To some readers this collection of nine short stories may seem like just that — another collection of stories. It’s so much more though.

The major theme throughout is Asimov’s ability to condense human ethics down to three laws that machines must follow. These three laws seem perfect.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

The robots — run amok though. Maybe the three laws aren’t perfect. Maybe humanity’s idea of ethics is wrong.

Asimov creates a compelling world, one where essentially humans make the errors. The three laws are, afterall, created by humans.

I was unfortunate enough to only find a copy with the Will Smith cover that said, “One man saw it coming.” If you’ve seen the movie, but haven’t read the book, you’ll be in for a real shocker. They’re nothing alike. The movie (I assume because I haven’t read the other books in the Robot novels) is loosely based off the novel’s theme of robots going wrong.

The tales throughout are nonetheless gripping. I hardly put the book down, finishing in one night. I’m not sure if Asimov’s intentions were to warn against advancing technology or to just have fun, but I feel there’s some message here — if we are to create highly-intellingent beings, we need to know what we’re getting into. Artificial Intelligence isn’t bad, but it might not necessarily be controlled by what humans view as right/wrong.

Asimov is a wonderful storyteller. No matter what your views are on technology. No matter whether you like science fiction. You should give this book a read.

Before I go on with a review, I must give a little bit of my religious background. I grew up in a protestant Christian family. I have a grandfather who preached his entire life, and eventually became a bishop of the church he belonged to. I also have an uncle, that grandfather’s son, that is a preacher. So, I grew up in a religious family.

Given that, I still have different religous views than my family. For one, I see the religion, the Bible, and spirituality/faith as three separate entities — you can have any of the three without the other two. Granted, without religion, there would be no Bible, but I won’t get into that. I also believe that organized religion creates much of the evil in this world, and can agree with much of what Dawkins has to say on that. I am by far not a nonbeliever though. That’s a little bit of my background so that you will know where I’m coming from as I review this book.

Basically, this book is Dawkins’ argument against religion and against the existence of God.

What might turn many readers who do believe in God away from this book is his immediate attack on religion. Using an almost child-like name-calling system throughout the first couple of chapters he hardly makes any points. The points may be hidden in there somewhere, but it would be hard for any believer to see past his attack on religion.

He starts hitting a stride when he gets into some of his arguments against the existence of God, but loses ground when he switches to more technical terms. At times, his wording would make a bad translation of Aristotle’s Nichomean Ethics read like a Stephen King novel. His argument of the “Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit” is sound however, as are many of his other arguments. Instead of staying with his more simplistic writing style, he veered, and that is essentially his downfall in a few of the chapters.

At about the midpoint of the book, his style is much easier to read. Whether this had to do with getting used to his style or a definite change in language use is hard to tell, but I felt I definitely understood him. He attacks religion on multiple angles, attacking the Old Testament (which isn’t hard to do), religious logic (or lack thereof), and childhood abuse.

He pulled verses of his choosing out from the Bible, much the same way a preacher would, and formed his arguments. He is knowledgeable of the Bible and the history of religion. The best argument he puts forth is how religion is bad for society. With religious wars, abortion clinic bombings, and Fred Phelps, making religion look bad is almost too easy.

The most important thing I carried away from this book is his view on children and religion, and I’ve never thought about it quite in the way he puts it. “If you hear anybody speak of a ‘Catholic child’, stop them and politely point out that children are too young to know where they stand on such issues, just as they are too young to know where they stand on economics or politics” (2). Call them “a child of Catholic parents” (2). He make further points on this issue in chapter 9.

Although it is an entertaining read, it’s definitely lacking what it needs to complete his overall argument. He’s lacking the evidence to prove God doesn’t exist, but he doesn’t have to actually prove that. If anything, believers have to prove God’s existence — you know, hypothesis, scientific process, etc. He does make a good argument against religion itself and what it’s doing to our society. He raises several key points by using what he calls conciousness-raisers.

I probably wouldn’t recommend this book to religious people because of the religious bashing. Dawkins wants to make himself sound smarter, but only seems childish at times. Although most of it is meant for laughs, he might want to reconsider if he wants to change believers’ minds. When you get past the verbal abuse, there are some sound arguments.

