What do you think?
Rate this book
We, Robots: Staying Human in the Age of Big Data
In the tradition of Jaron Lanier’s You Are Not a Gadget, a rousing, sharply argued—and, yes, inspiring!—reckoning with our blind faith in technology Ìý Can technology solve all our problems? Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, many of our most famous journalists, pundits, and economists seem to think so. According to them, “intelligent machinesâ€� and big data will free us from work, educate our children, transform our environment, and even make religion more user-friendly. This is the story they’re telling that we should stop worrying and love our robot future. But just because you tell a story over and over again doesn’t make it true. Curtis White, one of our most brilliant and perceptive social critics, knows all about the danger of a seductive story, and in We, Robots, he tangles with the so-called thinkers who are convinced that the future is rose-colored and robotically enhanced. With tremendous erudition and a punchy wit, White argues that we must be skeptical of anyone who tries to sell us on technological inevitability. And he gives us an alternative set of taking inspiration from artists as disparate as Sufjan Stevens, Lars von Trier, and François Rabelais, White shows us that by looking to art, we can imagine a different kind of future. No robots required.
306 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 20, 2015
17 people are currently reading
134 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 - 17 of 17 reviews
January 5, 2021
Just what the times required: first a good kick up the backside and then a way out, or through, or with� through art and solidarity, peeps. The best book of CW's I've read (5), and I'm not done with him by a long shot. He's angry and wise and compassionate and learned and kooky...and commited. Gotta find a way to have a beer with this dude.
January 18, 2016
Take this review with a grain of salt: I did not finish the book.
I was, however, immediately struck with how disrespectful and arrogant of a tone White strikes from even the introductory paragraphs. White writes with the same self-assurance and dismissive style that one sees in works of his nemesis: Richard Dawkins. Like reading Dawkins, if you are not already a total convert to his message, you will be liable to be more annoyed than convinced by the content of this book. Full disclosure: nearly a decade ago, as an atheist myself, I was reading Dawkins and was sympathetic to his message and could appreciate his humor. Since then, I have soured considerably on the smug over-confidence of the neo-Atheist movement and its reluctance to be fair in its discussion of the potential for personal and societal good that spirituality can represent and more nuanced religious views. I am also awed by Jaron Lanier and skeptical of the over-emphasis on technological and chemical "fixes" of Western society. So I really thought I would be in good company with this book.
After wading through the occasionally-amusing, but most often rambling first dozen pages, my attention got stuck on a passage where White appears to dismiss Darwin's ideas because he wasn't correct about some of the more recent subspecies of hominoids. The tone with which Darwin was cast aside for failing to get absolutely every detail correct over a hundred years later was a little jarring. So, rather than finish the first chapter on Money-Bot, I decided to switch to the Science chapter and gauge my level of interest in finishing the book.
Lets just say that I am glad I saved myself the time. White's approach seems to be to conflate, then castigate a handful of popular science writers and the couple of actual scientists whose (popularized) works he has read for highly specific language in specific articles or quotes. For example, he goes on for dozens of pages about Michael Shermer's writings in Scientific American, pulling quotes from these articles and holding up these 'straw men' as if these specific statements from one guy, in a pop-sci journal, represent the entirety of scientific thinking. In doing so, he manages to be as bull-headed in his arguments as the people he targets, while also revealing the depth of his ignorance about the actual science he is sneering about.
Bonus points for his heavy use of semantic arguments (i.e. "So-and-so says that this indicates x. But how does one even interpret the definition of the word x? Let me now subject you to a lengthy description of my definition of the word x.") I found reading this book to be about as coherent, fun, and thought-provoking as a dictionary composed by a highly cranky editor.
I was, however, immediately struck with how disrespectful and arrogant of a tone White strikes from even the introductory paragraphs. White writes with the same self-assurance and dismissive style that one sees in works of his nemesis: Richard Dawkins. Like reading Dawkins, if you are not already a total convert to his message, you will be liable to be more annoyed than convinced by the content of this book. Full disclosure: nearly a decade ago, as an atheist myself, I was reading Dawkins and was sympathetic to his message and could appreciate his humor. Since then, I have soured considerably on the smug over-confidence of the neo-Atheist movement and its reluctance to be fair in its discussion of the potential for personal and societal good that spirituality can represent and more nuanced religious views. I am also awed by Jaron Lanier and skeptical of the over-emphasis on technological and chemical "fixes" of Western society. So I really thought I would be in good company with this book.
