Buy new:
$19.99$19.99
Arrives:
Dec 26 - 29
Ships from: Amazon.com Sold by: Amazon.com
Buy used: $13.00
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Image Unavailable
Color:
-
-
-
- To view this video download Flash Player
-
-
-
-
-
VIDEO -
Follow the authors
OK
COVID-19: The Great Reset Paperback – July 9, 2020
Explore your book, then jump right back to where you left off with Page Flip.
View high quality images that let you zoom in to take a closer look.
Enjoy features only possible in digital – start reading right away, carry your library with you, adjust the font, create shareable notes and highlights, and more.
Discover additional details about the events, people, and places in your book, with Wikipedia integration.
Purchase options and add-ons
- Print length280 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- Publication dateJuly 9, 2020
- Dimensions5.5 x 0.71 x 8.5 inches
- ISBN-102940631123
- ISBN-13978-2940631124
Frequently bought together

More items to explore
- The Great Reset: Joe Biden and the Rise of Twenty-First-Century Fascism (The Great Reset Series)Hardcover$11.68 shippingGet it as soon as Thursday, Jan 4Only 1 left in stock - order soon.
History shows that epidemics have been the great resetter of countries’ economy and social fabric.Highlighted by 1,324 Kindle readers
The same tends to happen for big systemic shifts and disruption in general: things tend to change gradually at first and then all at once. Expect the same for the macro reset.Highlighted by 1,259 Kindle readers
we should take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity to reimagine our world, in a bid to make it a better and more resilient one as it emerges on the other side of this crisis.Highlighted by 1,255 Kindle readers
Unlike previous pandemics, it is far from certain that the COVID-19 crisis will tip the balance in favour of labour and against capital. For political and social reasons, it could, but technology changes the mix.Highlighted by 888 Kindle readers
Product details
- Publisher : World Economic Forum (July 9, 2020)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 280 pages
- ISBN-10 : 2940631123
- ISBN-13 : 978-2940631124
- Item Weight : 3.53 ounces
- Dimensions : 5.5 x 0.71 x 8.5 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #24,917 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #7 in Government Management
- #11 in Business Education & Reference (Books)
- #106 in Economics (Books)
- Customer Reviews:
Videos
Videos for this product

0:41
Click to play video

COVID-19: The Great Reset
Amazon Videos
Important information
To report an issue with this product, click here.
About the authors

Thierry is the co-founder and main author of the Monthly Barometer, a succinct predictive analysis exclusively provided to private investors and some of today's most influential opinion and decision-makers. He was until 2011 a senior partner at IJ (Informed Judgement) Partners, an investment boutique for ultra-high-net-worth individuals based in Geneva, and prior to that managing partner at Rainbow Insight, an advisory boutique which he founded, providing tailor-made intelligence to investors. Previously, Thierry founded and headed the Global Risk Network at the World Economic Forum, a network that brings together top opinion and policymakers, CEOs and academics to look at how global issues will affect business and society in the short and long term. For a number of years in succession, Thierry conceived and put in place the programme for Davos and spoke at global, industry and regional events. His other professional experience includes: investment banking (as a Chief Economist and Strategist of a major Russian investment bank and as an Economist at the EBRD in London), think tanks and academia (both in New York and Oxford) and government (with a three-year spell in the Prime Minister's office in Paris).
Thierry has written several business and academic books, and has published four novels (two of which under a pen-name). In addition, he is a public speaker with some of the world’s leading agencies. He also sits on several advisory boards.
He was educated at the Sorbonne and Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris and at St. Antony's College, Oxford. He holds two MAs (in Economics and History) and a PhD in Economics.
With his English wife Thierry has four daughters.

Professor Klaus Schwab (1938, Ravensburg, Germany) is the Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum. In 1971, he published Modern Enterprise Management in Mechanical Engineering. He argues in that book that a company must serve not only shareholders but all stakeholders to achieve long-term growth and prosperity. To promote the stakeholder concept, he founded the World Economic Forum the same year.
Professor Schwab holds doctorates in Economics (University of Fribourg) and in Engineering (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) and obtained a master’s degree in Public Administration (MPA) from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. In 1972, in addition to his leadership role at the Forum, he became a professor at the University of Geneva. He has since received numerous international and national honours, including 17 honorary doctorates. His latest books are The Great Narrative (2022), Stakeholder Capitalism (2021), The Great Reset (2020), Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (2018), and The Fourth Industrial Revolution (2016).
Related products with free delivery on eligible orders Sponsored | Try Prime for unlimited fast, free shipping
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonReviews with images
Submit a report
- Harassment, profanity
- Spam, advertisement, promotions
- Given in exchange for cash, discounts
Sorry, there was an error
Please try again later.-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Underlying the whole premise of this weird book is that the virus did it to us: all the suffering and economic destruction were caused by the virus. This isn't true at all. All the suffering was caused by our response to the virus. Sweden proves this point. South Dakota, Florida, and Texas do as well.
Instead of practicing a policy of least harm wherein the most vulnerable were looked after, what we did instead was harm everyone, including and especially our children, by pretending that this disease was going to kill everyone. The authors insist that an alternative policy of "focused protection" was one of sacrificing a few so that we could save the economy, but they know full well that no one who advocated such a view was in favor of sacrificing anyone: the point, which the authors are too enchanted with their grandiose "reset" vision to see, was/is to do the least harm by focusing on the most vulnerable: those are the ones who had to "stay home, stay safe," and since many of these people were retired anyhow, for many this wasn't a problem. For those without the means to stay safe or who felt too afraid to participate in society (even if they were young and healthy) then the proper role of government would have been to seek out these people and lend them aid. This would have been at far less cost than the regulations, bailouts, etc., that took place instead.
The authors give precious little time to quaint ideas like liberty and freedom, although I supposed they might in the chapters on "Individual Reset." I was mistaken. They talk about individual mental health, creativity, consumption, well-being, but not about how installing a medical police state-- which is exactly what happened throughout the world-- damages the very ideals and aspirations of people all around the world who believe that our greatest good isn't that the state tells us what to do, but that we are always, to the greatest extent possible, masters and deciders of our own fates. The Great Reset folks don't want that. At bottom, their vision is one of a collectivist "we're all in this together" mindset wherein we all pull for a greater good (which greater good the authors conveniently sketch out for us) and it doesn't include individual self-determination except within the restricted bounds that Schwab and Mallerret outline for us. Authentic self-determination would be "selfish," you see.
I can only hope that in the land of the free and the home of the brave, we'll say a polite "no, thank you" to Schwab and friends and tell them to go elsewhere with their utopian scheme. And no, many of us don't believe that CO2 warming is sound science, so I guess we're not "all in this together" on that one, either. Tsk, tsk ... we're the ones who'll have to be monitored and policed for the greater good of all, in a great reset dystopia. Slippery slope that one, or no? Who gets to decide what the "proper" outlook should be, for the greater good of all, and who would have to be monitored and controlled for the good of the collectivist whole?
Klaus and Thierry, my reply to you is,
Stay safe re-set: stay free.
