies.
The second half of the book outlines three different possible futures. One good, one bad, and one somewere between the good and the bad.
I found it hard to follow a lot of the techno language and acronyms, but was constantly curious and kept reading.
The final stories were interesting and at the same time scary. I found I was constantly thinking that what he was telling me was already happening.
I thought that the 80's was fast and furious with the internet coming of age. It pales in comparision to the what Mr. Garreau says is on the futures menu.
Mr Garreau talks about DARPA(Defensce Advance Research Projects Agency) and other agencies that are currently working on advanced technologies that will enhance our lives, or may destroy us.
Garreau talks about Moores Law, which he says is the reason that electronics capacity doubles every 18 months, and this time fram will shorten e.g. every 12 mons as we move to the future.
Garreau also discusses other concepts like Singularity,Cyberkinetics. He also gives examples for converging Technologies for improving Human performance.
After the above indoctrination to the different technologies coming on board Mr. Garreau continues on with possible future implications concerning the new technologies.
The second half of the book outlines three different possible futures. One good, one bad, and one somewere between the good and the bad.
I found it hard to follow a lot of the techno language and acronyms, but was constantly curious and kept reading.
The final stories were interesting and at the same time scary. I found I was constantly thinking that what he was telling me was already happening.
December 15, 2014
Fascinating and insightful.
When I started the book, I assumed that everything that could be said would be contained in the first section and the rest would be dragged out and a chore to read. Not so.
Framed more as an extensive magazine article than a scientific text, Garreau navigates the upcoming world of technology and its possible outcomes. While he offers an opinion now and then, he makes sure that all sides and views are represented.
Cuttlefish and skin that communicates, the repercussions in the classroom of enhanced children, and gray blobs taking over the world due to an assembler's ability to create infinite nanites; all are covered in this fascinating book.
Naturally, any scientific text is going to be a snapshot of the time in which it was written. I am sure that in the 10 years that it was published, there is much more to discuss. (His most recent touch point is referencing the film, Minority Report.) Still, in a book where predictions are being made for 2020, 2099, and 2200; there is much to deal with that is still current.
My friend Vicky recommended this book and I put it off because I thought it would be dry and arduous. However I have already started recommending it to others.
When I started the book, I assumed that everything that could be said would be contained in the first section and the rest would be dragged out and a chore to read. Not so.
Framed more as an extensive magazine article than a scientific text, Garreau navigates the upcoming world of technology and its possible outcomes. While he offers an opinion now and then, he makes sure that all sides and views are represented.
Cuttlefish and skin that communicates, the repercussions in the classroom of enhanced children, and gray blobs taking over the world due to an assembler's ability to create infinite nanites; all are covered in this fascinating book.
Naturally, any scientific text is going to be a snapshot of the time in which it was written. I am sure that in the 10 years that it was published, there is much more to discuss. (His most recent touch point is referencing the film, Minority Report.) Still, in a book where predictions are being made for 2020, 2099, and 2200; there is much to deal with that is still current.
My friend Vicky recommended this book and I put it off because I thought it would be dry and arduous. However I have already started recommending it to others.
August 13, 2007
Wow - I learned of this book from Tom's brother. I found it fascinating and perhaps necessary to read, and even scary if I weren't protected by the coating of optimism that lets me vote for the 'prevail' theory. While not written by a scientist, there were plenty of scientific facts, and while not written by a philosopher, there was plenty to "chew on" for a long time to come (or not long enough if some of the predictions are accurate). The book was actually written by a journalist, which made the book's content very accessible. However, that it was written by a journalist was also the reason I gave it four stars, when I probably would have given it five otherwise. I guess I reserve my five-stars for the more "pure" forms of literary writing like A.S. Byatt's Babel Tower or Shakespeare,e.g.! Garreau's Radical Evolution reminded me of two other recent books-by-journalists I've read: Tom Siegfried's excellent The Bit and the Pendulum: From Quantum Computing to M Theory -- The New Physics of Information, and Thomas Friedman's The World Is Flat. Radical Evolution, however, makes The World Is Flat look like yesterday's news (it doesn't mention even one transhuman or post-human).
