My Book Harvest — February 2024

14 min readMar 13, 2024

Sci-fi exploration continues. Plus, some non-fiction.

My monthly book harvest is a series of articles I started in 2024. In these articles, I share the books I read and my impressions. Here is the link to the previous article in the series:

My Book Harvest — January 2024

In February 2024, I read eleven books. I continued my exploration of the sci-fi genre with the books of Cixin Liu, Isaac Asimov, and Arthur C. Clarke. I also read four non-fiction books by Simon Sinek and a book by Bjorn Lomborg that I picked up after Jordan Peterson referenced it in an interview. Without further ado, here we go:

Cixin Liu, The Dark Forest (2008) and The Death’s End (2010)

These are books 2 and 3 of the Three-Body Problem series (also called Remembrance of Earth’s Past trilogy). What can I say? Bravo. Let me start with The Dark Forest. I loved it. It has all the elements of excellent sci-fi, but most importantly (for me at least), it has a fascinating concept of the Dark Forest, which is a unique and compelling solution to the Fermi Paradox (a contradiction between the high probability of extraterrestrial civilizations existing in the universe and the lack of evidence for such civilizations). The Universe has two trillion galaxies, each including 100 billion stars like our Sun. The Universe has existed for 13.8 billion years. Also, since our civilization is just a blip on this timescale, there has been plenty of time for more advanced civilizations to evolve. Where are they? Well, the Dark Forest gives a brilliant answer to this question. I don’t want to spoil it — it is simple yet mindblowing. I thought book 2 — the Dark Forest was excellent, just as book 1 was.

The Death’s End is a solid continuation, but I’ll be honest: it did not impress as much as the first two books. The pacing was uneven, and it felt like the author tried to cram too many sci-fi concepts into one story, particularly at the end bit of it. Perhaps he should have done four books instead of three. I don’t know. Another thing is that I found it difficult to root for the main character, Cheng Xin. Unlike Luo Ji in the second book, she did not have a compelling arc and did not go through a growth process as a character, I felt. I won’t spoil it further. If you read the first two books, I am sure you will also read the third one. :)

I loved the series, perhaps because I am old-school regarding sci-fi. I am mainly interested in the concepts and ideas. That the characters in these books are somewhat flat is not a problem for me. The series delivers when it comes to ideas. The books deeply explore scientific, philosophical, and sociological themes, including first contact with an alien civilization and various technological and cosmological topics. The scope and imagination are very audacious. However, a very interesting bit is the exploration of human psychology and ethics themes in the context of an existential threat to humanity.

The Three-Body Problem book series has inspired a Netflix show (coming out on March 21). For some reason, I have very low expectations, so I rushed to read the books. I have just discovered that there is also a Chinese show with 30 episodes, which, for some reason, I feel will be closer to the source material. I will make sure to check it out.

To conclude, this is a remarkable contribution to the sci-fi genre. If you are into hard sci-fi, I would definitely recommend reading the first book. After that, it's up to you, but I bet you won’t be able to resist. :)

Isaac Asimov, Foundation (1951), Foundation and Empire (1952), Second Foundation (1953)

Monumental, innovative, epic—what can I say? The Foundation trilogy is a must-read if you love sci-fi. The scale is mindblowing, and the range of ideas and concepts explored is wide—science, politics, psychology—simply outstanding. The Foundation trilogy inspired the Dune series (written as a counterpoint to the Foundation), Star Wars, and the Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Star Wars, in particular, has taken quite a bit. The concept of the Force in Star Wars seems inspired by the Mule and the Second Foundationers, whose powers Asimov described as “force” or “mental force.”

The series is set in a distant future where humanity has spread across the galaxy, living under the rule of the Galactic Empire. Asimov introduces the concept of psychohistory, a sort of mathematical sociology that studies large populations to predict their future behaviors. Hari Seldon, the scientist at the core of the story, predicts the fall of the Galactic Empire and, to avoid centuries-long Dark Ages, seeks to establish the Foundation, a colony of scientists and scholars tasked with preserving knowledge and the relatively speedy recovery of the galactic civilization. Asimov crafts a narrative that examines the cyclical nature of civilization, the inevitability of change, and the idea that the careful application of intellect and ethics can steer humanity toward a brighter future. The events in the Foundation trilogy span centuries, include multiple interesting storylines and characters and raise thought-provoking questions about power, progress, and the responsibility of knowledge.