This book begins with the conceptual framework of the Macro Reset which is a lot words on paper behind which the authors hide behind for about the first third of the book. It isn’t until about page 90 that the true nature and intent of this book begins to reveal itself. More importantly, the authors begin to reveal themselves and what they are REALLY envisioning and already planning for the future of America and the world.
Around page 90 the book becomes quite vivacious as the authors can’t help themselves but spew the true nature of the Globalist agenda and Big (global) Government. The “TONE” of the book abruptly and literally changes becoming more aggressive defining the issues we are already seeing today only in a very anticipatory way. One is forced to ask oneself – “How is it that the authors could be so certain of everything they are saying when in fact the book was printed in June of 2020 (when the pandemic was still very new to everyone) and be discussing/predicting various outcomes without actually having planned it?” It seems to me that they are not just another author making statements based on research and empirical data. The statements are surely presented as INTENT. Throughout the last two-thirds of the book there is clearly shifting language from a more “innocent” language to one that is far more direct. For example, “Imagine that society…” or “Perhaps it will be that…” to “It will be that….” and “There will be no choice but to….”. One very good example is the affirmation of supply chain issues that WILL exist. They point out breakdown in trade and supply chain provoking immediate devastation such as increased hunger, prolonged and severe loss of employment and income. While some of that has happened it is the very certainty with which the authors point it out that is frightening. How could they be so sure one year in advance of the current supply chain issues (which the cause of is totally questionable, as well) that it would even be an issue? There was so much hope to ‘flatten the curve, get everyone protected with medications from Covid-19…and yet they are clearly and precisely defining the supply chain issues being experienced at this time. It begs the question – was this all planned? There seems never to be any discussion of revitalization from the circumstances – only a grim, dark, dystopian society in which everyone becomes dependent on a global, technology based, Big Government. Many more anticipatory statements exist surrounding topics such as environment, economics, “societal cash”, technology, mental-health, well-being and much more.
The authors can’t help themselves and so spew psycho-social insanity of a world they fully intend to control. The true nature of this book reveals itself when the authors point out that COVID-19 will be a crisis gone to waste if things don’t change!
As a final thought, this book is for the discerning reader who is willing not only to entertain the sad and gut-wrenching content of this publication but who is also willing to examine the language of it in a more granular way drawing comparisons between sections of the book and the lunacy of the anticipatory language used. The language clearly indicates what the globalist New World Order agenda is: a cabal of tyrannical rich who think they know better than everyone and want to control the world.
(By the way – interesting how Amazon indicates Thierry Malleret as the ‘author’ and there is no mention of Klaus Schwab a key player in all this. Just saying.)
Top reviews from other countries
Mit diesem Thesenpapier bekommt man einen Einblick, wie die ökonomischen Eliten die Zukunft für sich und die Welt sehen und wovor sie langsam Angst bekommen. Ziemlich linke, positive Visionen. Denkt man zumindest beim Lesen, bis man mal ein wenig Realitätscheck macht. Ja, die Vorschläge wären super, wenn sie umgesetzt würden, nur allein, mir fehlt der Glaube, zumal die Ideen halt nur halb durchdacht sind und die ärmeren Schichten eher nur am Rande streifen.
Man merkt dem Buch schon an, dass es nicht von englischen Muttersprachlern verfasst wurde. Es sind durchaus grammatikalische und Vokabelfehler vorhanden und auch ist der Stil eher holprig. Auch wird auf farbige Abbildungen Bezug genommen, die im Buch S/W und schlecht zu sehen sind. Die ursprüngliche Zielgruppe hat wahrscheinlich das farbige Original. Vielleicht hätte man mal einen Muttersprachler drüberschauen lassen sollen. Andererseits war dieses Buch sicherlich nicht für eine breite Masse gedacht gewesen, die erst über die alternativen Medien auf diese Veröffentlichung aufmerksam wurde.
Dieses Buch zeichnet eine auf den ersten Blick sozial gerechte, faire, umweltfreundliche, hoffnungsvolle Zukunft, die durch den großartigen/wundervollen/grandiosen Reset, durch Covit-19 ermöglicht wird, obwohl diese „Seuche“ die am wenigsten gefährliche und am wenigsten tödliche der Menschheitsgeschichte (S. 17) und ignoriert dabei jene, die dafür bluten müssen und dafür bezahlen müssen.
Schauen wir uns mal näher an, was die Autoren so schreiben, damit keiner behaupten kann, das konnte man doch vorher alles nicht wissen. Das Buch wurde im Juni 2020 geschrieben, da war eigentlich schon alles an Kollateralschäden absehbar, was von der Politik bewusst ignoriert wurde und wird, um möglicherweise einen großartigen/wunderbaren/grandiosen Neustart herbeizulockdownen, denn die Covid Dashboards wurden schon in Davos im Februar scharf und online geschaltet. Welch ein Zufall, oder doch nicht?
=== Die Thesen der Autoren ===
• Wir werden mit den Folgen für Jahre klarkommen müssen (S. 11) und die Dinge werden nie, nie wieder zur Normalität vor Covid zurückkehren (S. 12). Das scheint dann wohl beschlossene Sache zu sein. Das zweistellige! Level der globalen Arbeitslosigkeit wird zu Unruhen führen (S. 52) – Die Erholung des Arbeitsmarktes wird JAHRZEHNTE dauern (S. 54). Die sozialen Unruhen können durchaus mehrere Generationen andauern (S. 76). ABER das ist gut! Weil das das Ende des Neoliberalismus einläuten wird und zu einer Umverteilung von oben nach unten führen wird (S. 78). Kurzfristig wird es für die Armen aber erst mal schlimmer werden, weil die Ungleichheit erst mal noch zunehmen wird (S. 82) und die Armen sterben dann halt ne Weile früher (S. 82). Ohne massive Aufstände (massive social turmoil) wird die Utopie vom sozialen Wandel nicht umsetzbar sein! (S. 82) Ja! Steht da. Die Armen sollen in Aufständen bluten und ihr Leben geben, damit die Reichen umdenken bzw. taxation of „countries at war“ S. 90 zur Umverteilung führen. Mir klingt das eher nach einer Umverteilung von Oben in den militärisch industriellen Komplex zur Aufrüstung, damit man Volksaufstände unterdrücken kann. Entsprechende Zitate sind dann auch an der Stelle eingefügt.