Overall, he uses reason to conclude most of his arguments, and that is one of his strong suits. I can only say this to believers who decide to read this book, “Check your religion at the door.” Otherwise you won’t make it through the first chapter, and see some the good this book offers in the later chapters.

I can honestly say my conciousness has been raised.

I started reading Thomas L. Friedman’s book sometime in late December or early January. It was a bit of a long book. Well, I read a lot of other things since then and now. But, I’m finally finished and am astounded. The book has opened my eyes to the situation America is in, that the world is in.

First, you must understand what he means when he says the world is flat. To define it simply, it means that there is now a level playing field, that everything isn’t necessarily controlled from the top down. America is still the world’s superpower, but the rest of the world is steadily catching up. Many will soon catch up and quite possibly surpass us economically and technologically.

He gives a detailed analysis of the 10 flatteners effecting the world right now, starting with the date 11/9/89 — the fall of the Berlin Wall. Next up was the date Netscape went public, 8/9/95. If there are any two dates you might want to know about before stepping into this book, those would be the two. They changed the world forever.

Another date to keep in mind is 9/11/2001. There’s no need to explain what happened that day on the surface, but underneath, something else resulted — America started shutting its doors in ways that could possibly make it not so super-powerful in the coming years.

The world is catching up with education. Fewer and fewer students are graduating in the vitally important fields of mathematics and science. However, in places such as India and China, most students get degrees in those fields, and we are closing our doors to many of those students. That factor, and many others, are causing us to lose ground. More American companies are going global, and they’ll hire the best from anywhere. “And we still do hire lots of Americans,” said Craig Barrett, Intel’s chairman. “But today we can hire the best talent around the world and be successful.”

Many services are being outsourced. Called any customer support number anytime in the last few years? There’s a good chance you didn’t talk to an American.

Friedman isn’t arguing that the flattening of the world is a bad thing. He’s arguing that America needs to wake up. It’s hard to stay innovative when you’re at the top. Those other countries have something to shoot for — America. America has to create something to shoot for, which is harder.

“Does your society have more memories than dreams,” Friedman asks. When you have dreams, you have a goal you’re aiming for. When you have memories, you’re thinking about the past. Let those memories overtake the dreams, and you’re country is doomed to lose its ground.

What the author wants to stress as the most important thing of all for America is education, specifically education in science and math. The moment we took over the world is the moment JFK decided to make these fields more important. It was the moment America decided that math and science would save our country. The moment it became something to strive for. And largely, America has lost that. Nobody’s interested in those fields anymore. That’s probably why I’ve encountered few American math or science teachers.

The next most important thing is that America cannot wall itself in. It will only slow our progress down. If we’re shutting out those people who are the best and brightest in those fields, we’re losing the people who will carry us into the future as leaders. We’re cutting off globalization, and that’s a bad thing.

I have to note that a major part of the book focuses on how anyone can make a name for him or her self. Since the world is becoming flat and losing the top-down heirarchy of previous workplaces, the little guy can actually make a difference in this new world. Take a look at YouTube or Ebay. There’s a definite change happening. Cultures are starting to understand other cultures. The little guy is making money with his Internet-based business. The world is changing drastically.

I can hardly cover the amount of material Friedman covered in his book. He focused on many fields, companies, and countries while researching. You must know that the Internet is a driving force behind the flattening of the world. There are also those who can take new technology and destroy this process. Mostly, the flattening of the world means better lives for everyone. He’ll ask you how many countries have gone to war with each other that has a McDonald’s. You’ll see there’s none, except for a few minor skirmishes.

Overall, Friedman does a good job laying out where we are now, what the future holds, and what we must do about it. America might not stay on top forever, but we should at least be prepared to live and work in a flat world.

Since I’ve just come off a streak of reading nonfiction books about genetic engineering, Patterson’s pageturner was a relief.