What I find most fascinating about the Foundation series is that Asimov manages to create memorable characters in a story where the big idea is the inevitability of the future as determined by psychohistory. His main point may be that the behavior of large enough samples of the population is predictable and cannot be significantly altered by the actions of the individuals. Yet, the characters of Hari Seldon, Gaal Dornik, Salvor Hardin, Hober Mallow, and the Mule are central to the story, and their actions are important in keeping the grand Seldon plan on track. Salvor Hardin has some of the best quotes: “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” Or “Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right.” That said, in these three books, Asimov does not spend much time on character development. The scope of the story is just too large.

The narrative structure is not everyone’s cup of tea. It is episodic because Asimov initially wrote it as a series of stories, and the pace is different from one story to another. As the stories jump across time and space, it can be disorienting. One thing I found lacking was the exploration of the cultural diversity in the galactic civilization (creativity could go in so many directions), but then again, Asimov’s books were written in the 1950s and thus reflect their time.

In brief, it's amazing. I thoroughly recommend these three books in the Foundation series. The Foundation saga has seven books. Two books, Foundation’s Edge (1982) and Foundation and Earth (1986), are sequels. Asimov then wrote two more books, Prelude to Foundation (1988) and Forward the Foundation (1993), prequels to the main trilogy.

Now. I am compelled to say a few things about the TV show adaptation by Skydance Television for Apple TV. I watched both seasons before reading the books and enjoyed the show. The visuals are stunning, the acting is solid, and the music is good. BUT. After reading the books, my view of the show changed. I realized the show took a lot of liberties. A LOT. The show uses the books as a foundation (pun intended) but crafts a story that differs significantly. It is not a bad show. But it is not an adaptation, I’m afraid. I could write a whole separate article just on this, and here are some quick thoughts:

The show's main problem is that it tries to make the characters central to the story. The insistence that Salvo Hardin is a chosen one, that Gaal Dornik is the key, that Hari Seldon is essential, and so on goes against the main theme of the Foundation books. Asimov’s main point was that the general flow of future events involving the galactic scale of the population cannot be significantly altered by individuals.
Hari Seldon — the show turns him into a recurrent character; in my view, it does not really work.
The Empire—the emperors in the show are a genetic dynasty—is new in the show. The concept of cloning the same emperor repeatedly does not exist in the books. I think the cloning idea is not a bad idea. It helps emphasize how the empire is in decay.
Action scenes involving the Anakreonians, the Empire’s fleet, and so on — the show tries to turn the story into a sci-fi action. The books read more like detective stories, and at the end of each part, there is the grand reveal. The twists are smart; Asimov does not bash the audience on the head with it, which, unfortunately, the show does.
In the books, technology serves the plot. In the show, we are force-fed a wide variety of tools and devices. Too much, too often.

I get it. It is a TV show. The production went for an action-packed, visually impressive, character-centered version of the story. There is nothing wrong with that. It is just not the Asimov story.

Arthur C. Clarke, The Childhood’s End (1953)

In my view, this is Clarke’s best work—better than A Space Odyssey. It is not very long, at around 250 pages, but it introduces many interesting concepts and poses philosophical questions. Focused on the theme of the alien visit to Earth, it explores themes like a benevolent dictatorship, evolution, fate versus free will, utopia and its consequences, and so on.

Under the stewardship of the alien Overlords, humanity enjoys unprecedented peace, unity, and advancement. However, it comes at a cost. Human creativity and ambition wither, leading to a stagnation in culture and a deep sense of lack of fulfillment among humans. Essentially, the story goes on to ask the question of what it means to be human and what might lie beyond our current understanding of humanity.