• Man sieht einen globalen Zusammenbruch der Wirtschaft voraus in einer (un-) vorhersehbaren Kette, weil multifokal und global vernetzt: Shutdown – Arbeitslosikeit – weniger Konsum – Insolvenzen – mehr Arbeitslosigkeit – mehr Insolvenzen – Platzen der Immobilienblasen (S. 201) – Noch mehr Insolvenzen– Kapitalflucht (hier vergisst man aber zu erwähnen wohin, wenn es doch ein globales Problem ist, auf den Mond vielleicht?) – Bankenkriese - weniger Investitionen (S. 51) – Deflation (S. 70) = keine Zinsen. Hier ignoriert man dann mal geflissentlich, dass private Rente und private Krankenversicherung auf Gewinn und Zinsen aufgebaut sind, die sind damit praktisch tot, was keinerlei Erwähnung im Buch findet. Auch Lebensversicherungen sind damit praktisch ein komplett totes Produkt und somit ein Problem für die Altersversorgung. „no growth, no inflation, and insufferable debt levels“ (S.71). Ganz abgesehen von normalen Versicherungen, die halt nicht gegen die nun kommenden Probleme wie Seuchen, Cyberattacken, Terrorismus… versichern können, schon gar nicht bei Nullzinsen (S. 209), deren Geschäftsmodell ist wohl auch fraglich geworden. Willkommen in der japanifizierten neuen Welt, die man mit Trends wie Waldbaden aber durchaus auch positiv sehen kann. Klar, wird für überschuldete Staaten doppelt hart werden (S. 75), die dann ihre Schulden nicht zurückzahlen können (was halt auch die Schuldner trifft, was man lieber nicht zu sehr ausführt, denn ein Großteil der Renten der westlichen Welt steckt ins Staatsanleihen…). Für diese Länder wird das halt eine humanitäre Katastrophe (S. 75) aber das ist ja zum Besten des Planeten. Um dem entgegenzuwirken müssen die Löhne steigen und die Rechte der Arbeiter gestärkt werden (S. 184) und auch der Mindestlohn muss steigen. … Ja, klar, bei zweistelliger Arbeitslosenzahl und Menschen, die sich im Lohn unterbieten werden und Betriebe, die ums Überleben kämpfen, wo genau leben die Autoren? In Wolkenkuckucksheim? Klar, wäre sinnvoll, wird aber nicht passieren ohne dass es vorher zu einem großen Krach kommt. Nicht mal der Staat will die Löhne seiner Angestellten im Gesundheitswesen erhöhen, wer soll es denn sonst tun?
• Für zwei Personengruppen wird es halt übel werden: junge Leute, die einen ersten Job oder eine Ausbildung suchen (genau die, denen das Virus eigentlich hätte egal sein können und die durch die Maßnahmen ihre Zukunft für jene Menschen jenseits der durchschnittlichen Lebenserwartung geopfert haben, die dürfen nun zweifach bluten) und einfache Arbeiter, deren Tätigkeit durch Automatisierung ersetzt werden kann, z. Bsp. in der Gastronomie oder Hotellerie (S. 54), weil is ja hygienischer mit Automaten und Robotern.
• Den Autoren ist schon irgendwie aufgefallen, dass die Bevölkerung ihren Führern nicht mehr vertraut, weil sie sich unfair behandelt fühlen (S. 96), daher wählen sie Extremisten und protestieren. Sozialprogramme und Arbeiterschutz (S. 98) sind dann vielleicht doch ne gute Idee. Man befürchtet oder hofft vielleicht, dass die Jugend radikaler ist und den extremen Wandel durchsetzen wird in Richtung einer nachhaltigen, ökologischeren Gesellschaft (S. 102).
• Man beklagt die Erosion des klaren globalen Machtgefüges (S. 105) und sehnt sich nach starker, globaler Führung und fürchtet das Chaos. Interessant ist in diesem Zusammenhang das Trilemma, dass Demokratie und nationale Souveränität nur in einer kontrollierten, regulierten Globalisierung funktionieren können. Wenn die Globalisierung floriert ist das inkompatibel mit einer Demokratie. Wenn Demokratie und Globalisierung expandieren ist das das Aus für den Nationalstaat (S. 107). Eine Ablehnung der Globalisierung ist also komplett rational, wenn Ungleichheit hoch und die Wirtschaft stark ist (S. 108).
• Beschleunigung der Automatisierung mit einhergehender Verkürzung der Lieferketten. Mehr wird automatisiert vor Ort hergestellt werden und Redundanzen werden eingeführt werden müssen, um die Systeme widerstandsfähiger zu machen. Just in time ist wohl tot. Die Globalisierung wird teilweise auch rückgängig gemacht werden müssen, teils weil sich die USA von China unabhängiger machen wollen (s. 18).
• Failed states durch Corona, besonders in Afrika, werden befürchtet. Die Autoren schreiben das dem Virus zu, das der aber überwiegend jungen Bevölkerung in diesen Ländern nicht schadet, es sind die überzogenen Maßnahmen des Westens, die Millionen Menschen das Leben durch Hunger kosten werden. Hier verwechseln die Autoren Ursache und Wirkung (S. 128) und führen zu Recht zu einer Angst vor Massenmigration. Jeder gerettete alte Mensch im Westen bedeutet hunderte verhungerte Kinder in Afrika. Statt Arbeitslosigkeit wird halt Tod exportiert. Die WHO erwartet über 30 Millionen Hungertote durch die Lockdownmaßnahmen.
• Mehr Fairness durch radikale Wolfahrts- und Steuermaßnahmen – Das sehe ich schon bei der deutschen schwarzen 0. Da sollte man wohl in Moria anfangen.
• Man stellt lapidar fest, dass die kleinen Geschäfte echt schlechte Chancen haben durch die Krise zu kommen. Es werden wohl nur die großen Ketten überleben (S. 173). Auch das ganze Industriezweige praktisch tot sind, wie Hotellerie, Unterhaltung, Reise und dass das wohl auch noch lange so bleiben wird (S. 174) ist schade. Es werden wohl 75% der Restaurants diese Lockdowns nicht überstehen (S. 193). Da stehen zwar Millionen Familien dahinter, die nun in die Armut rutschen, das sehen die Autoren aber nicht, oder wollen darüber wohl nicht nachdenken obwohl sie zugeben, dass es das Kleingewerbe ist, welches der Hauptarbeitgeber ist und 50% des Privatsektors ausmacht (S. 193). Naja, vielleicht bringen sich diese Menschen dann aus Verzweiflung um oder trinken sich zu Tode (S. 220) auch durch die stark ansteigenden psychischen Störungen durch die Lockdowns (S. 228).
• Digitales Lernen als große Vision für Unis und Schulen (S. 179). Wie naiv kann man sein? SuS lernen nicht von alleine. Der häufigste Lerntyp ist das Gruppenlernen. Die Anmeldung zu Prüfungen an Unis ist massiv zurückgegangen in den letzten Monaten, weil Studenten, die dem Gruppenlerntyp angehören, abgehängt wurden. Nur die wenigen Autodidakten profitieren von E-Learning. Diese Vision können sich die Autoren schenken, da sollten sie mal Schulpädagogik studieren, da ist schon länger klar, dass Lehrerpersönlichkeiten den Lernerfolg ausmachen und nicht zu ersetzen sind. Außerdem ist Lernen in der Schule nur Nebensache, es geht um Erziehung zu den deutschen Tugenden und darum seine Freunde zu treffen. Die Student loan bubble wird nur gestreift. Man erwähnt jedoch, dass sich so hohe Studiengebühren bei zweistelliger Arbeitslosigkeit nicht mehr rechnen und Unis finanziell in Schieflage geraten werden. Die Studenten, die diese Kredite im Milliardenbereich nicht zurückzahlen können, weil es keine Jobs für sie gibt und dass da noch eine Schuldenblase platzen wird, das haben die Herren nicht auf dem Schirm.