After wading through the occasionally-amusing, but most often rambling first dozen pages, my attention got stuck on a passage where White appears to dismiss Darwin's ideas because he wasn't correct about some of the more recent subspecies of hominoids. The tone with which Darwin was cast aside for failing to get absolutely every detail correct over a hundred years later was a little jarring. So, rather than finish the first chapter on Money-Bot, I decided to switch to the Science chapter and gauge my level of interest in finishing the book.
Lets just say that I am glad I saved myself the time. White's approach seems to be to conflate, then castigate a handful of popular science writers and the couple of actual scientists whose (popularized) works he has read for highly specific language in specific articles or quotes. For example, he goes on for dozens of pages about Michael Shermer's writings in Scientific American, pulling quotes from these articles and holding up these 'straw men' as if these specific statements from one guy, in a pop-sci journal, represent the entirety of scientific thinking. In doing so, he manages to be as bull-headed in his arguments as the people he targets, while also revealing the depth of his ignorance about the actual science he is sneering about.
Bonus points for his heavy use of semantic arguments (i.e. "So-and-so says that this indicates x. But how does one even interpret the definition of the word x? Let me now subject you to a lengthy description of my definition of the word x.") I found reading this book to be about as coherent, fun, and thought-provoking as a dictionary composed by a highly cranky editor.
March 1, 2016
2.5 stars.
This was a difficult book for me to review but here it goes. This is the rather simplistic best I can do. Some the things I liked
I do agree that today belief in the scientific view and the "objectivity" of it has become as faith based and often as non-objective as various religious views. Those beliefs have created some questionable delusions such as disbelief in climate change, overuse of antibiotics and pesticides, obsession with technology as the ultimate reality and a culture of sterility. The belief that technology is only good and will create a world where all our needs and desires are met is also rarely challenged.
Capitalism has teamed with technology and the scientific view to gain control of a huge portion of world resources for the unlimited profit of the few. This group of people is not just located in the US but is a worldwide elite class. Class differences have become even more extreme. The author includes an "entourage" class of service personnel who spend their careers serving the affluent and powerful. To the goal of profits many areas of our lives have been turned into advertising and justification for these ends.
In several sections he addresses what he sees as modern day ideologies and how they have manipulated our perceptions. Money-bot, STEM-bot (science technology, engineering and math), Buddha-bot, Eco-bot and Art-bot are the areas he tackles. In each he demonstrates how these ideas have been manipulated by corporate interests to their own benefit.
One of the sections I most related to was the description of how Western Buddhism has been turned into a product to support corporate ends and persuade people their discontents are their failings and not systemic. He quotes: David Loy author of A New Buddhist Path
"Buddhism offers an alternative approach: the path is really about personal transformation�.not to qualify for a blissful afterlife but to live in a different way here and now"
Some of the things I disliked.
He had a level of superiority about his view that was annoyingly snarky and dismissive in tone. His diversions into, what for me, were obscure areas of philosophy, not clearly applied to the topic and seemed like showing off. It seemed more like a hindrance for those of us less knowledgeable of Western philosophy. I have some basic knowledge but this was too much for me. And to be honest, philosophy dominated by white men just doesn't always resonate with me.
Even without that background I can see the problems and effects he addresses. Turn on a t.v., listen to the radio or visit the internet and the agendas are clear. How to make that visible to enough people who will say no more of this to make a difference is the difficulty.
Overall, it was an okay read but could have been more accessible.
This was a difficult book for me to review but here it goes. This is the rather simplistic best I can do. Some the things I liked
I do agree that today belief in the scientific view and the "objectivity" of it has become as faith based and often as non-objective as various religious views. Those beliefs have created some questionable delusions such as disbelief in climate change, overuse of antibiotics and pesticides, obsession with technology as the ultimate reality and a culture of sterility. The belief that technology is only good and will create a world where all our needs and desires are met is also rarely challenged.
Capitalism has teamed with technology and the scientific view to gain control of a huge portion of world resources for the unlimited profit of the few. This group of people is not just located in the US but is a worldwide elite class. Class differences have become even more extreme. The author includes an "entourage" class of service personnel who spend their careers serving the affluent and powerful. To the goal of profits many areas of our lives have been turned into advertising and justification for these ends.