My favorite part was the reveal of the Overlords' appearance. I was blown away. This is genius, I thought—pure genius. After all, the best sci-fi is when imaginative concepts are weaved into a realistic narrative. It should make us exclaim—Of course! It makes sense! However unusual and fantastic the story is, this is how sci-fi is supposed to be: thought-provoking, rich imagination, and highly recommended.

Simon Sinek, Start with Why (2009) and Find Your Why (2017)

Now, we move to non-fiction. Simon Sinek is an author and speaker on business leadership. Before reading his books, I had seen some of his talks and interviews on YouTube, and he is a dynamic and compelling speaker. Sinek is good at formulating straightforward ideas for broad audiences. Unfortunately, his books left a different impression.

In my opinion, Start with Why is Sinek’s best book. In it, the author argues that the most successful businesses and the most influential leaders are clear about their Why. They know why they do what they do and what inspires and drives them. They are also able to communicate this clearly and convincingly. Sinek introduces the concept of a Golden Circle with the Why at the center, followed by the How, then the What. Sinek explains that the Why has to come before the How (the process) and the What (the product). He also dissects some unsuccessful examples where the companies or leaders focus exclusively on their product and/or the process and how ignoring the Why leads to catastrophic results. By clarifying and focusing on why they do what they do, the companies can inspire their team members, attract loyal customers and employees, create a loyal following, and differentiate themselves meaningfully.

So far, so good. The concept makes sense. I know it through personal experience — I am in my forties, and it is hard to perform at the highest level and make an impact without being clear about my Why. That said, while I don’t disagree with the concept, my main criticism of this book was that it lacked the how-to. The book convincingly explains the importance of knowing your Why, but it falls short when recommending actionable steps to find or implement it. It was also a tad repetitive — the core idea is repeated repeatedly with multiple examples. It did not need a book. An article would suffice. But this is the problem a lot of non-fiction books suffer from. Still, overall, a good read.

Find Your Why is meant as a follow-up on Start with Why and answer the criticism above. It is a step-by-step guide for identifying your personal and organizational why. It is designed to help individuals and teams discover their purpose, which can then serve as a foundation for greater motivation, cohesion, and success. The book is practical and action-oriented, offering tools and exercises to help readers articulate their purpose.

It is not very long, but again, double the needed volume. The process outlined seems better suited for teams and businesses than individuals.

My main criticism concerns Sinek’s position that finding your why is something you should be able to do in your late teens and that once you formulate it, it stays more or less the same. This goes against everything I have seen in my personal and professional experience and my managerial experience. It also seems to go against the research on human purpose. There does not appear to be one true purpose. Your purpose evolves and changes, and so does your identity over the course of your life. On this issue, I recommend you read David Epstein’s Range (my takeaways here). But if you are struggling with figuring out what to focus on in your life, what your vocation or profession should be, and why, do explore these two books by Simon Sinek.

Simon Sinek, Leaders Eat Last (2014)

I will be frank — this one did not impress. Sinek describes this book as “the ultimate guide to building a strong and inspiring team and creating a supportive work environment where everyone can thrive.” I disagree. The title suggests that the focus will be on the leader’s sacrifice and that the leaders should be committed to putting the needs of their teams before their own. After reading the book, at best, it felt like the author had a bunch of concepts and tried to merge them into a book but failed to give it coherence. It had parts I thought were interesting and useful (for example, the concept of — leading the people, not the numbers) and parts I wished I had skipped.

Sinek oversimplifies complex organizational and psychological concepts. Some of his points are idealistic and tough to achieve in practice in different contexts. Leadership is not always as clear-cut as he makes it out to be. Overall, this book suffers from what I am going to call Malcolm Gladwell syndrome — which is when an author (typically after writing one good book) tries to cook another success and make a convincing narrative based on what seems to be randomly picked or misunderstood examples.

This one is not recommended. If you want to read something good on leadership, at least go with Sinek’s Start with Why. Better yet, read some quality biographies.

