Scan barcode
mxunsmiley's review
1.0
Excruciatingly self-important, offering solutions not at all practical or even well-thought out. Somehow it's eye-roll worthy to be suspicious of surveillance, and the idea of social control may not all be bad. How is stricter governance at all a desirable objective, global or otherwise? Is this man completely ignorant of the extremely horrific things that have been done in the name of science-- mapping bodies of marginalized peoples in particular, conducting invasive experiments often without consent, sterilizing women of color, justifying nationalist campaigns resulting in genocide--that it's not at all free of criticism or bias, that it has inflicted suffering on the very populations he claims to care about? Who would wield the information he wants governments to collect? How exactly would it be used? Can you guarantee it wouldn't be for nefarious purposes? I'm not at all anti-science, mind you, but this idea that it's somehow reactionary to be wary of a future where literally everything about you and your body is tracked, even on a biological level, is ridiculous.
The number of shots he took at anarchists, even equating them with fascists and the far right, was very annoying after a while, too. I'm no anarchist but I really think he engaged with it in a lot of bad faith. He says that a world without governance (which is really, from what I currently understand, a simple definition of anarchism, but a bit reductionist) is unrealistic but somehow a global order dedicated to modeling and gathering data on the world population is viable and a good idea without any hindrances.
I also couldn't stand how he put so many words in italics. Yes, I know that you think what you have to say is of utmost importance, but you don't have to throw it in my face every single other paragraph. He mentions in the introduction that this isn't a book, but a polemic written in a few weeks, and it's very evident. I think it is very opportunistic, actually, though I guess that is the point. I just don't see that it's engaging anything in good faith, but rather, just wants to attack people for being so incredibly blind and reactionary.
A complete waste of my time! Probably my favorite part was when he quoted Zizek who said "Poetry starts wars" or something, blaming our assignment of symbolic value to things for instigating conflict. Alright, man, it's not like a hunger for dominance and power and the perpetuation of systematic inequality are what actually motivate people to commit atrocities.
The number of shots he took at anarchists, even equating them with fascists and the far right, was very annoying after a while, too. I'm no anarchist but I really think he engaged with it in a lot of bad faith. He says that a world without governance (which is really, from what I currently understand, a simple definition of anarchism, but a bit reductionist) is unrealistic but somehow a global order dedicated to modeling and gathering data on the world population is viable and a good idea without any hindrances.
I also couldn't stand how he put so many words in italics. Yes, I know that you think what you have to say is of utmost importance, but you don't have to throw it in my face every single other paragraph. He mentions in the introduction that this isn't a book, but a polemic written in a few weeks, and it's very evident. I think it is very opportunistic, actually, though I guess that is the point. I just don't see that it's engaging anything in good faith, but rather, just wants to attack people for being so incredibly blind and reactionary.
A complete waste of my time! Probably my favorite part was when he quoted Zizek who said "Poetry starts wars" or something, blaming our assignment of symbolic value to things for instigating conflict. Alright, man, it's not like a hunger for dominance and power and the perpetuation of systematic inequality are what actually motivate people to commit atrocities.
natroberts's review
3.0
A very dense 160 pages to say the least. While offering a lot of valuable ideas concerning positive biopolitics, Bratton leans too heavily into a style of language that borderlines on arrogance and makes this a much more difficult read than it could be. There’s a valley of difference between dumbing things down to an overly simplistic extent and making them comprehensible, and this could use quite a bit more of the latter. Considering the repeatedly stressed importance of these ideas - and specifically philosophical epidemiology- the way they are presented can be ironically alienating.
justaprilann's review
2.0
The ideas in this book are fine, great even. But the language was so pretentious. And I guess I’m just more interested in how we get to a post-pandemic utopia than just what it should look like.
katyrbw's review
4.0
really enjoyed the bits on data and modelling in here, and some really interesting points on privacy that i'll be chewing on further - significantly weakened by the section on the may 2020 protests and autonomous zones, where intellectual critique veered into superior-feeling criticism. otherwise very enjoyable
butchriarchy's review
1.0
Excruciatingly self-important, offering solutions not at all practical or even well-thought out. Somehow it's eye-roll worthy to be suspicious of surveillance, and the idea of social control may not all be bad. How is stricter governance at all a desirable objective, global or otherwise? Is this man completely ignorant of the extremely horrific things that have been done in the name of science-- mapping bodies of marginalized peoples in particular, conducting invasive experiments often without consent, sterilizing women of color, justifying nationalist campaigns resulting in genocide--that it's not at all free of criticism or bias, that it has inflicted suffering on the very populations he claims to care about? Who would wield the information he wants governments to collect? How exactly would it be used? Can you guarantee it wouldn't be for nefarious purposes? I'm not at all anti-science, mind you, but this idea that it's somehow reactionary to be wary of a future where literally everything about you and your body is tracked, even on a biological level, is ridiculous.
The number of shots he took at anarchists, even equating them with fascists and the far right, was very annoying after a while, too. I'm no anarchist but I really think he engaged with it in a lot of bad faith. He says that a world without governance (which is really, from what I currently understand, a simple definition of anarchism, but a bit reductionist) is unrealistic but somehow a global order dedicated to modeling and gathering data on the world population is viable and a good idea without any hindrances.
I also couldn't stand how he put so many words in italics. Yes, I know that you think what you have to say is of utmost importance, but you don't have to throw it in my face every single other paragraph. He mentions in the introduction that this isn't a book, but a polemic written in a few weeks, and it's very evident. I think it is very opportunistic, actually, though I guess that is the point. I just don't see that it's engaging anything in good faith, but rather, just wants to attack people for being so incredibly blind and reactionary.
A complete waste of my time! Probably my favorite part was when he quoted Zizek who said "Poetry starts wars" or something, blaming our assignment of symbolic value to things for instigating conflict. Alright, man, it's not like a hunger for dominance and power and the perpetuation of systematic inequality are what actually motivate people to commit atrocities.
The number of shots he took at anarchists, even equating them with fascists and the far right, was very annoying after a while, too. I'm no anarchist but I really think he engaged with it in a lot of bad faith. He says that a world without governance (which is really, from what I currently understand, a simple definition of anarchism, but a bit reductionist) is unrealistic but somehow a global order dedicated to modeling and gathering data on the world population is viable and a good idea without any hindrances.
I also couldn't stand how he put so many words in italics. Yes, I know that you think what you have to say is of utmost importance, but you don't have to throw it in my face every single other paragraph. He mentions in the introduction that this isn't a book, but a polemic written in a few weeks, and it's very evident. I think it is very opportunistic, actually, though I guess that is the point. I just don't see that it's engaging anything in good faith, but rather, just wants to attack people for being so incredibly blind and reactionary.
A complete waste of my time! Probably my favorite part was when he quoted Zizek who said "Poetry starts wars" or something, blaming our assignment of symbolic value to things for instigating conflict. Alright, man, it's not like a hunger for dominance and power and the perpetuation of systematic inequality are what actually motivate people to commit atrocities.