I feel a bit dirty after reading this. The author set out to make her audience feel ashamed. It worked for me, but not the way she probably hoped.
This book describes the ideal life that remains after taking extreme measures, which is, to kill off the planet in order to save it.
The author leads readers to the goodness of the abolishment of wealth. Similar to "gun control laws" which blame the guns rather than the shooters, she blames the pursuit of wealth for the destruction of mankind. She promotes the unscientific computer projections of the imaginary Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) philosophy as well as the other fears of the United Nations, including that within a generation or two we will be forced into cannibalism to survive as a species (P. Ehrlich, I believe).
In other words, the author is a radical who feels obligated to show only evil in a free market economy. This book is propaganda for world socialism, as in, anti-capitalism. All of the medical and technical advances we enjoy (and despite recent resistance to cheap energy we hope to continue sharing with the world), along with shelter and clean water, are not really improving our lives (after all we haven't conquered death or greed or...). We produce books, we have time to read them, we have lighting to read by, pens and paper and computers to write with, and all of this is suicide in the long (long, long) run. We do not live short, hard lives, which is the "natural" way. (Who gets to define "nature"?) The author is from the UK but the beliefs she disguised as a novel closely resemble those of other European socialists (who, incidentally, have failed economically and environmentally) and other powerful international anti-wealth, pro-primitive advocates.
Even though the author finds it ideal in her created world that humans are forced into behaving and thinking a certain way about wealth and the environment, they should remain "free" to live however they feel in every other way. How can this self-centered behavior and lack of concern for the emotional well-being of others in your life coexist with a supposedly "moral" desire to create a better and sustainable future for imaginary people? Is there a difference between the pursuit of personal satisfaction in relationships, regardless of the feelings of others or the consequences, and a disregard for the consequences of dishonest commerce and ignorance about scientifically valid environmental impact?
By the way, the author never addresses real environmental concerns. She chose not to use her literary platform to inspire her readers by mentioning realistic steps taken, especially in the United States for several decades, that have kept our air and water cleaner than it is in Communist and Socialist nations (like China, Russia, and Portugal). The bulk of her background information seems strictly political, and then only the politics that agrees with her personal opinions.
Not a word of her narrative is devoted to those reading her book who would oppose her dire outlook, her indication that no opinion but hers is valid. This lack of balance further reduces any credibility she hopes to achieve. Her character, Ashok, represents her opinion of capitalists as "jerks." He gets what he "deserves" in the end. I suppose Jensen would fare best if only people who agree with her survive the pandemic, and thus forever live in hunter-gatherer utopia.
I have to give the author a bit of credit for briefly mentioning one positive "solution": old-fashioned farming. However, in the story, this practice was forced on humanity after the destruction of all industry and massive human death, rather than being shown to exist alongside industry, as a positive. One sentence or maybe two is dedicated to it, post-apocalypse, with no connection to the real-life current problem of chemically-induced crops and livestock. Her entire focus was on attacking industry and human population.
I also have to give the author a bit of credit for the authentic voice of her male protagonist, who has Asperger's. I am not sure how those unfamiliar with this arm of the autism spectrum will understand the character and respond to his quirks compared with someone who has a great deal of personal experience with it. For me, my curiosity about the issue was the deciding factor for me to borrow the book off the library shelf.
I want to make a point for others who may be misled into thinking that "Asperger's" is synonymous with "genius." In fact, we currently discard the old term for the condition and replace it with "high-functioning autism." Many people on the spectrum are incapable of speech let alone reading, and those who learn to read may be of average intelligence otherwise. Just because you can speak or read does not make you a genius, or a master at complicated abstract pattern finding like Hesketh. There are a few individuals whose brains have high intelligence combined with HFA, and they can become gifted in their field of interest, just like any bright neurotypical. The difference in their successes (or the lack) might be that those with HFA have an extreme focusing capability, a sustained deeper functioning than a neurotypical is capable of. However, this selective strength compromises the part of their brain that serves social skills or processes sensations.
Ironically, Hesketh's ability to contemplate raw facts without emotion is considered a weakness because he cannot accept a religious, non-scientific view of the future. Thus, the author portrays religion (i.e., CAGW) as science, and science as being true regardless of facts and proof. So, we should agree with her and others like her because "she said so." We should be more like children: egocentric; believing everything bad that happens is "all our fault"; and that what we know is everything there is to know.
I ponder how many times and to what extent the author has been personally disappointed by other people in her life, to drive her to such hatred and bitterness towards all humanity.
As far as the plot, I could tell by the third page that this novel was going to be less of a story and more of a religious philosophy: humans are powerful enough to both take and give eternal life, as represented by unscientific beliefs about the natural world, presented as facts in this novel, just as you might expect from a fanatic.