I get it now. I love Peter Watts' "Blindsight". Still, its issues I described earlier stand. Today, out of respect for the work, I want to elaborate on the novel's problematic postulates I only briefly mentioned before. I will provide the exact words that, in their respective contexts, made it feel like those were the postulates the author believed in.

- Everyone commits war crimes. There's nothing unusual about them.

Direct quote: "No matter that the four who'd died had been guilty of multiple counts of rape, torture, and homicide; that's just what people *did* in wartime. It's what they'd always done. There was nothing *polite* about war, no honorable code beyond the chain of command and the circling of wagons. [...] There may be murderers and rapists in our midst, but by God they're *our* murderers and rapists."

You don't have to dig deep for this one. There are definitely societies that take war crimes seriously, systematically punish their own side for misconduct, and keep the number of those misconducts as low as humanly possible. There are definitely societies that celebrate war crimes, reward their war criminals with the highest government-issued orders of merit, and have phrases such as "it's not a war crime if you had fun" embedded in their culture. I won't dignify this senseless piece of cynicism with any more of my attention.

- Every bleeding-edge human ought to be an atheist.
- Every atheist facing something horrific or traumatic ought to question their beliefs.

Direct quote: "But Isaac Szpindel had been an atheist. All of us were. We'd all started out that way, at least."

It was said as if it were obvious or natural that all of the crew members were atheists. And why would it be obvious, natural, or even casually possible for all of them to be atheists, except for the author's own bias? Look at the bleeding-edge humans today: scientists, billionaires. Even when they don't mention God directly, they often say something like, "Yeah, it's entirely possible we live a simulation created by someone." Why won't those people be open-minded? Why must they firmly believe no agency was involved in the creation of the universe, and no overarching agency has been present there ever since?

As for the atheists turning believers, statistical data confirms trauma increases religiosity. However, there are also many instances when people's beliefs remained unaffected. I just didn't like that part. It felt cheesy. If atheism is an obvious choice for you, then it shouldn't be easily undermined.

- Everyone who tortures people and then goes and plays with their kids as if nothing happened does so because they dehumanize their victims.

Direct quote: "She'd just fallen back on the oldest trick in the Torturer's Handbook, the one that lets you go home to your family after work, and play with your children, and sleep at night: *never* humanize your victims."

Many of the people in the West masturbate to this word, "dehumanization". They think it's the sin of all sins, the root of all the world's problems. But when you dig a little bit deeper, you realize it is, in fact, irrelevant.

Have you seen a torturer in your life? Ever researched any information on any sociopath, sadist, serial killer, war criminal? How many of them were trying to convince themselves their victims weren't really human? They don't give a fuck about your dehumanization crap. They are just different. Different values, different mindset, different mental issues.

There's also another definition for this word: you dehumanize someone when you are being a meanie: you call them pieces of shit, you think them worthless, etc. But such a context would make it even more asinine. Those who draw an alarming connection between this so-called dehumanization and heinous crimes cannot tell correlation and causation apart. Humans are being mean to each other all the time. It's a healthy response to wrongdoing. How often does it lead to actual tortures?

However, I may have misinterpreted that piece. Maybe the Torturer's Handbook wasn't meant to illustrate how torturers think. Maybe what was meant is if you're a normie, and you must torture someone against your will, a friendly piece of advice is that you imagine they are not human and have no humanlike attributes. Even in this context, I've doubts about that technique's effectiveness.

- Every capitalist corporation only cares about brainwashing you into consumerism.

Direct quote: "They're calling it an entertainment device with massive applications for online gaming. Uh huh. And if you can implant sights and sounds into someone's head from a distance, why not implant political beliefs and the irresistable desire for a certain brand of beer while you're at it?"

The underlying cause for such an opinion must be the same old omnipresent "poor people = good, rich people = bad." The idea that businesses can genuinely want to create a good product without any hidden malicious intent can never fit peacefully in their mind. Have you ever had any business owner friends? Have you ever watched those interviews where big CEOs casually talk about their lives? I had such acquaintances. I saw those interviews. And the conclusion is clear: the vast majority of business owners do what they do because they love doing it and want to make an impact. You don't even need any of that experience to see it. All you have to do is realize you aren't that drastically different from other humans and put yourself in their shoes. Take the author himself. If he only cared about maximizing profits, he'd be busy running scams instead of writing niche novels.

Those were the postulates. It's not a complete list. The novel is saturated with similarly themed messages. Perhaps those were the most intrusive and memorable to me at the moment.

Some of the postulates may feel far-fetched based on the provided quotes; that's because they were extrapolations rather than paraphrase.

In case those opinions were not of the author but of the protagonist, the protagonist was not as perceptive as he was portrayed. Nevertheless, next time I read Blindsight, I will try to apply that "shallow and cynical Twitter user" archetype to the protagonist and see if it fits neatly and doesn't look like the annoying and unasked-for injections of the author's wisdom.