June 24, 2018
Pop account of near-future technological accelerations and explosions. (AKA transhumanism v bioconservatism.) We face four types of dislocating technologies: Genetics, Robotics, Infotech and Nanotech.
Garreau gives loads of stage time to two dogmatic cranks from each side: Kurzweil (booster technocrat), and Fukuyama (neocon fearmonger) as well as an unclassifiable polymath, Jaron Lanier. But this is sadly just the way science journalism is done, and Garreau is later courageous in half-endorsing the transcendent transhuman rationale of beautiful bioprogressive Bostrom. Unfortunately his prose is Gladwellian, full of glib pop references and leaden line-break punch-lines. Still a balanced intro to the scenarios and figureheads.
You really should read something on the ethics of these technologies: I recommend Pearce, Bostrom, or Sandberg.
Garreau gives loads of stage time to two dogmatic cranks from each side: Kurzweil (booster technocrat), and Fukuyama (neocon fearmonger) as well as an unclassifiable polymath, Jaron Lanier. But this is sadly just the way science journalism is done, and Garreau is later courageous in half-endorsing the transcendent transhuman rationale of beautiful bioprogressive Bostrom. Unfortunately his prose is Gladwellian, full of glib pop references and leaden line-break punch-lines. Still a balanced intro to the scenarios and figureheads.
You really should read something on the ethics of these technologies: I recommend Pearce, Bostrom, or Sandberg.
April 2, 2009
Funny now this book already feels kind of dated, and not because we have advanced any closer to the "singularity" since it was published, but because it's occasional outbursts of gee-whiz enthusiasm seem a product of a different time. Garreau is a journalist, not a philosopher, but his journalism isn't exactly hard-hitting. He doesn't ask too many difficult questions of his subjects, or himself really. For instance, it seems particularly significant to me that most of the development of the innovative technologies he discusses is being driven by the military, DARPA more specifically. Yet he never wonders about the implications of this for his various future scenarios. A few of his interviewees make some very interesting points, and there's certainly some fascinating stuff here, but really I can't escape the feeling that this could have been edited down to a good feature-length magazine piece.
July 29, 2019
Dense exploration of the technological explosion to come
This is about the so-called GRIN technologies: Genetic, Robotic, Information, and Nano. Properly speaking the title should be "Extreme Cultural Evolution," or perhaps "Accelerated Technological Evolution." "Radical" is used here in the sense of "extreme." Regardless of what we call it, for better or for worse, we will be enhancing our minds and bodies and changing the life forms around us, especially those we use for food. In fact we have already done so through computers, surgery, artificial limbs, genetically engineer agricultural products, etc. The difference to come is all about the acceleration of change coming from these technologies.
What happens when your daughter's brave new genetic endowment gives her a prodigious memory and makes her smarter, prettier, and stronger than you? No problem. We love our children. Ah, but what happens when she realizes that at age eighteen she is like an Australopithecus creature compared to the new genetic and nanotechnological enhancements bestowed upon her classmates just a few years younger?
What happens is the end of the world as we know it, and most critically the end of human beings as we know ourselves. The question is, is this is a good thing or a bad thing?
Joel Garreau has several answers in terms of scenarios of the future. There is the "Heaven Scenario," the "Hell Scenario," the "Prevail Scenario," and the "Transcend" possibility. Garreau interviewed a number of experts in many fields in an effort to find out not only what the prospects are, but to count noses, so to speak, and see who's optimistic and who isn't.
Put Ray Kurzweil, author of The Age of Spiritual Machines (1999)--see my review on Amazon--in the camp of those who see marvelous things happening, in fact a glorious singularity of advancement. Put Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, in the camp of those who believe we are headed for a right awful hell on earth. And put polymath Jaron Lanier in the camp of those who think we can prevail over our creations. And put Michael Goldblatt of the US military's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the platoon of happy warriors just having fun with the prospect of new and more amazingly advanced weaponry (or defenses from weaponry).