=== Forderungen der Autoren ===
Einige Thesen der Autoren sind irgendwie widersprüchlich, wenn auch vielleicht nicht aus deren Wohlstandsblase. Einige Forderungen sind schon sehr links, sehr alt und sehr naiv, wenn auch sinnvoll, aber halt unrealistisch.
• Die Autoren gehen davon aus, dass man die Wirtschaft nur retten kann, wenn die „Seuche“ besiegt ist, denn die Menschen hätten Angst einzukaufen und Geld auszugeben und hätten bereits das Leben runtergefahren, bevor es Lockdowns gab. – Ja, die Menschen haben sich zurückgezogen, als man sie am Anfang in Panik versetzt hat durch die Medien. Wenn das gereicht hätte, hätte man ja gar keine Lockdowns benötigt, denn dann hätten sich die Menschen ja spontan zurückgezogen. Die Weihnachtseinkäufe vor den angekündigten Lockdowns haben aber deutlich gezeigt, die Menschen haben sich arrangiert, die Wirtschaft würde weiter laufen auch mit Covid, Angst haben die Menschen nicht vor dem Virus, sondern vor dem Jobverlust und weiteren unvorhersehbaren und unkontrollierbaren Maßnahmen der Exekutive. In der Schweiz sind die Restaurants trotz steigender Todeszahlen im Dez 2020 immer noch gut besucht.
• Die Autoren fordern, dass die Herrschenden (world leaders) sich mehr auf das Wohlbefinden der Bewohner des Planeten konzentrieren müssen (S. 58) (als wenn das den herrschenden Klassen je wichtig gewesen wäre). Wichtig ist dabei Zugang zu Gesundheitsversorgung und ein sicheres soziales Netz (das in Deutschland als soziale Hängematte negativ geframed wurde) (S. 61). Wer nicht arbeitet, soll nicht essen, oder wie war das?
• Man prangert an, dass der Wohlstand der letzten Jahre nur an die oberen 1% ging und diejenigen, die diesen Wohlstand mit ihren Hände Arbeit erarbeitetet haben, leer ausgingen (S. 61). Wie man diese Umverteilung von Oben nach Unten bewerkstelligen will, darüber schweigt man sich aus, bzw. bemerkt lapidar, dass das erst nach massiven Aufständen passieren wird über den Umweg des Industriellen- Militärischen Komplexes.
• Man fordert reparierbare Produkte mit längeren Lebensdauern = degrowth. (S. 62).
• PPP (public private partnership) soll zum Wohle der Gesellschaft und nicht zum Profit gereichen (S. 92). Ja, genau deswegen gibt es ja dieses Konstrukt. Ne, schon klar.
• Den Autoren fällt auf, dass im Lockdown, ohne großartig Straßenverkehr, ohne Luftfahrt, ohne Kreuzfahrt, irgendwie nicht so wirklich viel CO2 eingespart wurde (S. 140). Da muss man wohl doch mal den wirklichen Verschmutzern an den Kragen, will man das Klimaziel erreichen und kann nicht nur an den kleinen Stellschrauben der Bevölkerung herumdoktern.
• Die Autoren träumen davon, dass die Menschen durch ihre Covid Erfahrungen zur Erleuchtung kommen und nun von alleine zum besten des Planeten arbeiten werden (S. 147). Sie hoffen auf erleuchtete Führer (S. 145), die nach der Krise nur ökologisch sinnvolle Stimuli setzen werden… Klar, deswegen geht die Kohle in Deutschland ja an die Lufthansa und die Autoindustrie… Erst das Fressen, dann die Moral. Träumt weiter liebe Autoren, wie blauäugig kann man sein? Hier wird noch immer Braunkohle subventioniert.
• S. 161 geht es um das ach so erfolgreiche digitale tracing… Hat in Israel ja so super funktioniert, dass sie drei massive Wellen hatten. Man gesteht aber, dass einmal aufgebaute Überwachungsmaßnahmen für die „Gesundheit“ später zur Überwachung der Produktivität bleiben könnten, weil es keinen Grund gibt, sie zu deaktivieren (S. 165).
• Die Autoren träumen davon, dass diese „Ruhephase“ die Menschen kreativer machen wird. Wie Shakespeare, der in solchen Lockdownphasen seine besten Stücke schrieb (S. 234). Der Schrieb aber auch schon davor super Stücke, die Pestquarantäne war dafür nicht notwendig. Und kreativ kann man in solchen Phasen nur werden, wenn man einen Gönner hat, finanziell abgesichert ist und den Kopf frei hat. Wenn man nicht weiß, wie man Essen auf den Tisch bekommt und seine Miete zahlt, hat man keinen Kopf für Kreativität. Genauso wie die Startups, die sich die Autoren erträumen, die nun in diesen Phasen eine Chance haben. Ja, klar, wer genau finanziert die, wenn die Bankenkrise dann mal da ist?!
=== Was fehlt in diesem Buch ===
Was wird mit den Millionen Arbeitslosen und verarmten Menschen (im dreistelligen Millionenbereich) in dieser schönen neuen Welt? All den Arbeitern, die man nun nicht mehr braucht, weder als Arbeiter noch als Konsumenten, weil sie ohnehin kein Geld haben? All den Menschen, die wegen der Maßnahmen in Afrika verhungern werden und an AIDS sterben werden, weil die entsprechenden Programme ausgesetzt wurden?!
Kein Augenmerkt auf die Drittweltländer und wie diese die wirtschaftliche Krise meistern sollen oder Länder wie Griechenland! Keine Ideen, wie man dort investieren könnte, um die Umweltzerstörung in diesen Ländern aufzuhalten.
Sehr westzentrierter Blickwinkel aber eine blauäugige Bitte doch das Fenster der Gelegenheit zu nutzen, diesen Neustart für eine faire, weniger geteilte, weniger verschmutzende, inklusivere Welt zu nutzen. Aber keinen Plan, wie das passieren soll.
=== Fazit ===
Man beschreibt durchaus recht weitgefächert die entstehenden Kollateralschäden und tut die leidende Unterschicht mit einem Achselzucken ab.
Man beschreibt eine Vision einer utopischeren, faireren, gleicheren Welt, die man nun schaffen kann, ohne praktische Hinweise, wie das funktionieren soll, außer, dass man halt kooperieren muss.
Man beschreibt, dass dieses Virus eigentlich recht harmlos ist und im Gegensatz zur Spanischen Grippe, die 2,7% oder AIDS (0,6%) nur 0,006% der Bevölkerung getötet hat (S. 247) und dass die Maßnahmen aus dem Blickwinkel total überzogen sind (was man natürlich nicht sagt). Man verschweigt auch, dass man die Dashboards beim letzten Davos Treffen scharf geschaltet hat und seine Finger am Reset Knopf hatte.
Die Utopien lesen sich eigentlich nett, man stimmt beim Lesen zu, ja so sollte es danach weiter gehen. Fängt man aber an, die Informationen, die in diesem Buch teils auf verschieden Kapitel fragmentiert sind, zusammenzusetzen, kommt einem für die nächsten Jahrzehnte das Gruseln.