In several sections he addresses what he sees as modern day ideologies and how they have manipulated our perceptions. Money-bot, STEM-bot (science technology, engineering and math), Buddha-bot, Eco-bot and Art-bot are the areas he tackles. In each he demonstrates how these ideas have been manipulated by corporate interests to their own benefit.
One of the sections I most related to was the description of how Western Buddhism has been turned into a product to support corporate ends and persuade people their discontents are their failings and not systemic. He quotes: David Loy author of A New Buddhist Path
"Buddhism offers an alternative approach: the path is really about personal transformation�.not to qualify for a blissful afterlife but to live in a different way here and now"
Some of the things I disliked.
He had a level of superiority about his view that was annoyingly snarky and dismissive in tone. His diversions into, what for me, were obscure areas of philosophy, not clearly applied to the topic and seemed like showing off. It seemed more like a hindrance for those of us less knowledgeable of Western philosophy. I have some basic knowledge but this was too much for me. And to be honest, philosophy dominated by white men just doesn't always resonate with me.
Even without that background I can see the problems and effects he addresses. Turn on a t.v., listen to the radio or visit the internet and the agendas are clear. How to make that visible to enough people who will say no more of this to make a difference is the difficulty.
Overall, it was an okay read but could have been more accessible.
February 16, 2016
Strangely paced, disorganized, and filled with unnecessary referential rabbit holes, this book is not worth your time. Two stars because there are some good ideas in here, just not enough to justify everything else.
December 14, 2015
Normally, when I read a book, I know what I'm getting myself into. I've either read the jacket copy or gotten a recommendation, so, by the time I crack it open, I'm in the right mood. I was not prepared to read , because I thought I was going to read an entirely different book.
After reading , you think you know what to expect in a book about Big Data. But 's book heads in a different direction. He takes issue with those who believe that the gradual shift into a computer-automated world is 1) inevitable and 2) good for everyone. And he's completely correct.
We, Robots begins with an examination of the current City of the Future. In this world, labor and menial jobs --- such as production and food service --- have been given over to robots. This is obviously good for capitalists, who ostensibly will not have to negotiate with robo-unions or OSHA regulations. Most economists and others, when discussing this vision of the future, present it as a utopia, in which Man is unshackled from the menial labor and free to pursue more meaningful --- intellectual, creative --- work.
Of course, what these speakers leave out, and what White argues, is that the destruction of jobs by the implementation of automatons has seldom, if ever, helped humans in the moment. Sure, factory employees no longer have to worry about losing their own arms when their jobs are taken by robotic limbs, but they now have to worry about finding a new job.
In the age of robots, White says, job security will mean marketing oneself as subservient to the 1 percent. It is the gurus, nutritionists, therapists, trainers, stylists, and hairdressers who will "make it" in the new economy. We're in for a new, ever-more-extreme form of serfdom.
That is, unless we fight the robotization of the U.S. We, Robots presents this as an option, if only because White disagrees with those who consider it an inevitability. While the inclination to agree that robots are the future comes from decades of inevitable progress --- to the extent that not "believing in" robotics is tantamount to being a machine-smashing Luddite of the truest form --- White's assertion is that this world is not human at all, at least not in the emotional sense. There is no compassion in building a world that forces the lower classes into servitude. That's a society for robots, by robots, and that's not what we need.
I received this book from Melville House in exchange for this review.
Read
July 31, 2019I’ve got slightly mixed feelings about this book. On the one hand it can be a little too loose at times, on the other it’s certainly readable and has plenty of interesting ideas in.
The looseness means that critiques or lines of thought are sometimes not followed as closely or as fully as I’d like. There are also cases where White seems to assume more knowledge than I have and I’d like a bit more information about what he’s critiquing.
On the plus side, it’s certainly not a slog to get through, though I imagine some people might find the style a little irritating. White packs a lot of interesting ideas into the book. It’s worth going back and re-reading a few pages or a paragraph and thinking some more about what he’s saying.
The book divides into a series of chapters on specific areas � the economy, art, ecology, etc. � then has an interlude about the values of rural (US) conservatives and (US) liberal views of them, before closing with a chapter that’s kind of about art and culture.
