Category Archives: Transhuman News

Crysis 3 - Speedrun: Welcome to the Jungle! on Post Human Warrior (00:09:37)
Hallo Leute, hier ein Speedrun in Crysis 3 auf hchster Schwierigkeit (Post-Humaner-Krieger) Dies ist die zweite Mission des Spiels. Ich spiele einen "No Dea...

By: xTaL3N7Zz

Excerpt from:
Crysis 3 - Speedrun: Welcome to the Jungle! on Post Human Warrior (00:09:37) - Video

As with so many books these days, this one let me down. Particularly in that the summary implies there is some element of mystery to what happened to the rest of humanity, and instead it's immediately obvious what happened. Really: you know what they're going to find before they ever get home, and it's already pretty clear why they're not dead; connecting the dots isn't hard. The real mystery is why four super-smart people needed a fifth to explain it to them.

Which leads me to this less than her...more

Which leads me to this less than heroic cast. First we have Keats, a hero who slips into a moral abyss before the action even starts. Could they maybe have had the crisis first at least? It takes only a matter of minutes to go from "I'm a moral guy, I can't help my urges but I can be better than them" to "hot damn, nobody will ever know, let's do it". (Less than thirty, in fact, including time to do the deed.) Similarly with "Old Timer" and his micro-affair: apparently in the highly evolved future humans live forever, and they marry forever, but they can rebound from the inconceivable loss of a spouse -- guilt included -- in about a day. Then there's Thel, Keats' extra-marital love interest. Women are apparently rather violent in this future, as she and Djanet believe they have the right to beat up, knock out, or otherwise coerce anyone into doing what they want. The author gets points for having high intelligence breed contempt, but loses far more for having the super-intelligent people (a) be unable to think of a better solution and then (b) be surprised that causing mayhem doesn't make friends. Lastly, there's Rich. His differentiating feature is that he has free reign to insult anyone at anytime, but doesn't have the skin to take it in return, nor the cleverness to do it without being obvious. For most of the book, these are scared, stupid, selfish people. The other four are dependent on Keats to do the thinking for them; when he can't, they resort to the aforementioned belligerence. Yet after they go on a few forced patrols (of which we only see one, and it's spent explaining how Craig has fallen in love), and do a few repairs, they're suddenly ready to sacrifice themselves to save the world. Why? How? Where's the growth and development that would make that plausible?

Clearly, then, the characters didn't work for me. Neither did the science. I think this is one of those novels that would have been better off leaving the science as a mystery, because as soon as the author explained how the characters could fly and such, I had trouble suspending my disbelief. It's been a long time since I was a physics student, but I really don't think that would work, and the nuclear power pack pretty much cinched it for me. Even if the science were solid, though, the extreme versatility of the technology made it one heck of a sonic screwdriver: it can solve any problem. It lets them fly, it can be used as a force field, it works as a weapon, and at one point Keats configures his as a cradleboard. All of which is okay up to a point...but these characters are completely dependent on them. They are constantly shifting from one application to another, and having them reuse the same solution over and over again is not only boring, but it means it never really feels like they're in danger. You know they'll just pull another trick out of the magnetic bubble.

Despite all of the above, however, the ending was the biggest problem. Without spoiling anyone who still wants to read this book, all I can say is that the villain was trite and unoriginal, and the happy ending was too perfect, too pat, and too implausible. The ultimate deus ex machina... literally.

As an Amazon prime member, I was able to read this for free from the lending library. I'm glad I did, as it means I found the book far less frustrating -- though no less disappointing -- than if I'd had to pay for it. It also led me to waffle a bit on my rating. However, Simpson has a masters in English Literature, and teaches the subject as his profession. If anyone should know better, he should. (less)

Go here to read the rest:
Post-Human (Post-Human Trilogy, #2) by David Simpson ...

US public and foreign policy elites agree the nation should mind its own business

WASHINGTON: The global image of the United States as an advocate for development, multilateralism, liberty and democracy typified by the catalytic role the nation played in creation of the United Nations, the Marshall Plan that rebuilt war-torn Europe, President Jimmy Carters championing of human rights and President George W. Bushs promise to support democratic movements around the world has never had the unanimous support of the American public. And now, at a time of Americans war weariness and widespread concern about the domestic economy, both the public and the US foreign policy establishment are particularly wary of such idealistic foreign policy endeavors.

In 2013 there is an unprecedented lack of support for American engagement with the rest of the world. The public suggests that the nation does too much to solve world problems: About half of Americans, 51 percent, tell interviewers that the United States is overextended abroad, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center. And when those who say the US does too much internationally are asked to describe in their own words why they feel this way, 47 percent say problems at home, including the economy, should get more attention.

The publics skepticism about US international engagement has increased. Currently, 52 percent say the United States should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own. Just 38 percent disagree with that statement. This is the most lopsided balance in favor of the US minding its own business in the nearly 50-year history of pollsters asking this question.

Pew Research: More than half surveyed agree the US should cooperate with the UN, but support is down from 2002.

When it comes to working with the United Nations, the embodiment of the ideal of nations working together, 56 percent of the American public agrees that the United States should cooperate fully with the international organization. But that support is down from 77 percent in 1991 and 67 percent in 2002. And only 37 percent say strengthening the UN should be a top US policy priority.

There is partisan divide on this issue among Americans: Democrats, at 69 percent, are more likely than Republicans, 46 percent, to say the US should cooperate fully with the United Nations. And Republicans or independents who sympathize with the Tea Party are even less likely to want the US to work closely with the UN. Looking forward, 50 percent of Democrats want to strengthen the UN, but only 25 percent of Republicans agree and just 12 percent of Tea Party adherents would strengthen the multilateral body.

Championing human rights abroad, helping improve living standards in developing countries and promoting democracy also rate as relatively low priorities for the American public.

Promoting human rights in other countries is a top foreign policy goal for just 33 percent of the American public. While low, this support is actually up from the 24 percent who prioritized human rights in 2011. Again there is a partisan divide: 41 percent of Democrats, but just 27 percent of Republicans and 19 percent of Tea Party adherents see human rights as a top priority.

Helping boost economies in low-income countries has never been high on Americans to-do list. Nor is it today. Only 23 percent make helping improve the living standards in developing nations a high priority. This includes 32 percent of Democrats, 13 percent of Republicans and just 6 percent of Tea Party sympathizers.

Read the original:
Post new comment