I'm opting for a shorter approach as I don't think anyone is well served by reading me arguing innumerable points that I have problems with.
First off, I have to say that this book is notable in that the breadth of the subject matter is quite impressive and it often exhibits some internal consistency (but not always: for example, why are lockdowns good for slowing viral spread but closing borders bad?). In fact, it almost seems unbelievable that such a complex work could be constructed within six months of the emergence of the virus, and even less time from when the pandemic was declared, though that term features hugely in the text.
But if I was to provide an overall impression, it would be the one that is reflected in my title for this review: if everything lines up *just right* then it makes a kind of sense. But I find myself doubtful of so many of the arguments that are made for its positions that just too many things have to be lined up for it to hold water overall.
I got the Kindle version, and every time I sat down I promised myself that I was just going to read it and not take any notes. And every time, *every single time*, something that sounded outrageous would be claimed/stated that I wound up taking note after note, as if I was actually going to go back and write a detailed critique of the thing. It got on my nerves that much. By page 160 I'd written over 150 notes; that says a lot to me as to how to think about the claims made in this book.
Among the fundamental flaws here are the ways the authors try to analogise their subject matter, in particular in how they try to find see echoes of quantum effects with the interconnectedness of the world. There are many aspects of this that don't fit well and make it a poor analogue for basing argument. I would instead suggest the world is better informed by chaos science, where small changes in one place can produce large and unpredictable changes elsewhere. If this is a better model for the world than quantum science, then any given prediction of how to change some variable in the system has very low chance of producing an expected and desired outcome, and leaves one even less sure that large-scale changes won't have unintended consequences.
The book also hasn't aged very well in my opinion, in particular on some of the assumptions that it makes early on about what "good" looks like, or assumptions made regarding the origin of the virus. There's a lot of new information that calls into question things like the virus's origin, the efficacy of treatments, and the desirability of various responses. I recognise that hindsight has unique benefits, but in truth there were plenty of voices calling out of differing views on all of this early on, but they appeared to have been systematically silenced in the service of "the common good", although in retrospect many of these views have turned out to be spot on.
I'm aware of this book's position in the minds of folks who like to "connect the dots" as the blueprint for a new world order. I like data and evidence more, but at the same time I don't want to just sweep everything else away as merely coincidence. In a way, the book is guilty of a similar connect the dots mentality-- it isn't hard to think that the conclusion significantly predated the arguments, and the data was selected to fit the desired outcome, which would go a long way to explaining why I found so much objectionable. So it is worthy of consideration just to add to your overall picture of how the world could progress. But don't be surprised if you find yourself annoyed at a lot of what you read.
1) The free market is responsible for all evil, what we need is stronger governments, preferably such a 'democratic' one as in China. Consequently, the book is full with praise for the Chinese way of life. An assumption which cannot be made by reasonable people who want to live in a free and sustainable world in which the individuum's rights are protected, and not exposed to constant surveillance, which we have in Chinese communism today. Here are some quotes from the book:
"[The situation might provoke changes such as] an augmented search for the common good as a policy objective, the notion of fairness acquiring political potency, radical welfare and taxation measures, [...]" (p.18)
"the Confucianism prevalent in so many Asian countries places a sense of duty and generational solidarity before individual rights; it also puts high value on measures and rules that benefit the community as a whole." (p.88)
"The Covid-19 pandemic has made government important again. Not just powerful again, but also vital again[...]" (p.89, the author quoting John Micklethwait)
"Acute crises contribute to boosting the power of the state. It's always been the case and there is no reason why it should be different with the Covid-19 pandemic." (p.89)
"[...] the role of the state has shrunk considerably. This is a situation that is set to change because it is hard to imagine how an exogenous shock of such magnitute [...]could be addressed with purely market-based solutions." (p.91)
"On the dial that measures the continuum between the government and the markets, the needle has decisively moved towards the left." (p.92)
"For the first time [...] governments have the upper hand. [...] Rather than simply fixing market failures when they arise, they should, as suggested by the economist Mariana Mazzucato: 'move towards actively shaping and creating markets that deliver sustainable and inclusive growth.' " (p.92)
"A significant element of new "bigger" government is already in place with the vastly increased and quasi-immediate government control of the economy." (p.92)
"Looking to the future, governments will most likely [...] decide that it's in the best interest of society to rewrite some of the rules of the game and permanently increase their role." (p.93)
"the role of the state will increase and, in doing so, will materially affect the way business is conducted. [...] business executives in all industries and all countries will have to adapt to greater government intervention. [...] Taxation will increase, particularly for the most privileged" (p.94)
"While in the past the US was always the first to arrive with aid where assistance was needed, this role now belongs to China" (p. 123)
2) The author is also totally in love with the concept of mass surveillance. He writes:
"The containment of the coronavirus pandemic will necessitate a global surveillance network" (p.33)
"We will see how contact tracing has an unequalled capacity and a quasi.-essential place in the armoury needed to combat Covid-19, while at the same time being positioned to become an enabler of mass surveillance." (p.153)
"An important lesson can be learned from the countries that were more effective in dealing with the pandemic (in particular Asian nations): technology in general and digital in particular help. Successful contact tracing proved to be a key component of a successful strategy against Covid-19." (p.159)
"Contact tracing and tracking are therefore essential components of our public-health response to Covid-19" (p.160)
"China, Hong Kong SAR and South Korea implemented coercive and intrusive measures of digital tracing. They took the decision to track individuals without their consent, through their mobile and credit card data, and even employed video surveillance" (p.160)
"The digital tracing solution most lauded and talked about was the TraceTogether app run by Singapore's Ministry of Health. It seems to offer the "ideal" balance between efficiency and privacy concerns[...]" (p.160)
"No voluntary contact-tracing app will work if people are unwilling to provide their own personal data to the governmental agency that monitors the system" (p.164)
"[...]the corporate move will be towards greater surveillance; for better or for worse, companies will be watching and sometimes recording what their workforce does." (p.165)
"[...] any digital experience that we have can be turned into a "product" destined to monitor and anticipate our behaviour." (p.166f)
"Then, when the crisis is over, some may realize that their country has suddenly be transformed into a place where they no longer wish to live." (p.167)
Even after mentioning all the dangers of constant surveillance, the author concludes that "the genie of tech surveillance will not be put back into the bottle." (p.171)
He also really thinks that "Dystopian scenarios are not a fatality."(p.171)
How we can avoid this dystopia, he does not explain in the book. But that does not seem to be the aim of the book anyway - it is rather a praise of mass surveillance and privacy does not concern the author very much.
At the same time the author admits that "the consequences of Covid-19 in terms of health and mortality will be mild compared to previous pandemics. At the end of June 2020, Covid-19 has killed less than 0,006% of the world population." (p.247) And admitting that "the average age of those dying of Covid-19 is almost 80 years [in Italy]" (p.221) But that does not change his mind, he still propagates mass surveillance and the necessity of lockdowns.