Particularly strong, for me, are the Money-BOT and STEM-BOT sections. Money-BOT is an attack on the visions of economists who see, and even celebrate, a future of increasing wealth for the rich and increasing uncertainty for everyone else. We’re meant to respond to this by embracing that instability, and embracing the needs of the rich (assuming we are not ourselves rich� and of course everything’s relative on a global scale). What they don’t have, apart, perhaps, from compassion, is the idea that there could be any alternative, that the economy can be made to serve people’s needs rather than the other way round.
STEM-BOT attacks the limitations of science and a scientific view of the world. Perhaps most notably it calls out many scientists or science-inspired philosophers for being terrible at, and ignorant about, philosophy. (Sam Harris is someone who comes up quite a bit. I forget whether I ever wrote a review on here of The Moral Landscape, but it was rubbish.)
Buddha-BOT is also interesting. The Guardian had a recent long-read on a similar subject. It talks about how Buddhism has been processed into modern western culture as mindfulness and meditation, but only 1) after being validated by science and 2) having its ethical and social aspects stripped out. Meditation becomes a way of managing stress and improving focus so people can be more productive workers. Companies can offer mindfulness to help with stress instead of trying to cause their workers less stress. The idea that meditation is or should be linked with a wider way of living and Buddhist virtues like compassion is discarded. The scientific view can’t measure or test these, the capitalist view doesn’t value them.
Another worthwhile thing from other chapters is the insistence that art should defamiliarise our world, to make it seem strange and new. This opens us up to wonder, in a very mystical sense, to new ways of thinking and seeing, and to change. Though I’m aware that a lot of the art and writing White likes never did anything for me (though I do at least like Sufjan Stevens). I’d like to also believe White’s paean to culture as connection, but it feels underdeveloped and a little wide-eyed in its optimism. Romantic, perhaps, though whether White would object to me using the word in that way I'm not sure...
The looseness means that critiques or lines of thought are sometimes not followed as closely or as fully as I’d like. There are also cases where White seems to assume more knowledge than I have and I’d like a bit more information about what he’s critiquing.
On the plus side, it’s certainly not a slog to get through, though I imagine some people might find the style a little irritating. White packs a lot of interesting ideas into the book. It’s worth going back and re-reading a few pages or a paragraph and thinking some more about what he’s saying.
The book divides into a series of chapters on specific areas � the economy, art, ecology, etc. � then has an interlude about the values of rural (US) conservatives and (US) liberal views of them, before closing with a chapter that’s kind of about art and culture.
Particularly strong, for me, are the Money-BOT and STEM-BOT sections. Money-BOT is an attack on the visions of economists who see, and even celebrate, a future of increasing wealth for the rich and increasing uncertainty for everyone else. We’re meant to respond to this by embracing that instability, and embracing the needs of the rich (assuming we are not ourselves rich� and of course everything’s relative on a global scale). What they don’t have, apart, perhaps, from compassion, is the idea that there could be any alternative, that the economy can be made to serve people’s needs rather than the other way round.
STEM-BOT attacks the limitations of science and a scientific view of the world. Perhaps most notably it calls out many scientists or science-inspired philosophers for being terrible at, and ignorant about, philosophy. (Sam Harris is someone who comes up quite a bit. I forget whether I ever wrote a review on here of The Moral Landscape, but it was rubbish.)
Buddha-BOT is also interesting. The Guardian had a recent long-read on a similar subject. It talks about how Buddhism has been processed into modern western culture as mindfulness and meditation, but only 1) after being validated by science and 2) having its ethical and social aspects stripped out. Meditation becomes a way of managing stress and improving focus so people can be more productive workers. Companies can offer mindfulness to help with stress instead of trying to cause their workers less stress. The idea that meditation is or should be linked with a wider way of living and Buddhist virtues like compassion is discarded. The scientific view can’t measure or test these, the capitalist view doesn’t value them.
Another worthwhile thing from other chapters is the insistence that art should defamiliarise our world, to make it seem strange and new. This opens us up to wonder, in a very mystical sense, to new ways of thinking and seeing, and to change. Though I’m aware that a lot of the art and writing White likes never did anything for me (though I do at least like Sufjan Stevens). I’d like to also believe White’s paean to culture as connection, but it feels underdeveloped and a little wide-eyed in its optimism. Romantic, perhaps, though whether White would object to me using the word in that way I'm not sure...