Max, Fang, Iggy, Gasman, Nudge, and Angel are back for a second round of action, running from Erasers, outsmarting the whitecoats. The six genetically engineered bird kids and their talking dog, Total, pick up where the last round left off. They have information that might lead them to their parents. Max’s Voice is driving her crazy. And, they’re going to school (the real kind).

Ari, the genetically engineered Eraser (half-wolf, half-human), finally shows his human side. This was the one thing the first book, The Angel Experiment, was lacking. We see that he is not just a monster, but he has retained his human feelings after all of his alterations. But, we are also reminded that he is 7-year-old boy beneath that grown exterior.

Most of the story is told through the eyes of Max. She becomes jealous of the FBI agent who takes them in and plays the mother role to the kids for a while. She becomes jealous, or at least mad, at the girl who kisses Fang at school.

Patterson focuses on character development throughout most of the book. Nothing happens that actually moves the story along, and I was left wanting a little more. It felt like the major storyline left off in the same place that it began.

It’s hard not to like the action. Not to like the easy-flowing style. The characters that you come to love.

Overall, it’s not a bad addition to the series. I hope he answers some of the big questions in the next book though. Otherwise, the series will probably lose its appeal.

Not to end on a bad note, because I did enjoy reading School’s Out — Forever, I want to say that you should definitely read this series if you’re looking for something a little lighter and want to have fun.

Patterson will not disappoint.

I’ve also posted this review of School’s Out — Forever at Books In Bed, my new book community and review site.

This is a story about love. A love that is so strong, so intense, that it transcends life and death. It goes beyond what any of us mere mortals can even think to call love. Catherine and Heathcliff’s love is epic in a way that is arguably more epic than that of even Romeo and Juliet. And, I don’t say this lightly.

Brontë created a world so vastly different from her own, mingling Romanticism and Realism for a fight to the death. The first volume describes our two lovers’ heated passion in a way that many could relate to. It is not until the second volume that we see why Heathcliff is the Heathcliff we met earlier in the novel.

Most of the story is told from the eyes of Nelly Dean, a servant for the Earnshaw, Linton, and Heathcliff families (all at various points in her life). A young man named Lockwood has rented Thruscross Grange because he has ran away from his own love. Nelly is his housekeeper, and she tells him the story of Catherine and Heathcliff.

However, Catherine and Heathcliff only share part of the story. Eventually, Catherine, Catherine’s daughter, and Linton, Heathcliff’s son, share their own love story.

Heathcliff is seeking revenge in the second volume. I’ve heard many voice that they didn’t like his character much after this point, but it was some of the best-written work that I’ve read in a while. Heathcliff’s search for vengeance only fuels the idea of love conquering all. If he hadn’t tortured Hareton or Catherine (younger), the reader wouldn’t believe that his love for Catherine went beyond all other loves.

Heathcliff is a compelling Romantic character in a world that isn’t meant for him. He is driven to cruelty from the start, but Catherine sends him over the edge. He becomes obsessive, and his love for her makes him evil to all others. This is not a story about happily-ever-after-love. It’s a story about hearts driven to madness. Unobtainable love. Passion so unsettling that you cringe at every act of vengeance Heathcliff puts to his victims.

It’s all for love. We see this as Heathcliff wills himself to finally settle with Catherine.

I was a bit disappointed with the Realist ending of young Catherine and Hareton, but this is a Realist novel.

It’s one of those novels that you either love or hate. If you like reading stories where everything ends with the big, happy wedding, this isn’t your story. If you want to read about passsion, madness, vengeance, and a love that transcends all things, this is the novel you should read. I still recommend reading it at least once though, no matter what type of story you prefer.

My faith is now restored in Realism. I only wish that Brontë had lived long enough to give us more, and to see Wuthering Heights become a success.

Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future

Anyone who’s kept up with some of my book reviews knows that I’ve been reading about biological enhancement and what the future holds for the human race. When I first saw the title of James Hughes’ book, I immediately thought I would read about further proof that we are on the brink of a biological uplifting of our society—a social change so vast that the world as we know it will be redefined.

But, Hughes brings us sci-fi optimists back down to planet earth. It’s all right there in the subtitle, “Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future.” So, what does he mean by “respond”?