Simon Sinek, Infinite Game (2018)

This is Sinek’s most recent book. I will rate it higher than Leaders Eat Last but lower than Start with Why. Its central concept is clear — there are two types of “games” — finite and infinite. Finite games, like sports, have known players, fixed rules, and a clear endpoint. Infinite games, such as business or politics, have players who come and go, rules that change, and no defined endpoint. Sinek argues that many leaders approach business as a finite game, focusing on short-term gains rather than the long-term. He suggests that adopting an infinite mindset — focusing on a just cause, building trusting teams, studying worthy rivals, preparing for existential flexibility, and demonstrating the courage to lead — can help leaders build stronger, more innovative, and more inspiring organizations.

Decent overall concept. But again, just as with Start with Why, applying these principles to business and leadership could use clearer guidance. How should one adopt an infinite mindset practically? Sinek is an idealist, which I don’t mind, but the book keeps ignoring practical challenges and pressures businesses face, especially in highly competitive markets. There is not always time and space to comfortably build teams at your own pace — sometimes, you must demonstrate results quickly. Sometimes, there are no worthy rivals, only unworthy ones. Sometimes, your just cause does not generate interest or funding.

Again, oversimplification. Again, the Gladwell syndrome—a few attention-grabbing, emotionally charged stories followed by an attempt to formulate a rule or a principle. Motivational? Sure. Effective? Sometimes yes, sometimes maybe no.

Not recommended. Read the first chapter and scan the book for the main message and key concepts.

Bjorn Lomborg, How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place (2014)

This is an interesting read. The author presents the results of a project by the Copenhagen Consensus Center, an organization Lomborg founded. The book's premise is to prioritize global spending on various problems based on their cost-effectiveness and potential impact, aiming to use a relatively modest sum (in global terms) to achieve significant improvements in global welfare. The attempt to put a price tag on everything, while perhaps controversial in some aspects, is employed as a practical way of deciding what should come first. Global challenges are assessed, including diseases, malnutrition, climate change, and education. Then, interventions are ranked according to their potential per dollar spent. Conclusions are that the key areas to be prioritized are nutritional supplements, disease prevention through vaccination and improved healthcare infrastructure, education initiatives, focusing on increasing access and quality in developing countries, and family planning.

Inevitably, the methodology and the conclusions are challenged by critics. It is hard to shrug off the sense that this project does a lot of oversimplification. Another big topic of criticism is Lomborg’s conclusions on climate change — he is not quite a climate change denier, but he does not believe a dramatic and urgent action should be at the top of humanity’s agenda. As someone who has worked in the humanitarian field for 25 years, my concern was on how some of the proposals would be implemented in practice — feasibility is problematic. Money can be found. But political and logistical challenges would be immense. Finally, the book does not mention HOW TO GET PEOPLE TO EXERCISE, SLEEP, AND EAT healthily. Free gyms and more parks?

Despite the criticisms, it is a thought-provoking read. It can be quite an eye-opener for readers who are not usually dealing with humanitarian crises, conflicts, and refugees. I like books like this that can spark a debate on how to allocate limited resources to address current issues. They can challenge readers and policymakers to think critically about prioritization.

One distinct sense from reading the book is how everything is interconnected. I believe it is important to understand that. Interventions in healthcare connect to education, which connects to the economy, which is linked to infrastructure, which connects to everything else, and so on. I remember how Jeffrey Sachs's End of Poverty had a similar impact on me.

After reading the book, I realized there is a more recent version of this project. I will get my hands on the 2023 edition, and it will be interesting to see how things have changed in ten years.

There you go. Eleven books this time, of which I would recommend Cixin Liu’s The Dark Forest, Asimov’s Foundation trilogy, Clarke’s The Childhood’s End, Sinek’s Start with Why, and Lomborg’s How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place (or its 2023 version Best Things First). This was a pretty good harvest.

I hope these summaries help you decide which books to add to your reading list. Enjoy!

If you liked this read, check out my home page for articles about philosophy, learning, self-improvement, literature, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, and more. Here are some you may be interested in:

My Book Harvest — February 2024

Written by Rational Badger