My dad gave this to me to read. Here's some from my letter to him:
So far I've read the introduction ("The Search for Tomorrow") and the first two chapters ("The One Best Way" and "The Party of Life").
I figured you gave it to me so I could tell you what I think.
It is, as the author says, "An unabashedly dynamist work" (xvii), but to me, that's a drawback. Though she defines the two groups fairly succinctly ("a regulated, engineered world" vs "a world of constant creation, discovery, and competition", p. xiv) she seems to be forcing a dichotomy. There's no room for a continuum of belief - as of yet every person she's described as either stasist or dynamist, with no middle ground.
I find this dichotomy unconvincing. She goes on to attribute other values and beliefs to stasists and dynamists ("Statsists demand that knowledge be articulated and easily shared. Dynamists, by contrast, appreciate dispersed, often tacit knowledge") that don't obviously follow from the core value set. Perhaps she will prove these claims in future pages, but she hasn't yet.
She's obviously trying to sell me on her ideas, which, by this point in my education, immediately makes me suspect. The title - dividing the world into the Future (yay!) and it Enemies (boo!) trying to grip the fear impulse is a good rhetorical trick, but I need more than rhetoric. The fact that she uses as her leading example of dynamism Disneyland - the most planned community on earth, where the very lay of the land was engineered, I find extremely ironic.
I agree in part with "dynamists aren't just libertarians with a new name" (p. 47), but I'd say they aren't just Libertarians (big L, the political faction). The common labels I've seen used for dynamist and stasist are libertarian (the political stance) and authoritarian. Which jives with the other half of her description: when she describes the general stasist message as "The world has gone terribly wrong, and someone needs to take control and make things right," (p 5) she's describing a very authoritarian vision.
She leads off the second chapter with the metaphor of evolutionary algorithms. I agree, evolutionary algorithms are awesome. But, they're no panacea, so this is again a bit of a broken metaphor for me. They're expensive, require lots of time, and can be distracted by local maxima and minima. And as always, garbage in, garbage out. If your motivating examples are bogus, so will the resulting algorithm.
So emotionally, she's connecting with me on the "change is awesome, all this other stuff is holding me back" level, but intellectually she's failing to engage with me by ignoring the flaws in purely dynamic systems.
Feedback is a beautiful way to optimize and evolve, but the elephant in the room is that what feedback optimizes for may not be what you actually want. She touches some on this when she discusses stasist policies and the law of unintended consequences, but she seems to take it as given that the natural feedback mechanism of the market leads towards a future worth chasing. The market has a long history of unintended consequences, some of them beautiful, some of them hideous.
And feedback systems sometimes just aren't enough. She touts the biological example of the antibody (p. 37), yet sometimes the authoritative response of a doctor is necessary. She cites success case after success case for the dynamists, but we both know its not all success all the time, and that there's no guarantee of eventual success. In order for evolution to work, a lot of the unfit have to die. And though I'm willing to do that to ideas, I'm less cavalier about the human cost of progress.
I think that's enough for now. I've got more I could say (I've been taking notes), but I don't want to wax on too long.