4) While I understand that it is good to also see the advantages to this worldwide disaster, the author is using surprisingly positive language during his analysis of the situation:
"The possibilities for change and the resulting new order are now unlimited and only bound to our imagination" and "We should take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity to reimagine our world" (p.19)
Later he even uses phrases like "not letting the crisis go to waste" (p.145 or p.142f) and "making good use of the pandemic" (p.145). My personal impression is that the author is very happy about the coronavirus and its induced opportunities. He even says that this crisis is "accelerating progress towards the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals" (p.248f). He is certainly not concerned much about the whole situation.
5) Paradoxical are also the author's statements concerning unemployment, work and poverty. On one page he is praising the new jobs created by the crisis in the digital/online/robotic industry, but on other pages he also sees the danger of millions of people being put out of work. But his book does not sound like a warning, it sounds like an advertisement for the first group of industry which is profitting from the crisis. It sounds like this: "It is good that the ship is sinking, because we will create some jobs, when the shipwreck has to be lifted out of the water."
During the whole book the author keeps talking about "social safety nets" necessary to prevent uproars and riots, because of all the unemployment, which will be the result of the lockdowns. The idea sounds good, but who is going to pay the safety net when huge amounts of people rely on the state? The powerful state, propagated in this book needs massively high taxes anyway, which is putting even higher pressure on the working population. It does not look realistic to me. The book does not really give different answers to all the massive problems, except for "the state saving us". Which I personally find ridiculous, because the state never cares about individuals as we can clearly see in China.
6) The underlying message of the book is: We need a global governance to be better prepared for such situations. The virus, the C02 problem, climate change etc. could only be tackled with a global leadership. The idea sounds ridiculous to me - how would a world government have changed the spreading of a virus? By more surveillance and more lockdowns? How would it reduce C02 emission? By forbidding certain industries and putting 80% of the world's population into unemployment? How would this reduce climate change? By more laws and regulations? I think these are all just excuses to install a world leadership and many people can see that by now.
7) While writing about how the virus and the lockdown messed up the "whole world", he completely forgot to mention countries which did not have a lockdown at all. Many of his thesises can be debunked by simply looking at Sweden. This country has successfully avoided destroying its own economy while having no lockdown, no masks, no social distancing etc. at all. No need for surveillance, technology etc. It is no surprise that the author does not mention this country a single time in the whole book. On page 45 he is talking about two studies that "modelled what could have happened without lockdown", instead of simply looking at the real example of Sweden, I guess it did not fit the narrative.
8) The author often talks about "clean energy" (e.g. p.145) and he is obviously condemning fossile fuels, while wishing for a future full with (electric) sensors and "remoted devices", surveillance cameras etc. which all need energy. He nowhere explains where this energy should come from. Solar and wind power are long debunked. They are inefficient and not stable sources of energy. Nuclear and coal most propably are not appreciated by the author either, so what is left? (Maybe the author knows something, we do not know). I also like to remind the fans of electric devices how batteries are made, with huge environmental damage. Here is one more quote about the author's idea of energy supply: "A group of green activists could demonstrate in front of a coal-fired power plant" (p.149)
9) The author is so entangled in his vision of the future, economics, numbers and science, that he makes a lot of unreasonable assumptions in this book. Especially when it comes to human, social behaviour. Here are some of them, which are particularly entertaining:
"As consumers may prefer automated services to face-to-face interactions [...]" (p.55)
"changing course will require a shift in the mindset of world leaders to place greater focus and priority on the well-being of all citizens and the planet" (p.58)
"The idea [of helicopter money] is appealing and realizable" (p.68)
"[Central bankers] will have to define an upper limit at which inflation becomes disruptive and a real concern." (p.69)
"The post-pandemic era will usher in a period of massive wealth redistribution, from the rich to the poor [!!] and from capital to labour." (p.78)
"In America as in many other countries, African Americans are poorer, more likely to be unemployed or underemployed and victims of substandard housing and living conditions. As a result they suffer more from pre-existing health conditions like obesity, heart disease or diabetes" (p.80f) (Obesity, heart disease and diabetes are mostly caused by overeating, bad diets, or unhealthy livestyle and not by social inequality.)
"the three things that matter most to a great majority of us: housing, healthcare and education" (p.96)
How about family, friends, peace or a good job?
"calls for more spending (and therefore higher taxes) will get louder" (p.99)
"An increasing number of scientists have shown that it is in fact the destruction of biodiversity caused by humans that is the source of new viruses like Covid-19" (p.138) (of course it has nothing to do with the Wuhan lab...)
"bicycling and walking instead of driving to keep the air of our cities as clean as it was during the lockdowns, vacationing nearer to home[...]could lead to a sustained reduction in carbon emissions." (p.142) (I can already imagine the author on a bicycle... Well, I guess it is only the solution for the poor masses which cannot afford a car any longer due to taxes and green unemployment?! It is also ironic that the author mentions somewhere else in the book that most carbon emission comes from the industry and other sources anyway, not from cars or home applications - as long as you do not have a smart house full of sensors, I guess...)
"[Mobile devices] helping us on many different fronts, anticipating our needs, listening to us and locating us, even when not asked to do so..." (p.152) (Sounds like a great "help" to me...)
" [Instead of] driving to a distant family gathering for the weekend" using "the WhatsApp family group" which "is not as fun but, again, safer, cheaper and greener" (p.155)
"[Robots] saving nurses as much as three hours' work per day." (p.159) (Which leads to more unemployed nurses)
"just as the terrorist attacks of 9/11 triggered greater and permanent security in the name of public safety." (p.168) (So that's what it was good for, thanks for letting us know.)
"This won't happen, because it can't happen." (p.173) (Author talking about industry leaders which might want to go back to the old way of making business.)
"It is likely that the markets or the consumers, or both, will punish those companies that performed poorly on social issues (p.188) (Good example is the big website on which I publish this review)
"Simple pleasures like smelling a melon or squeezing a fruit will be frowned upon and may even become a thing of the past." (p.198) (For the sake of hygiene...)
10) The author's ideological understanding of human beings is also very interesting:
"if, as human beings, we do not collaborate to confront our existential challenges, we are doomed. Thus, we have no choice but to summon up the better angels of our nature." (p.217) On other occasions the author is talking about man as "a social animal" showing a Darwinian mindset, but here it sounds quite religious. A typical contradiction of utopian thought. He further speculates: "if in the future we abandon the posture of self-interest that pollutes so many of our social interactions, [...]" (p.224) This has not happened for the last thousands of years and no ideology will change this. I therefore highly question the author's knowledge about the character of human beings and ask him to be more realistic, please.
11) After elaborating on the devastating psychological effects of isolation and fear, because of the lockdown, incl. high suicide rates, depressions, mental disorders etc. , he still dares to see something positive in that:
"What the pandemic has achieved with respect to mental health [...] heightened public awareness of the severity of the problem. [...] In the post-pandemic area, these issues may now be given the priority they deserve." (p.231)
What a great comfort for all the mentally sick people. Especially, when the unemployment rate is going to be so high, that most people will not be able to afford getting professional help. (But I guess the state is going to finance that with helicopter money, because money solves all problems...) Maybe there will be a "kind" robot "listening" to their problems?