After reading this dense and fascinating book I have a few observations. First, regardless of whether we like it or not, or whether Luddites and social conservatives manage to slow down or even halt some of the research, nothing but nothing is going to stem the tide, or alter The Curve, as Garreau calls the shape of things to come. If we don't do stem cell research or explore replicating nanobots, you can be sure that somebody else--in Korea, in China, in Russia, even in Pakistan--will. Any nation or culture that chooses to not explore these brave new worlds will be in danger of not only being left behind economically and militarily, but in grave danger of living a sub existence like that of pets or zoo animals.
There is some debate about this point. Garreau explores the idea that nothing will stop the tsunami and does find some people who think we can put up a wall or at least quiet the rampaging waters. Still others are asking, why should we? Think-tanker Francis Fukuyama, author of Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution (2002)--see my review at Amazon--believes there is something precious in humans as presently constituted. He is fearful that we will lose that human nature through biological engineering. Personally, glancing at the history of human kind, I think that human nature could use some altering, and indeed believe that unless human nature does change, we won't be around much longer. Fukuyama believes that, were we to become as immortal as the gods, we would stagnate. He "doesn't think immortals will ever have a new idea again" and only the death of people allows new ideas to take root. (p. 163)
What if we do conquer all and end up with this so-called heaven on earth? What will it consist of? Will we pursue endless delights from brain chemistry? Are we creatures ruled by the gods of pleasure and pain, or is there some transcendental aspect to us? Garreau explores this question near the end of the book with help from Martin E.P. Seligman's three levels of happiness: "the pleasant life, the good life, and the meaningful life." Here I think Garreau, along with Seligman is whistling Dixie in the dark. The "meaningful life" is what? According to what I could gather on pages 261-262, the "meaning consists in attachment to something bigger than you are." Seligman finds such attachment in various activities from raising children to saving the whales to being a terrorist. I think a more lasting attachment may be to something like exploring the cosmos.
But would humans really have sufficient desire to do that? Recalling some famous dystopias from literature, H.G. Wells's The Time Machine or Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, for example, I suspect that creatures such as ourselves (as currently constituted) can only exist in environments not that far removed from the savannah. Cities are tough enough for the couch potato obese of the Western world. If we gain everything our biology desires, we may become (further) degenerate and fall victim to something untoward and unpredictable. Or we may just end up examining our navels as the perfect mixture of chemicals courses through our bodies. If we conquer all and have no challenges left, what will we do? What does a perfectly satisfied and perfectly serene creature do? We don't know. Transcend human nature perhaps?
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
This is about the so-called GRIN technologies: Genetic, Robotic, Information, and Nano. Properly speaking the title should be "Extreme Cultural Evolution," or perhaps "Accelerated Technological Evolution." "Radical" is used here in the sense of "extreme." Regardless of what we call it, for better or for worse, we will be enhancing our minds and bodies and changing the life forms around us, especially those we use for food. In fact we have already done so through computers, surgery, artificial limbs, genetically engineer agricultural products, etc. The difference to come is all about the acceleration of change coming from these technologies.
What happens when your daughter's brave new genetic endowment gives her a prodigious memory and makes her smarter, prettier, and stronger than you? No problem. We love our children. Ah, but what happens when she realizes that at age eighteen she is like an Australopithecus creature compared to the new genetic and nanotechnological enhancements bestowed upon her classmates just a few years younger?
What happens is the end of the world as we know it, and most critically the end of human beings as we know ourselves. The question is, is this is a good thing or a bad thing?
Joel Garreau has several answers in terms of scenarios of the future. There is the "Heaven Scenario," the "Hell Scenario," the "Prevail Scenario," and the "Transcend" possibility. Garreau interviewed a number of experts in many fields in an effort to find out not only what the prospects are, but to count noses, so to speak, and see who's optimistic and who isn't.