March 9, 2020
xa book about the state of and future of technocapitalism and how we can prevent ourselves from lapsing into dehumanization one fraction of ourselves at a time. white is obviously a polemic writer, but this book isnt exactly agitprop. he's counting on a lot of foreknowledge here and a great and varied interest in the reader, so it's not 100% friendly, but if you take it all as he's saying it and you aren't a capitalist goon then it's pretty easy to swallow: automation (in the name of capitalism) has removed (or is removing) the soul of labor, art, nature, and love itself. the only way to stop it is to reject sustainability and return to nature, and embrace the confrontational and evolving art that shows that we're really human. technology cannot stop a problem that technology caused; only humans can do that and we do it by proving what it is that makes us human.
Currently reading
January 16, 2022We, Robots,
I picked this book after reading *Science delusion* which was was an interesting opinion ( delusion) of the author from the point of western philosophy .Unfortunately western philosophy is not the starting point of humanity, Eastern ( India or China) had much older and advanced philosophy which is not yet even mentioned except touch on Buddhism which is again much after Indian vendanta philosophy .
But after reading the fist few pages of we , Robots, where the author opines on words like * lingam * and *yoni* in the same breath as genitals speaks of narrow biased interpretations of hindu texts , which diminishes his credibility and opinion.
As a non -fiction author , expectation is to state * facts*which is simply not there.
As the author is targeting cracks in other authors opinion, least expectation is that his own should have been based on facts .
I picked this book after reading *Science delusion* which was was an interesting opinion ( delusion) of the author from the point of western philosophy .Unfortunately western philosophy is not the starting point of humanity, Eastern ( India or China) had much older and advanced philosophy which is not yet even mentioned except touch on Buddhism which is again much after Indian vendanta philosophy .
But after reading the fist few pages of we , Robots, where the author opines on words like * lingam * and *yoni* in the same breath as genitals speaks of narrow biased interpretations of hindu texts , which diminishes his credibility and opinion.
As a non -fiction author , expectation is to state * facts*which is simply not there.
As the author is targeting cracks in other authors opinion, least expectation is that his own should have been based on facts .
July 15, 2017
There are some promising lines of questioning the current tech-capitalist narrative, with some good insights and poignant lines, but there is just too much shouting and too few arguments. White is a card-carrying left radical, with the mandatory style and diet of French authors, spiced up with Zizeklike references to films, pop culture and political anecdote. The book is disorganized, the occasional references to Hegel and Nietzsche utterly pointless, the criticisms of Cowen, Brooks, E. O. Wilson etc. bordering on curses. White sees the solution for the tech-capitalist narrative of inevitability in an alternative narrative based on - arts, appealing to the Romantics and hoping for... I don't know exactly what. Something better and more humane, I'm sure.
June 5, 2018
Easy audience here, but as delightfully cranky as Middle Mind. Wish I'd read it sooner.
April 1, 2022
Decent book, decent ideas, snarkiness was obnoxious to the point of being distracting.
June 14, 2016
This was a painful read. The prose was convoluted, extremely emotionally opinionated (as if there was a vendetta to be had?), which made the author appear as a disgruntled curmudgeon stuck in 1960s rebel mode.
The book has no index (which would have been vastly helpful given all the mentioning of other people and their works), and the author's unreliable naming such as referring to robotics pioneer Rodney Brooks as "David Brooks" made me wonder what other casual references were inaccurate. Speaking of references, with all the heavy assertions, much more credibility could have been achieved with better references to sources (did this book have an editor?)
At great irony the author criticizes other critical thinkers, who appear to be in line with his concerns, such as Erik Brynjolfsson's critique of a potential machine-dominated society, or Michael Shermer, a fellow culture-critic.
I must admit, I didn't manage to finish this book (yes, it was *that* painful to read), but my sampling of about 30% of it across chapters left me with the impression that the author is more interested in nihilistic cultural critique than rationally examining the implications of the influence of robots on society.
Generally, I appreciate critical accounts of societal circumstances and counter-cultural views in an age of popular group-think. But I also hope for recipes as to how to mitigate risks and improve the situation. The author's account of the state of affairs didn't reveal anything new (which would have been the redeeming quality balancing the single-minded focus on concerns only), so suggestions for a better way forward would have provided more meat to his book.