But the author gives us even more reasons to "cheer up":
He writes that in times of high pressure and need a lot of good world literature has been written, because such times are so "inspiring". (No joke, see p.234f)
Afterwards he reminds us of the good effect of having more time now, since many of us are unemployed or in home office (p.236f) and how some of us might learn to appreciate being in nature again. (For those who forgot about the forests out there - they still exist.)
Then he is advertising a minimalistic livestyle (Marie Kondo style), which most probably soon will not be the free choice of some people, but an obligatory adjustment to poverty.
But it is also possible that I am all wrong in my criticism and instead of living in a "dark future of techno-totalitarian state surveillance" (p.170) we are all going to enter "a new era of prosperity" (p.249)
12) Problems with the printing itself. The font has bad quality (you can easily see the resolution of the letters, which makes it harder to read the book). On page 24 there is a graphic which is supposed to be in colour, because the text says that certain elements are represented by red, green, purple and so on, yet the graphic is black and white, rendering its description quite useless. Another graphic on page 199 is hard to read, too, because of bad printing resolution. This does not look very professional.
PS: I would still encourage you to buy this book. It will be a valuable witness of contemporary, utopian madness.
Reviewed in Germany on August 31, 2020
1) The free market is responsible for all evil, what we need is stronger governments, preferably such a 'democratic' one as in China. Consequently, the book is full with praise for the Chinese way of life. An assumption which cannot be made by reasonable people who want to live in a free and sustainable world in which the individuum's rights are protected, and not exposed to constant surveillance, which we have in Chinese communism today. Here are some quotes from the book:
"[The situation might provoke changes such as] an augmented search for the common good as a policy objective, the notion of fairness acquiring political potency, radical welfare and taxation measures, [...]" (p.18)
"the Confucianism prevalent in so many Asian countries places a sense of duty and generational solidarity before individual rights; it also puts high value on measures and rules that benefit the community as a whole." (p.88)
"The Covid-19 pandemic has made government important again. Not just powerful again, but also vital again[...]" (p.89, the author quoting John Micklethwait)
"Acute crises contribute to boosting the power of the state. It's always been the case and there is no reason why it should be different with the Covid-19 pandemic." (p.89)
"[...] the role of the state has shrunk considerably. This is a situation that is set to change because it is hard to imagine how an exogenous shock of such magnitute [...]could be addressed with purely market-based solutions." (p.91)
"On the dial that measures the continuum between the government and the markets, the needle has decisively moved towards the left." (p.92)
"For the first time [...] governments have the upper hand. [...] Rather than simply fixing market failures when they arise, they should, as suggested by the economist Mariana Mazzucato: 'move towards actively shaping and creating markets that deliver sustainable and inclusive growth.' " (p.92)
"A significant element of new "bigger" government is already in place with the vastly increased and quasi-immediate government control of the economy." (p.92)
"Looking to the future, governments will most likely [...] decide that it's in the best interest of society to rewrite some of the rules of the game and permanently increase their role." (p.93)
"the role of the state will increase and, in doing so, will materially affect the way business is conducted. [...] business executives in all industries and all countries will have to adapt to greater government intervention. [...] Taxation will increase, particularly for the most privileged" (p.94)
"While in the past the US was always the first to arrive with aid where assistance was needed, this role now belongs to China" (p. 123)
2) The author is also totally in love with the concept of mass surveillance. He writes:
"The containment of the coronavirus pandemic will necessitate a global surveillance network" (p.33)
"We will see how contact tracing has an unequalled capacity and a quasi.-essential place in the armoury needed to combat Covid-19, while at the same time being positioned to become an enabler of mass surveillance." (p.153)
"An important lesson can be learned from the countries that were more effective in dealing with the pandemic (in particular Asian nations): technology in general and digital in particular help. Successful contact tracing proved to be a key component of a successful strategy against Covid-19." (p.159)
"Contact tracing and tracking are therefore essential components of our public-health response to Covid-19" (p.160)
"China, Hong Kong SAR and South Korea implemented coercive and intrusive measures of digital tracing. They took the decision to track individuals without their consent, through their mobile and credit card data, and even employed video surveillance" (p.160)
"The digital tracing solution most lauded and talked about was the TraceTogether app run by Singapore's Ministry of Health. It seems to offer the "ideal" balance between efficiency and privacy concerns[...]" (p.160)
"No voluntary contact-tracing app will work if people are unwilling to provide their own personal data to the governmental agency that monitors the system" (p.164)
"[...]the corporate move will be towards greater surveillance; for better or for worse, companies will be watching and sometimes recording what their workforce does." (p.165)
"[...] any digital experience that we have can be turned into a "product" destined to monitor and anticipate our behaviour." (p.166f)
"Then, when the crisis is over, some may realize that their country has suddenly be transformed into a place where they no longer wish to live." (p.167)
Even after mentioning all the dangers of constant surveillance, the author concludes that "the genie of tech surveillance will not be put back into the bottle." (p.171)
He also really thinks that "Dystopian scenarios are not a fatality."(p.171)
How we can avoid this dystopia, he does not explain in the book. But that does not seem to be the aim of the book anyway - it is rather a praise of mass surveillance and privacy does not concern the author very much.
At the same time the author admits that "the consequences of Covid-19 in terms of health and mortality will be mild compared to previous pandemics. At the end of June 2020, Covid-19 has killed less than 0,006% of the world population." (p.247) And admitting that "the average age of those dying of Covid-19 is almost 80 years [in Italy]" (p.221) But that does not change his mind, he still propagates mass surveillance and the necessity of lockdowns.
4) While I understand that it is good to also see the advantages to this worldwide disaster, the author is using surprisingly positive language during his analysis of the situation:
"The possibilities for change and the resulting new order are now unlimited and only bound to our imagination" and "We should take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity to reimagine our world" (p.19)
Later he even uses phrases like "not letting the crisis go to waste" (p.145 or p.142f) and "making good use of the pandemic" (p.145). My personal impression is that the author is very happy about the coronavirus and its induced opportunities. He even says that this crisis is "accelerating progress towards the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals" (p.248f). He is certainly not concerned much about the whole situation.
5) Paradoxical are also the author's statements concerning unemployment, work and poverty. On one page he is praising the new jobs created by the crisis in the digital/online/robotic industry, but on other pages he also sees the danger of millions of people being put out of work. But his book does not sound like a warning, it sounds like an advertisement for the first group of industry which is profitting from the crisis. It sounds like this: "It is good that the ship is sinking, because we will create some jobs, when the shipwreck has to be lifted out of the water."
During the whole book the author keeps talking about "social safety nets" necessary to prevent uproars and riots, because of all the unemployment, which will be the result of the lockdowns. The idea sounds good, but who is going to pay the safety net when huge amounts of people rely on the state? The powerful state, propagated in this book needs massively high taxes anyway, which is putting even higher pressure on the working population. It does not look realistic to me. The book does not really give different answers to all the massive problems, except for "the state saving us". Which I personally find ridiculous, because the state never cares about individuals as we can clearly see in China.