He means we, as a society, need to have a conversation about what the next 100 years will bring, and what exactly we’re going to do about it. The next 50 years. The next 10 years.

He recognizes that there is a need for a serious discussion of bioethics. He recognizes that Francis Fukuyama, appointed to the President’s Council on Bioethics, was the wrong man for the job.

Most importantly, he notes that the term “citizen” will have to be redefined.

I think he may go a little off-chart by putting the great apes in the same classification as human children and demented and mentally disabled adults. But, I won’t argue too much there because numerous studies have shown that those great apes might have something that we attribute to consciousness, self-awareness.

He notes that he attended a conference where a transgendered person spoke of being the first of the transhumans. So, is this the first step? Thus far, the U.S. hasn’t been extremely tolerant of the transgendered, but I can see that changing in the future. We’re never tolerant of difference at first. Eventually, people start seeing things differently as time passes on. We’ve seen that with women’s suffrage and the civil rights movement, and are now beginning to see a gay rights movement.

The next movements may involve the transhuman movement—rights for the biologically enhanced. This is where the trouble may start. In the other movements, humans were equal in intelligence and physical attributes, for the most part. However, without a serious discussion of the dos and don’ts of biological enhancement, we may create a species of man that is vastly more intelligent and physically superior.

Without the proper steps taken to ensure their rights, we could put ourselves on the brink of another civil war. Or, a world in which humans version 1.0 are enslaved.

With writers such as Philip K. Dick and other greats, whose words tell how humans must fight against future technology, we’ve become accustomed to think of danger when we think of technological advancement. Hughes believes that “If there is to be a future for progressive politics it has to come from a rebirth of a sexy, high-tech vision of a radically democratic future, a rediscovery of the utopian imagination.”

Maybe that’s what we’ve lost, the ability to imagine a future where things might just actually work. A future where disease is erradicated. Where war is rare. Life is fullfilling.

Hughes is an optimist. However, he also has a realistic view of our world. With so much argument over moral permissibility in today’s society, how are we going to face tomorrow’s? We must respond.

I don’t know if it’s the sheer number of books that I’ve read on human enhancement recently or what, but the contents of this book seem to have blended with every other thing about the subject.

Ramez Naam is an optimist about the future of biological enhancement, but he calls himself a “cautious optimist.” He believes that upcoming scientific breakthroughs will do more harm than good. However, we must account for ethics and social needs first.

As recently as 1999, when a friend told him about future technology, he waved it off as if it was just crazy sci-fiction-nerd talk. A breakthrough came that year when Phil Kennedy implanted an electrode into a paralyzed patient’s brain that allowed the patient to move a cursor on a computer. The patient moved the cursor by thought alone.

This was one of many sci-fi-like phenomena that happened in that year. Suddenly, the world was starting to change.

Naam’s report on advancements and social concerns brings to light what could actually be happening in the decades to come and how we should prepare for it. He writes about designer babies, Methuselah’s genes, and choosing our minds and bodies.

The book is short though. It doesn’t cover as much ground as it needs for the many subjects he brings into the discussion. However, it does offer somewhat of an introductory to biological enhancement.

What the author does offer is good, rational reasoning to seeing this thing through. He makes logical claims as to why we need the science of the future, and backs them up with solid examples. He makes his case socially and ethically, allowing for his optimistic view of the coming years.

Naam writes in an easy, free-flowing prose that will keep you interested from start to finish. Just don’t look for a comprehensive look at the future. It will serve as a good starter book for anyone interested in reading about human enhancement. But, if you’re like me, and have read quite a bit on the subject matter, then you might want something a little more in-depth.

A couple of months ago I stumbled upon this book by way of Amazon’s suggested products. I figured it looked interesting enough. And I’m not an economics buff, but Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubman changed my mind about that.

With parts named What Do Schoolteachers and Sumo Wrestlers Have in Common?, How is the Ku Klux Kan Like a Group of Real Estate Agents?, and Why Do Drug Dealers Still Live with Their Moms?, how can anyone go wrong in wanting to read this book?

