Hey, it's out!

My review of Ramez Naam's book More Than Human is up on the LA Times Web site. I don't think registration is required.

I hate to admit it, but I completely missed its publication. I only found out because Naam e-mailed me about it-- and took my criticisms of the book in stride, it sounds like. (Though when you've been a project manager at Microsoft and reported to Bill Gates, you've probably survived far worse than anything that a book critic can dish out.) Which is good: while I had some quibbles with the book-- techno-libertarians will find it a great read, but someone who's opposed to the kinds of technological modifications of bodies that Naam talks about won't come away thinking that their position is wrong-- I did enjoy it.

The one thing I regret is a line that violates an informal rule I've tried to follow when reviewing books. The essence of the review boils down to these lines:

More Than Human is a terrific survey of current work and future possibilities in gene therapy, neurotechnology and other fields. Naam doesn't shy away from technical detail, but his enthusiasm keeps the science from becoming intimidating. But he's less successful in making the case for "embracing the promise of biological enhancement." Yes, people are greedy, regulations are often ineffective and the war on drugs has not gone well. But none of these facts is likely to change the minds of people who oppose gene therapy on moral or theological grounds.

The problem comes in the third sentance. My informal rule is that you should praise the author, but criticize the book: it gives you some critical (as it were) distance separating the author and the book, and keeps an author from taking criticism too personally. Unfortunately, I slipped in the middle of the paragraph. Or maybe the editor changed it, in which case I'll have track him down and beat him up.

Just kidding, Nick! Seriously, you're the best.