Two stars for the effort of providing a counter-voice to the rarely questioned populism that technology is humanity's panacea. And I did enjoy the many quotes. If only the book just would have been more readable and focused.
The book has no index (which would have been vastly helpful given all the mentioning of other people and their works), and the author's unreliable naming such as referring to robotics pioneer Rodney Brooks as "David Brooks" made me wonder what other casual references were inaccurate. Speaking of references, with all the heavy assertions, much more credibility could have been achieved with better references to sources (did this book have an editor?)
At great irony the author criticizes other critical thinkers, who appear to be in line with his concerns, such as Erik Brynjolfsson's critique of a potential machine-dominated society, or Michael Shermer, a fellow culture-critic.
I must admit, I didn't manage to finish this book (yes, it was *that* painful to read), but my sampling of about 30% of it across chapters left me with the impression that the author is more interested in nihilistic cultural critique than rationally examining the implications of the influence of robots on society.
Generally, I appreciate critical accounts of societal circumstances and counter-cultural views in an age of popular group-think. But I also hope for recipes as to how to mitigate risks and improve the situation. The author's account of the state of affairs didn't reveal anything new (which would have been the redeeming quality balancing the single-minded focus on concerns only), so suggestions for a better way forward would have provided more meat to his book.
Two stars for the effort of providing a counter-voice to the rarely questioned populism that technology is humanity's panacea. And I did enjoy the many quotes. If only the book just would have been more readable and focused.
December 31, 2015
While initially off-put by the Curtis White's techno-pessimism, I was bedazzled by his vivid prose and wide-ranging subject matter.
Money-bot
The first idea that he puts forth is that in the future (when work is dominated by intelligent machines) there will be people whose skills are complementary to intelligent machines (techies) while the existing middle class will be relegated to an "Entourage Economy" of people who provide services for the tech elite. This new world of hyper income inequality will force everyone who isn't an elite to the outskirts of the cities to consume freely accessible digital media.
He follows by taking a contrary position on the film Her viewing it as a bleak ironic film that illustrates the follies of our reliance on intelligent machines. He paints the protagonists ex-wife as the heroine of the film being the only significant character who doesn't submit to the OS's relationship dominance. White spins a grand narrative to Her by highlighting the emotional drainage that advanced AI could wreak upon people.
STEM-bot
Taking aim at the current obsession with "STEM education" White assails the obsession as a misguided absolutism. He cautions against the idea that STEM disciplines are superior to liberal arts and that a future with disproportionate focus on STEM would be detrimental to children who get funneled into this narrow career path without giving proper bandwidth.
Buddha-bot
Later he talks about corporate Buddhism with regards to how large companies use Buddhist ideals to make their workforce more effective and frame strife as a personal struggle rather than an organizational issue. He claims that Google is responsible for removing Buddhism from its native ethical context.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 17, 2016
My largest issue with books of philosophy (which this book is being sold as) and social criticism (which this book more accurately can be described as) is that the issues are made clear but rarely are there solutions proposed. White does point out that solving problems is not philosophy's goal, but he manages to propose some good, albeit lofty, solutions to the problems of our era of big data. The proposal: return to the playfulness of art in the tradition of the Romantics, which White traces to the contemporary work of Lars Von Trier and Sufjan Stevens. I like a lot of this book-- it's funny and smart and quite engaging, but I'm not 100% sold on all of its ideas. Still, this book is hard to disagree with in most spots, especially the idea that one surrenders their humanness when placing all faith in technology, science, and modern culture. Viva counter-culture!
August 19, 2016
This book was a real waste of time. It is a convoluted rants about a world where robots will take all our jobs. It does little to really delve into how this would transform our world. There is clearly both an upside and downside. I continued to read the book thinking that the author would present some kind of alternative, but instead he meandered about with various philosophical thoughts that only tangentially related to the topic at hand. This is an important topic, however, this book does little to illuminate the subject.
August 27, 2016
“Like characters in Greek tragedy, we seem fated to push technology towards its ultimate degree as if we were possessed by malignant gods. We call these gods "curiosity" and "creativity" and "reason" and "progress", but when these words are perverted by technocrats, they are more like the four horsemen of the apocalypse.�
March 4, 2018
This book, I will be returning to again and again, if for no other reason than to re-read White's description of real social deviants. Such a relief.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.