Levitt has came under a lot of heat in recent years with his rebellious take on why crime suddenly took a dive in the ’90s, a time when it was predicted to increase to an all-time high. His answer: Abortion. He argues that the 1973 case of Roe vs. Wade, which made abortion legal in the U.S., sent crime skydiving in the ’90s because the people most likely to be criminals weren’t being born. And he has some compelling data to back it up.

Interested now?

What really gets the economist and journalist (Dubner) rolling is the idea of incentives. The reason people take action or become inactive is because of the incentives. Would a schoolteacher cheat for students taking the SATs? Would a sumo wrestler (probably the most prestigious sport in Japan, I read) let someone else beat him in a match? It all comes down to incentives.

The authors offer an entertaining read, and a side of economics that isn’t typically seen. Levitt claims to be the worst economist because he’s bad at math. So, he must take a look at the things most economists never bother with.

Even if you’re not interested in economics, this book will allow you to think outside the box about the way the world works. Plus, the name of the book is cool.

Lewis is a master of making you believe in his fantastic world of Narnia and rooting for the kids throughout each book. I’ll go over a few of my favorite books in the series.

The Magician’s Nephew really introduced me to the world of Narnia. It might even be the best book. I think there’s so much more of a spiritual/religious element in this one that you don’t get in any of the others until the last book. There was such beauty in imagining Aslan awakening the world through song, breathing life into the land.

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe gave us Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy, the premier characters in many of the books. I actually enjoyed reading it, even after having seen the movie, which is rare.

The Last Battle really completed the collection with the spiritual/religious aspect from the first book. I felt a real sadness about Susan and what happens to her (I won’t give any specific details, in case you haven’t read the book yet). Lewis pulls the completion of Narnia off well in an even more fantastic way than I could have imagined.

The Horse and His Boy, Prince Caspian, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and The Silver Chair were all well-written, but didn’t hold my attention as much as the others.

There were times when I couldn’t get past the language and style the books were written in, but the books were intended for a younger audience. Thus, there were passages where I became a little bored. The work, in its entirety, is a masterpiece though.

I recommend Narnia to everyone. It is the kind of timeless book that I’ll keep shelved for my own children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren to read in the future.

I admit it. I’m a sucker for reading books about upcoming scientific breakthroughs. Yes, that may make me a bit of a nerd, but I like reading them anyway.

Joel Garreau has written one of the easier-to-read books of the variety though. This book was meant for an audience outside the realm of people who haven’t left the science lab since the ’80s.

This is the book for the rest of us.

Garreau even mentions our old pal Ray Kurzweil (from The Singularity is Near) and Bill Joy, Kurzweil’s nemesis (and you can read a 10 page research paper on Joy and Kurzweil by me, just ask if you’re interested). He explains what these guys have been saying for years, only in terms that the Bubbas and Suzies of the world can understand.

The most interesting parts of the book is the three scenarios he sets up to explain where humankind is heading. The Heaven Scenario. The Hell Scenario. The Prevail Scenario.

The Heaven Scenario is Kurzweil’s idea of The Singularity, where humans may become godlike. Technology takes control, and humans are merely spectators in this prediction. However, this technology is driving human advancement past what we consider science fiction today conquering disease, famine, and death itself.

The Hell Scenario is the opposite, which is why Joy argues against scientific advancement. He doesn’t want us to destroy ourselves with our technology (just read his article, Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us, he might convince you). Signs that we are entering the hell scenario: large numbers of people die off, the biosphere is being eaten away, there is no discussion of stopping technology from advancing.

In the Prevail Scenario he states that “Humans have an uncanny history of muddling through” (224). Humans will inevitably forge their own futures against overwhelming odds and come out all right. This is the scenario upheld by Jaron Lanier.

This is an easy read for people who wouldn’t be able to make it through an issue of Popular Science without saying, “Huh.” Garreau breaks down each part, and explains with clarity what the future might lead to.

The discussion on future technology is a discussion in which everyone should take part. However, we must understand what all the fuss is about to do so. This book will give you the key terms and the major players, allowing a new understanding of what the future of our race might be.