It's a little strange to read this kind of book. In theory, if you read a brief description of what this book wants to be, it sounds great. You follow the author on Twitter and she's reasonable and insightful. However, reading the book gave me the feeling of obscured vision: it reads like a modern communist manifesto and it's strange to taint the idea of humanism with the socialist-progressive of the internet outrage culture.

And don't get me wrong, I can empathize with the contents of the book - the book is filled with the usual corporate optimism that emanates from Silicon Valley. However, it doesn't answer to several questions, like „what do you do with the people that disagree with your views?”, or „how will this be weaponized?”

And it's strange to see that. Because while Kate O'Neill approaches at times issues and fears that might occur in real life, she never asks herself the question „what if what I suggest can be weaponized?”. It is naïve to say the least - under the pretense of „what I propose is good”, it's easy to forget the reverse of the medal. It's short-sightedness at its best and it made me really sad.

I guess that's the Silly-con (oh, such a cheap pun) Valley thinking that becomes so proeminent these days. It's easy, it's good intentions but it's also totalitarian in subtle ways, punishing by omission. The definition and the qualities of the Tech Humanist sound to me not unlike the socialist „New man”, the murderous ideology that killed 90 million people during peace time. And the fact that someone who seems intelligent and open minded like the author doesn't see this simile scares me.