Put Ray Kurzweil, author of The Age of Spiritual Machines (1999)--see my review on Amazon--in the camp of those who see marvelous things happening, in fact a glorious singularity of advancement. Put Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, in the camp of those who believe we are headed for a right awful hell on earth. And put polymath Jaron Lanier in the camp of those who think we can prevail over our creations. And put Michael Goldblatt of the US military's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the platoon of happy warriors just having fun with the prospect of new and more amazingly advanced weaponry (or defenses from weaponry).
After reading this dense and fascinating book I have a few observations. First, regardless of whether we like it or not, or whether Luddites and social conservatives manage to slow down or even halt some of the research, nothing but nothing is going to stem the tide, or alter The Curve, as Garreau calls the shape of things to come. If we don't do stem cell research or explore replicating nanobots, you can be sure that somebody else--in Korea, in China, in Russia, even in Pakistan--will. Any nation or culture that chooses to not explore these brave new worlds will be in danger of not only being left behind economically and militarily, but in grave danger of living a sub existence like that of pets or zoo animals.
There is some debate about this point. Garreau explores the idea that nothing will stop the tsunami and does find some people who think we can put up a wall or at least quiet the rampaging waters. Still others are asking, why should we? Think-tanker Francis Fukuyama, author of Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution (2002)--see my review at Amazon--believes there is something precious in humans as presently constituted. He is fearful that we will lose that human nature through biological engineering. Personally, glancing at the history of human kind, I think that human nature could use some altering, and indeed believe that unless human nature does change, we won't be around much longer. Fukuyama believes that, were we to become as immortal as the gods, we would stagnate. He "doesn't think immortals will ever have a new idea again" and only the death of people allows new ideas to take root. (p. 163)
What if we do conquer all and end up with this so-called heaven on earth? What will it consist of? Will we pursue endless delights from brain chemistry? Are we creatures ruled by the gods of pleasure and pain, or is there some transcendental aspect to us? Garreau explores this question near the end of the book with help from Martin E.P. Seligman's three levels of happiness: "the pleasant life, the good life, and the meaningful life." Here I think Garreau, along with Seligman is whistling Dixie in the dark. The "meaningful life" is what? According to what I could gather on pages 261-262, the "meaning consists in attachment to something bigger than you are." Seligman finds such attachment in various activities from raising children to saving the whales to being a terrorist. I think a more lasting attachment may be to something like exploring the cosmos.
But would humans really have sufficient desire to do that? Recalling some famous dystopias from literature, H.G. Wells's The Time Machine or Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, for example, I suspect that creatures such as ourselves (as currently constituted) can only exist in environments not that far removed from the savannah. Cities are tough enough for the couch potato obese of the Western world. If we gain everything our biology desires, we may become (further) degenerate and fall victim to something untoward and unpredictable. Or we may just end up examining our navels as the perfect mixture of chemicals courses through our bodies. If we conquer all and have no challenges left, what will we do? What does a perfectly satisfied and perfectly serene creature do? We don't know. Transcend human nature perhaps?
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
February 14, 2017
If you want to learn about Transhumansim, I'd recommend this book. To understand more about the experiments or technology in the book that may be vague, use youtube to see the videos.
I love the cover of the book. It is super exotic and gorgeous with the cobalt blue color.
I love the cover of the book. It is super exotic and gorgeous with the cobalt blue color.
March 6, 2012
My review at Bookreporter.com - http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/r...-
November 12, 2024
Read this because it was recommended on the list "101 Books Tech Alums Should Read Before They Lay Dying". (Georgia Tech, that is). I am not a GT alumna, just a "friend," but the list has been super-interesting so far.
This was published in 2005 and I wish I had read it closer to its publication date. Since it's, among other things, a review of cutting-edge technology, I found myself getting distracted by a lot of questions about what has happened in the (almost) 20 years since publication.
I enjoyed the various discussions of human nature and the future of humankind. The scenario planning viewpoint was valuable, although not as well-developed as I would have liked. I thought the tone of the writing was journalistic, perhaps more suitable for an article or articles than for an in-depth book treatment. However, there was an exhaustive list of "further reading" at the end of the book, so probably I'm meant to go get more information there.
