Ghost Fleet by Peter W. Singer and August Cole

This was an interesting book on many levels, tone, style and purpose, but also as it felt like a future imagined by people representing an old world that is still very influential. So many of future scenarios are either just incremental or only look at the new. This was very much on the incremental side, but extrapolated to far that it became a reflection of the world we live in. I enjoyed reading it the same way I read material from established mainstream people like Klaus Schwab, or organizations like McKinsey/PwC, that distill new ideas in a shape that the “old” system understand and can use. These texts are less interesting to read if you want to understand how the future will look like, but they are interesting to read if you want to develop strategies that result in real change, as they help you undertand how the "old" structures will react.

On an overall level the book is therefore a little unsavory, as large parts of it comes a cross as chanting for more traditional military investment by the US. Part of the book actually felt as if a, pretty smart, PR agency had come up with a script for a movie for Lockheed Martin. Without any spoilers it actually turns out that it could be a PR project from another sector in the US.

Beyond the plot where the traditional, and American home made, solutions are what can save us the geopolitical framing is entertaining. Building the story around the emergence of an aggressive side of a commercial conglomerate in China that has taken over the government is interesting, although there are many other scenarios that I think would have been more interesting to explore. The kind of conflict portrayed feels very 19th century.

Even if they play on the fear of a raising China and the dependence on Chinese technology/manufacturing in a very simplistic way there is such a string of fun observations that the worst China bashing is pretty easy to forgive.

One thing that I find equally amusing and frustrating is how all authors now need to include hackers in any plot with a major conflict. As in many other books the hacking/cyber elements seem to be the area where the authors do not have much interest and knowledge. I wonder when, is ever, we will find a language (written and imagery) where coding/hacking can be communicated in a relevant way that can reach beyond a few and capture the complexities.

What saves the book for me is that it feels genuine. I think the writers have a passionate interest in new military technology, geopolitical changes and different scenarios.

Influx, by Daniel Suarez

I really liked Daemon and thought it was great that Daniel dared to follow-up the story after the climax in what I think is one of the best stories about AI ever in FreedomTM. Kill Decision was not bad, but it felt more like a narrow (but still highly relevant) drone discussion, than a broader discussion about society. The interesting thing is that now after reading his latest book, Influx, I realize now how much I liked Kill Decision and also how important I think it is.

There are some fun technologies in this book, but they are used in a way where I felt they where sprinkled in a really thin story that lacked any context to make the ideas relevant.

Influx is more like a normal science fiction and Daniel is a good writer so it is good book. Still, for me it lacks the edge from earlier books where he managed to surprise you and also put them in an overall context that felt interesting. I hope that Daniel got a few ideas off his chest and that he will continue on the more hard science fiction where the technology is part of a living society.

If you have nothing to do and like near-time science fiction the book provide some fun examples of technologies that are currently being developed.

World Order: Reflections on the Character of Nations and the Course of History, by Henry Kissinger

World order is probably the best book I have read by Kissinger and one of the most interesting from a "politician" when it comes to global governance. It is not very helpful when it comes to actual solutions, or inspiration for solutions and as that is what I tend to look for it took some time for me to appreciate the book. I would say that it is interesting in two very different ways.

First, during the most of the book Kissinger comes across as a wise old man (although too sloppy, as too many of the references are not correct) interested in the long-term historic perspective. We are taken on a journey where a lot of time is spent in the 17th-century and the time leading up to and following The Peace of Westphalia. The process and outcome related to The Peace of Westphalia is the center of the universe that Kissinger sketches.

The focus is on the balancing act required in a multipolar system. Something that result in a focus status quo at the center is used to contrast alternative approached, all more “totalitarian” in their approach. The logic behind this system is never analyzed.

James Traub captured it perfect in his review of the book in WSJ: “The villains of Mr. Kissinger's account are the totalizers, like Napoleon and Bismarck; the heroes are the deft manipulators of an ever-shifting equilibrium among states— Talleyrand and Metternich.”

The very special situation that has allowed the nation state to emerge with governments accountable in some ways to the population is very interesting. For anyone interested in global governance I would argue that this book is mandatory reading.

Second, in the last part of the book, something interesting happens. Here Kissinger turns into something very unpleasant. Instead of using this book, that might be his last, for some actual reflection, it turns into a very strange and almost pathetic excuse for his less pleasant choses in life. I’m no expert on Kissinger, but it was easy to see when it was time to google some information about actions described in the book that he is ashamed of as the style of writing changed. The change of tone, arrogant and cold, is really unpleasant. I was not expecting a true and deep introspection from Kissinger, but perhaps something along the lines that Robert McNamara did in Fog of War. Not admitting to being wrong, but at least open up to the possibility that everything might not have been as good as it seemed back then (or hopefully not even back then).

The way he celebrate Bush and Reagan is as if he is a fundamentalist refusing to see any other possibilities. It would have been interesting to hear him discuss how things could have developed in different ways.

Overall, the long-term perspective and reflection of the fragility of our current international system makes the book well-worth reading.

Major Global Risks Workshop with Actuaries (IFoA)

Riskevent

Over the last century the world has changed in profound ways, caused by rapid developments in science and technology, population explosion and a greatly improved but very resource-demanding standard of living in the developed world. As a result we now face new global risks with the potential of severely affecting billions of people.

These risks are big and take no account of borders, yet they are poorly understood by both the general public and policymakers. Insuffcient understanding of these risks and short-term thinking that does not consider potential catastrophes might well put current and future generations at risk.

Raising awareness and developing tools that will help decision-makers understand the true dimensions of major global risks is a key priority for the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries and for the Global Challenges Foundation.

This workshop will bring together experts from the actuarial profession, policy, economics, science and the risk profession to discuss how a risk approach can help inform policy responses to these challenges. It will identify best practice and the potential to share lessons from different risk areas.

Here is the invitation: Major Global Risks Workshop

The book of strange new things, by Michel Faber

As Under the skin is such a fantastic book I was expecting something that was equally challenging and thought provoking, and that was a big mistake – or was it. The book of strange new things is a beautiful book about loneliness and the search for belonging. The small tricks he uses, e.g. providing the main character with a computer that can send traditional emails through space while living in a very different context, create interesting tensions. In a way it is written in in a brilliant way as Peter’s, the main character, inability to reflect on his situation in any serious way ,as he projects his doubts outwards, was reflected in my own reading.

I was hungry to learn more about the “Oasans” (the aliens) while the book kept the focus on Peter and his trivial reflections. Perhaps the fact that he is given a religious role that does not really add in any way to the narrative as the Osarians longing are never explained contribute to the frustration. It is as there is a story that I missed between what was told and what I was looking for.

I closed the book with a frustrated smile, the kind you can sometimes have when you have been fooled into something in a way that you have to give credit to the one fooling you, while at the same time not feel to passionate about it as it was not as interesting as what you was hoping for. Then you get this feeling that it might actually have planted a new idea in you, one that it will take some time to understand. Then you get the feeling that you are fooled into reading more into the book that it is worth… and so on…