6) The underlying message of the book is: We need a global governance to be better prepared for such situations. The virus, the C02 problem, climate change etc. could only be tackled with a global leadership. The idea sounds ridiculous to me - how would a world government have changed the spreading of a virus? By more surveillance and more lockdowns? How would it reduce C02 emission? By forbidding certain industries and putting 80% of the world's population into unemployment? How would this reduce climate change? By more laws and regulations? I think these are all just excuses to install a world leadership and many people can see that by now.
7) While writing about how the virus and the lockdown messed up the "whole world", he completely forgot to mention countries which did not have a lockdown at all. Many of his thesises can be debunked by simply looking at Sweden. This country has successfully avoided destroying its own economy while having no lockdown, no masks, no social distancing etc. at all. No need for surveillance, technology etc. It is no surprise that the author does not mention this country a single time in the whole book. On page 45 he is talking about two studies that "modelled what could have happened without lockdown", instead of simply looking at the real example of Sweden, I guess it did not fit the narrative.
8) The author often talks about "clean energy" (e.g. p.145) and he is obviously condemning fossile fuels, while wishing for a future full with (electric) sensors and "remoted devices", surveillance cameras etc. which all need energy. He nowhere explains where this energy should come from. Solar and wind power are long debunked. They are inefficient and not stable sources of energy. Nuclear and coal most propably are not appreciated by the author either, so what is left? (Maybe the author knows something, we do not know). I also like to remind the fans of electric devices how batteries are made, with huge environmental damage. Here is one more quote about the author's idea of energy supply: "A group of green activists could demonstrate in front of a coal-fired power plant" (p.149)
9) The author is so entangled in his vision of the future, economics, numbers and science, that he makes a lot of unreasonable assumptions in this book. Especially when it comes to human, social behaviour. Here are some of them, which are particularly entertaining:
"As consumers may prefer automated services to face-to-face interactions [...]" (p.55)
"changing course will require a shift in the mindset of world leaders to place greater focus and priority on the well-being of all citizens and the planet" (p.58)
"The idea [of helicopter money] is appealing and realizable" (p.68)
"[Central bankers] will have to define an upper limit at which inflation becomes disruptive and a real concern." (p.69)
"The post-pandemic era will usher in a period of massive wealth redistribution, from the rich to the poor [!!] and from capital to labour." (p.78)
"In America as in many other countries, African Americans are poorer, more likely to be unemployed or underemployed and victims of substandard housing and living conditions. As a result they suffer more from pre-existing health conditions like obesity, heart disease or diabetes" (p.80f) (Obesity, heart disease and diabetes are mostly caused by overeating, bad diets, or unhealthy livestyle and not by social inequality.)
"the three things that matter most to a great majority of us: housing, healthcare and education" (p.96)
How about family, friends, peace or a good job?
"calls for more spending (and therefore higher taxes) will get louder" (p.99)
"An increasing number of scientists have shown that it is in fact the destruction of biodiversity caused by humans that is the source of new viruses like Covid-19" (p.138) (of course it has nothing to do with the Wuhan lab...)
"bicycling and walking instead of driving to keep the air of our cities as clean as it was during the lockdowns, vacationing nearer to home[...]could lead to a sustained reduction in carbon emissions." (p.142) (I can already imagine the author on a bicycle... Well, I guess it is only the solution for the poor masses which cannot afford a car any longer due to taxes and green unemployment?! It is also ironic that the author mentions somewhere else in the book that most carbon emission comes from the industry and other sources anyway, not from cars or home applications - as long as you do not have a smart house full of sensors, I guess...)
"[Mobile devices] helping us on many different fronts, anticipating our needs, listening to us and locating us, even when not asked to do so..." (p.152) (Sounds like a great "help" to me...)
" [Instead of] driving to a distant family gathering for the weekend" using "the WhatsApp family group" which "is not as fun but, again, safer, cheaper and greener" (p.155)
"[Robots] saving nurses as much as three hours' work per day." (p.159) (Which leads to more unemployed nurses)
"just as the terrorist attacks of 9/11 triggered greater and permanent security in the name of public safety." (p.168) (So that's what it was good for, thanks for letting us know.)
"This won't happen, because it can't happen." (p.173) (Author talking about industry leaders which might want to go back to the old way of making business.)
"It is likely that the markets or the consumers, or both, will punish those companies that performed poorly on social issues (p.188) (Good example is the big website on which I publish this review)
"Simple pleasures like smelling a melon or squeezing a fruit will be frowned upon and may even become a thing of the past." (p.198) (For the sake of hygiene...)
10) The author's ideological understanding of human beings is also very interesting:
"if, as human beings, we do not collaborate to confront our existential challenges, we are doomed. Thus, we have no choice but to summon up the better angels of our nature." (p.217) On other occasions the author is talking about man as "a social animal" showing a Darwinian mindset, but here it sounds quite religious. A typical contradiction of utopian thought. He further speculates: "if in the future we abandon the posture of self-interest that pollutes so many of our social interactions, [...]" (p.224) This has not happened for the last thousands of years and no ideology will change this. I therefore highly question the author's knowledge about the character of human beings and ask him to be more realistic, please.
11) After elaborating on the devastating psychological effects of isolation and fear, because of the lockdown, incl. high suicide rates, depressions, mental disorders etc. , he still dares to see something positive in that:
"What the pandemic has achieved with respect to mental health [...] heightened public awareness of the severity of the problem. [...] In the post-pandemic area, these issues may now be given the priority they deserve." (p.231)
What a great comfort for all the mentally sick people. Especially, when the unemployment rate is going to be so high, that most people will not be able to afford getting professional help. (But I guess the state is going to finance that with helicopter money, because money solves all problems...) Maybe there will be a "kind" robot "listening" to their problems?
But the author gives us even more reasons to "cheer up":
He writes that in times of high pressure and need a lot of good world literature has been written, because such times are so "inspiring". (No joke, see p.234f)
Afterwards he reminds us of the good effect of having more time now, since many of us are unemployed or in home office (p.236f) and how some of us might learn to appreciate being in nature again. (For those who forgot about the forests out there - they still exist.)
Then he is advertising a minimalistic livestyle (Marie Kondo style), which most probably soon will not be the free choice of some people, but an obligatory adjustment to poverty.
But it is also possible that I am all wrong in my criticism and instead of living in a "dark future of techno-totalitarian state surveillance" (p.170) we are all going to enter "a new era of prosperity" (p.249)
12) Problems with the printing itself. The font has bad quality (you can easily see the resolution of the letters, which makes it harder to read the book). On page 24 there is a graphic which is supposed to be in colour, because the text says that certain elements are represented by red, green, purple and so on, yet the graphic is black and white, rendering its description quite useless. Another graphic on page 199 is hard to read, too, because of bad printing resolution. This does not look very professional.
PS: I would still encourage you to buy this book. It will be a valuable witness of contemporary, utopian madness.





