This was published in 2005 and I wish I had read it closer to its publication date. Since it's, among other things, a review of cutting-edge technology, I found myself getting distracted by a lot of questions about what has happened in the (almost) 20 years since publication.
I enjoyed the various discussions of human nature and the future of humankind. The scenario planning viewpoint was valuable, although not as well-developed as I would have liked. I thought the tone of the writing was journalistic, perhaps more suitable for an article or articles than for an in-depth book treatment. However, there was an exhaustive list of "further reading" at the end of the book, so probably I'm meant to go get more information there.
May 26, 2023
A pretty informative, thought-provoking (albeit a bit dated) read about the ever increasing technological advances we are facing and if they are shaping what it means to be human; And if these new advances will ultimately lead to a transhuman world, and what that could possibly look like.
Radical Evolution is very scenario based, offering up multiple different outcomes of a society that is growing ever so dependent upon technology. A lot of ‘what ifs’ are presented, many times given within the context of the design of human history as a whole. The read definitely allows the reader to draw their own conclusions about the dawn of the information age, which I appreciated.
A downside is that at times it felt like I was reading just one long research essay, nonetheless the authors writing style engaged me for the most part.
*would recommend
Radical Evolution is very scenario based, offering up multiple different outcomes of a society that is growing ever so dependent upon technology. A lot of ‘what ifs’ are presented, many times given within the context of the design of human history as a whole. The read definitely allows the reader to draw their own conclusions about the dawn of the information age, which I appreciated.
A downside is that at times it felt like I was reading just one long research essay, nonetheless the authors writing style engaged me for the most part.
*would recommend
March 7, 2025
Interesting book but it is dated. Reading the beginning is like sci-fi, the book was written in the early 2000s and many of the predictions are outlandish.
I am very familiar with kurzweils predictions which have remained very constant at least form 2005 to the present. AGI in 2029, this book tends to add a more optimistic view which was incorrect.
I was unaware of Bill Joy (founder os Sun) view on the hell scenario.
The prevail scenerio just seems to be the heaven scenario with the proper controls
Prior to this book I hadn’t give much thought as to how genetic engineering might bring us to human 2,0. I had just thought of the merger of so and humanity
The book also introduced me to the acronym GRIN
Genetics, Robotics, Information, Nano technology.
There wasn’t much discussion of how.when nano techywould impact civilizaty
I am very familiar with kurzweils predictions which have remained very constant at least form 2005 to the present. AGI in 2029, this book tends to add a more optimistic view which was incorrect.
I was unaware of Bill Joy (founder os Sun) view on the hell scenario.
The prevail scenerio just seems to be the heaven scenario with the proper controls
Prior to this book I hadn’t give much thought as to how genetic engineering might bring us to human 2,0. I had just thought of the merger of so and humanity
The book also introduced me to the acronym GRIN
Genetics, Robotics, Information, Nano technology.
There wasn’t much discussion of how.when nano techywould impact civilizaty
April 6, 2019
I read an earlier version of this book from 2005. I suspect this review still applies.
This is absolutely one of the worst books I've ever read. What would it be like if an author bounces around from one topic to the next 10, all within one page? Now imagine a whole book of that.
So the style was bad, what about the content? Early in the book, I was concerned I was learning bad information that I would need to forcibly try to forget. The author barely has a grasp of the material and you can tell. He is flat out wrong in some place, and clearly lost in the rest.
This is absolutely one of the worst books I've ever read. What would it be like if an author bounces around from one topic to the next 10, all within one page? Now imagine a whole book of that.
So the style was bad, what about the content? Early in the book, I was concerned I was learning bad information that I would need to forcibly try to forget. The author barely has a grasp of the material and you can tell. He is flat out wrong in some place, and clearly lost in the rest.
September 3, 2020
The last 50 pages dragged on, but overall, it was an interesting read. Worth reading if you want to see the predictions made in 2005 and how they mostly failed to materialize. Perhaps Garreau's predictions are simply 15 years behind, so that 2035 will bring to fruition what he hopes will develop... It does seem likely that humanity will take control of its own evolution through technology, eventually turning us into cybernetic and technologically enhanced beings. Does that mean we end as homo sapiens and arise as homo techniens? We will likely know within 5 generations.
