The Next 100 Years: A forecast or geopolitical fantasy ?

As with many books I have very mixed feelings after reading George's Friedman "The Next 100 Years". When it comes to reading experience, the book is just excellent. It is a true page turner and gives to the reader the great satisfaction of reading.

In short: the book analyses the global geopolitical trends of XXI century and tries to predict the events of nascent centennial period of time. The analysis of the current situation is breathtaking - it is one of the first analysis that describes the real trends behind such events like Iraq war, seemingly stupid errors of American administration and explains how such acts work on a deeper strategic level. The basic conclusion of this part of the book is that the American global dominance is of unprecedented scale, not known in history of civilization. What is more, we are not in the period of a dusk of "American day" but - rather - at its dawn.

All the events , including those that seemingly put US into some inferiority, work in the opposite direction. For example, even though the American-Jihad war, started by the events of 9/11 does not look as successful, it has in fact caused the great disruption in Islamic countries, essentially blocking any major power to arise.

There are many such excellent conclusions and inferences ...

But, as you continue to read it, the book becomes more and more a sort of fantasy than a well grounded forecast. For example, the conclusion that by the mid of XXI century the most important powers of the world will be: US, Japan, Turkey and ... Poland - made my sides split with laughter. On the surface, I should be proud (and I truly am) of the author estimation of my own country great potential - but, I think he simply forgets or ignores the large geopolitical change that just started to shape the Euro-Asia - the dawn of European Union, in which Poland has already its place, and to which Turkey aspires. The author, with typical ignorance, thinks of EU as of failed project, and it fails because it does not follow American example.

This is, in my opinion, one of the great faults in George's reasoning. The truth is different, EU is a project that breaks the traditional nation-state paradigm, and, as such, escapes the classical geopolitical trends. Of course, EU may fail. It errs. It joins the new active generation, hard working young people in many countries with somehow decadent societies of "Old Europe".

But in this weakness lies also its power - and it is highly unlikely that we may see a "Polish block" rising in power and challenging Germany, France, UK - also in military sense.

Turkey maybe more problematic, as seen from 2009 perspective, but its efforts to join EU will finally make this country a powerful, yet, peaceful part of the region.

Whatever we say, the thinking in XXI century in terms of almost tribal, nation-state struggle, seems to be anachronic and quite strange...

Having this in mind, I found this part of "The Next 100 years" as highly unrealistic.

When the author finally comes to the mid-XXI century war, and describes it with details worth good sci-fi novel, I came to conclusion, that the real value of the author prophecies are of the same sort as of any, maybe good, science-fiction author....

I also think that the author expresses some other strange opinions worth to oppose. For example, when he describes role of the computer in modern civilization it does so with complete ignorance to the true meaning of digital technology, Internet and new media. The only two aspects he notices is the reductionism of the digital world (because it reduces everything to bits) and the emanation of American philosophical pragmatism...

He seems not to understand what software is all about and how computer and Internet enhanced the human communication, collaboration and hope for better future - on a global scale...

Finally and despite my criticism - I recommend to read this book. It is deeply moving and fascinating. But don't believe in its prophetic power :-)

Blindness ... A paragon of bad story

After 13 hours of listening to Jose Saramago's "Blindness" I came to the following conclusion: How fortunate was I, that for so many years I have been reading and listening to mostly good books with largely prevailingly stories...

Unfortunately, Blindness is not a good story. And I'm sure of my firm opinion. It's totally fictional novel about an epidemic that causes total blindness of the population of some unnamed country.

Well, as for the initial setting it was quite interesting - it could be a ground for serious deliberations on human nature - particularly under severe conditions. At some moments, I had the feeling that Jose Saramago was close to great prose and deep analysis of what can happen to man under ill fortune and severe calamities. Some remote recollections of stories from death camps resonated in parts of the book ...

However, everything there was too far from the really deep thoughts and considerations, to deserve appraisal. The moral notion of so many scenes is unconvincing. The considerations of some sexually oriented behaviour of blind people - quite offensive, to say the least.
The book ends with totally naive sudden recovery of all people from the blindness - almost like a happy end, with merely a shadow of unknown fate of one of the main characters.

Unfortunately, I also found a lot of tedious and flat passages - was this the result of poor translation? That I do not know. Maybe, in its original language, the book written, despite everything, by a Nobel price laureate, could defend its merits... Maybe....

I regret to write such review, but - I had no choice - this what my heart dictates...

World without us - old prophecies in modern skin ?

Reading Alan Weisman "The World Without Us" is a terrific experience. The book contemplates the state of the earth after the human race is gone... The author is not giving us the another catastrophic theory - instead he speculates on how and what can happen to our mother earth if we are no longer there....

The prevailing conclusion is that the nature will manage the world without us much faster we could ever imagine. He gives examples that are so convincing - like the example of Puszcza Bialowieska in Poland - the last forest primeval in Europe, Chernobyl abandoned areas, Korean DMZ - the places where the power of nature prevails - only because we are not there.....

The author also suggests, that what could happen to us, in some sense already happened in the history - in the case of Maya civilisation. Although on a micro scale, what happened to Maya's - can happen to us - on much larger scale.

The book is fascinating and captivating - once you started - you can not stop reading.

It also relates to "end-of-time" predictions of major world religions.

The only criticism I may have - is in the "Coda" where author apparently apotheoses the idea of "one-couple - one child" idea. On this point, I dare to disagree, but I also think, the fantastic book would be even better if the author would not endorse the questionable idea....

Thou great star! What would be thy happiness if thou hadst not those for whom thou shinest!

Finishing reading Thomas Common translation of Nietzsche's "Thus spoke Zarathustra..." is a queerish experince while immersing into Mishnah ....

Weeks ago I read latest Polish translation of the book done by Sława Lisiecka and Zdzisław Jaskuła . But the classical English translation of Thomas Common has some different flavor.
It is a bit more poetic and more imaginative - but of course this is difficult to confirm when you can not read it in original (I can not ...).

If I was to make my final summary of "Thus spoke Zarathustra..." it is not, unfortunately, very positive. In short words, Nietzsche tries to build the meaning, the goal, the utter sense for man on the ruins of meaninglessness and nihilizm of our civilization (as it was in XIX century and was even more in XX...), but what he propheses is insufficient. His will to power, recurrence and superman related ideas, emerging from "Thus spoke..." narrative just can not be taken as apealing proposal after XX century. And it is not for trivial conotation of his superman idea and nazism... It is because of lack of any realistic ground for his new morality and new goals. His superman is a solitary hero, who attempts to find the ground in himself only. There is no God, and I could forgive him this error (sic !), but ... there is no other man - no The Other, no Other face. "I and thou" - is almost missing from Nietzsche proposal.

And when the ground is missing, the tower he built is like one errected on sand. It did not stand for historical challenge - XX century misuse of his thought ...

The only thing which I could say, after writing this post is that Nietzsche was apparently aware of his fate and the fate of his thought. I close this entry by the quote:

"I know my fate. One day my name will be associated with the memory of something tremendous--a crisis without equal on earth, the most profound collision of conscience, a decision that was conjured up against everything that had been believed, demanded, hallowed so far. I am no man, I am dynamite." (Ecco homo)