This is a book that sets out to save the world. It asks that I reject my human-chauvinist brainwashing. What does it mean to give such a book 3 stars--to say "It was good." Is it like damning with faint praise?

If the book was an adventure, let me admit I had one. It was a brief vacation from my normal human ways to which I have now sort of returned. It's not that I reject the book's argument. I found it amusing (more faint praise) despite the didactic nature of its presentation.

And, yes, something must be done to fix things, and soon. But a political movement that refuses to try and treat diseases because death is part of the nature of things seems impractical to me. I can't see it catching on. And if it doesn't catch on, the world won't be saved in this way.

Maybe it's the only way and we're doomed. Maybe doom is part of the nature of things. Maybe I just want to go on adventures while Rome burns.

Psychologically, I believe the real problem lies elsewhere. It's a religious problem--not Cain vs. Able--but one of expanded consciousness, whatever that means. There, I've said it. It's not that the "takers" were wrong and the "leavers" were right. That's like siding with the Masochists over the Sadists, though Daniel Quinn would say I'm not getting it. And I do side with the Masochists.

I don't think that humans are just animals with a deformed brain. There's a Vonnegut novel that starts from that premise. I liked that novel better even though I disagree with the conceit. Vonnegut probably did too and was just being satirical. I prefer the satirical to the didactic and if that dooms me, I'll live with it. Or die with it.