May 24, 2024
I had the great misfortune of having to read this book for a college course. I detested it from the opening sentence (a crappy opening sentence that showed writing skills equivalent to that of a first grader who cannot connect his ideas yet). Besides the author managing to make a fascinating subject superbly boring, he clearly believes he is the best thing since sliced bread, and does not hesitate to use pompous fluff words every chance he gets. Having to analyze this as an advanced English literature student was physically painful. What a blob of yuck.
July 28, 2020
A collection of basically transhumanist thinking reviewing different thinkers. Very useful book to capture the foundations of what this field envisages around transformation of the human.
March 1, 2016
Readability 6. Rating 5. A very long subtitle – “the promise and peril of enhancing our minds, our bodies – and what it means to be human.” I’m not sure he really managed to cover that much ground. He starts with two considerations – that we are starting to have significant capabilities to alter ourselves and that it is possible that radical change can happen surprisingly quickly (the Singularity). From there, he posits two scenarios: Heaven (espoused primarily by Ray Kurzweil) and Hell. The conclusions of each aren’t surprising – Heaven allows us to make ourselves faster, stronger, better, and happier, and Hell leads us to severely negative unintended consequences. Then Garreau, who can’t wrap his head around Kurzweil’s optimism, but also thinks the Hell scenario supporters are a bit cracked, comes up with a third scenario, which he awkwardly calls “Prevail”. It’s basically a Goldlilocks outlook – a lot of Heaven, without the stretches or the potential shock – that I’m not sure adds much value. Garreau explores a topic close to my heart, but spends a lot of time on the personalities involved in the work (or crying doom about the work) without spending enough time on the work itself. It isn’t a bad read, even with its faults, and it has an excellent bibliography. If nothing else, it will be interesting to see if any of the scenarios are even remotely close.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 12, 2014
I'm not sure if it is because this book was written nearly 10 years ago, or because I philosophically disagree with the author, or for some other reason that I can't put my finger on, but I really did not care for this book. It seemed outdated to me. It seemed fatalistic in a sense. It left no other options for the future than the ones presented in the book. Technology is both incredibly exciting and incredibly terrifying. It offers on one end extreme hope and on the other extreme despair. The scenarios in this book, however, leave out room for one key component and that is God. This book is all about humans essentially becoming Gods. That doesn't anger me, I think, to a degree, that is human nature, but it does sadden me. Whenever humans try to become Gods, it doesn't end up well. Look at Babel. Look at the Pharaohs, Cesar, Hitler, Stalin, etc. If the brightest minds of our world are actively and admittedly trying to accomplish this, perhaps it is too late, at least for them. Humanity, however, will go on, and not some pseudo-humanoid society.
March 22, 2011
What a very interesting book, at times hopeful and at times very scary. The author analyzes the impact technological advances will have on the future of humanity. His projections range from a scenario where the latest in technology makes mankind virtually immortal, and life wonderful and without hardship, called the "Heaven" scenario, to a time when machines, robots, and computers rule the world, with humans as slaves, the "Hell" predictions. The middle ground, called Prevail describes a time when a balance is maintained, although sometimes rather precariously. This book was written in 2004, but already some of the predictions have occurred; the author describes instances where "swarming" (use of communication technology) might contribute to revolutions or wars, as happened most recently in Egypt. The author also discussed the "Singularity", which Time magazine featured a few weeks ago. I have ordered this book for family members, as I think it is quite thought provoking.
January 10, 2013
Radical Evolution, were do I begin. This Book deals with the idea of controlling human evolution, mostly though cybernetic and mechanical ways. Also, with the idea of what that means, and then what it means to be human (hence the splurge on the title). The books deals a lot with a (I believe governmental) corporation DARPA, which works on what the author describes as GRIN technologies genetics, robotics, information, and nanotechnology. The book talks about early one of the greatest advancements a augmented monkey whose brain is hook up to several computers using nano technology. The book drives deeper into the two main topic and really doesn't go anywhere else, but they are very interesting. The book is quite fascinating overall and I really interesting read for anyone interested in the near future and what it holds. It gets my A out of 5.
Thank you, and good night.
Thank you, and good night.
June 20, 2015
Radical Evolution is both fascinating and frightening. Joel Garreau provides dozens of anecdotal stories of scientific progress toward human enhancement and the possibility of the first transhuman or posthuman. Despite the technical subject-matter Garreau writes in a very entertaining and accessible way. As he says, he focuses on how technology changes people and how we live with one another rather than focusing on the mechanisms of the technology itself. A lot of science fiction writers could learn from this.
Later chapters are similar to dialogues, covering Garreau's conversations with famous scientists, inventors, and thinkers. The philosophical discussions are by far the most interesting.
The first two chapters are a little underwhelming, more or less a string of short anecdotes with little or no context. After that, it is excellent.
Later chapters are similar to dialogues, covering Garreau's conversations with famous scientists, inventors, and thinkers. The philosophical discussions are by far the most interesting.
The first two chapters are a little underwhelming, more or less a string of short anecdotes with little or no context. After that, it is excellent.
November 14, 2011
Things are weird and getting weird when it comes to technology and how we use it. This leads to all sorts of crazy predictions that may not, in fact, be that weird, from Ray Kurzweil's visions of a utopia in which man melds with machine to the nightmare scenarios of just about every sci fi novel or movie ever made in which technology run amok tries to kill us all, or a small elite of bad people use it to oppress the miserable masses. Garreau walks us through some of the human-enhancing technology already in existence or just around the corner, then lays out the competing views of some philosophers, engineers and scientists who think it's going to either save us, destroy us all, or force us to adapt in new and interesting ways.
May 25, 2013
Joel Garreau examines three different ideological bents in the transhuman or posthuman worldview. The writing style is straight journalistic; who, what, when, where, and why. There's some analysis, which might be a drag under any other circumstances, but it works really well in this case; giving the narrative a down-to-earth feeling that it might not otherwise have.
The speculative nature of the book can seem a bit grating at points because the author seems to be laying on the "Gee-Willikers" effect rather heavily--sensationalizing things that are relatively unspectacular to anyone with a technical imagination; you know, the people that would most likely be interested in reading a book like this.
All in all, not too bad a read.
The speculative nature of the book can seem a bit grating at points because the author seems to be laying on the "Gee-Willikers" effect rather heavily--sensationalizing things that are relatively unspectacular to anyone with a technical imagination; you know, the people that would most likely be interested in reading a book like this.
All in all, not too bad a read.
May 20, 2014
Okay, I guess there was some "evolution" to this, but I kind of would have been more interested in the discussion of gene manipulation or selection and what kind of different types would be used first, stuff like that. This had some of that, certainly, but it also focused on several other areas including robotics and computers. I know that both of those connect in with the main topic, but it also felt as if it strayed too far into those areas while neglecting a real focus on bio evolution.
I'm not terribly pleased with the manner in which Garreau embedded quotes, either. Professors have nagged me not to use quotes in such an awkward fashion, but here I paid ten dollars for a book rife with that exact faux pas. Just saying, it was enough that I stopped reading to complain about it.
I'm not terribly pleased with the manner in which Garreau embedded quotes, either. Professors have nagged me not to use quotes in such an awkward fashion, but here I paid ten dollars for a book rife with that exact faux pas. Just saying, it was enough that I stopped reading to complain about it.
August 15, 2009
Garreau's thesis that human evolution is being fundamentally altered by technology is fascinating and, I believe, well supported. He builds alternative scenarios of a future global society irreversibly changed by computers and technology, weaving the words and work of contemporary leading tech-minds through his (mostly) neutral and well-researched discussion. Some of the ideas Garreau presents seem more sensationalist than scientific. But he maintains a journalistic neutrality in presenting alternative viewpoints, which makes this book great food for thought and a starting point for discussion of what we want our future to look like.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews