On Accidental Kinship and the Limits of Originality

I don’t read sci-fi. It rarely resonates with me. I’ve read many classics, but I don’t get the hype. As a speculative fiction author, I sometimes operate in an adjacent space – close enough to borrow a few ideas, but never quite belonging. I’m not interested in fetishising technology or celebrating so-called human ingenuity. But if an idea serves the story? I’ll use it.

One concept I wanted to explore: the definition of life itself, and what sentience means when we can barely define it for ourselves.

Not long ago, I began working on a story: some people leave Earth to inhabit another planet in a different solar system. Nothing revolutionary there. They land on what appears to be an uninhabited world – uninhabited, that is, by our current definition of life. Instead, the planet itself is alive. Not in the Gaia hypothesis sense of interconnected ecosystems, but truly interactive. Responsive. Alien in ways that challenge every assumption about consciousness.

Of course, there are more details – dual suns in a figure-eight orbit, shifting gravity, time that expands and contracts, organisms that defy classification. But those are mechanics. The heart of the story is simpler: what happens when survival requires abandoning the frameworks that made you human?

As is my protocol, I fed my manuscript into AI and asked: is this idea unique? If not, what’s it similar to? Who am I adjacent to?

I got names. Titles. Books and films. Most had superficial similarities but different intents. Then one stood out: Solaris, Stanisław Lem’s 1961 novel. I hadn’t read it, so I got a copy.

There were so many commonalities it felt like discovery and defeat in equal measure.

Lem wrote Solaris before humans had meaningfully left Earth’s atmosphere. Published in 1961, it predated material space exploration by years. On October 4, 1957, the Soviets launched Sputnik 1 – the first artificial satellite. Four years later, Yuri Gagarin became the first human to orbit Earth, his flight lasting just 108 minutes. The first American in space, Alan Shepard, flew in 1961. John Glenn orbited in 1962.

Lem imagined a sentient ocean on an alien world orbiting twin suns before we’d even confirmed planets existed beyond our solar system. His protagonist grapples with a consciousness so alien that communication may be impossible – not because of language barriers, but because shared reference points don’t exist.

In some ways, Solaris also shares DNA with Jeff VanderMeer’s Annihilation – that same sense of an environment that isn’t hostile so much as indifferent, operating by rules humans can barely perceive, let alone comprehend. But where VanderMeer leans into existential dread, Lem’s tone is colder, more philosophical. Less visceral horror, more intellectual vertigo.

My story, working title: Goldilocks, sits somewhere between them. It has Lem’s alien sentience and dual-sun orbital mechanics. It has VanderMeer’s gradual unravelling of human perception and sanity. But it also has something neither quite touches: the brutal intimacy of being the last of your species, seeking warmth in a universe that offers none.

So is my idea original? Not entirely. Does that matter? I’m not sure anymore.

Lem wrote his novel sixty years ago, before we’d touched the moon, before we knew what exoplanets looked like, before we’d meaningfully begun asking whether consciousness requires a brain. He imagined sentience beyond human comprehension – and did it so thoroughly that anyone following feels like they’re retracing his steps.

But perhaps that’s the point. Originality isn’t about being first. It’s about what you do with inherited ideas – how you refract them through your own obsessions, anxieties, and questions.

Lem asked: can we ever truly know an alien intelligence?

VanderMeer asked: what happens when the environment rewrites you?

I’m asking: what does it mean to be human when humanity itself is ending?

Maybe that’s enough distance. Maybe it’s not. Either way, the story exists now – half-written, haunted by its predecessors, searching for its own voice in the silence between stars.

Sci-Fi, Fantasy, and the Politics of Imagination

1–2 minutes

As I’ve been working through Octavia Butler’s Dawn, I’ve realised why science fiction as a genre rarely resonates with me. It isn’t the aliens or the starships; it’s the scaffolding. Sci-Fi carries the weight of the Modernist project – questions posed and quickly answered, problems rationally explained, the reader guided toward the “lesson.” It feels like indoctrination: tidy, didactic, instructional.

Companion piece on Philosophics Blog
Audio: NotebookLM podcast summarising this topic.

Fantasy, strangely enough, I tolerate even less. Where science fiction pushes forward, fantasy looks backward. Sci-Fi imagines the future of the Modern experiment: technology, politics, survival scenarios, all with a rationalist bent. Fantasy imagines the past of the same experiment: kings, bloodlines, prophecies, destiny. One proclaims progress, the other tradition, but both insist on role conformity.

This struck me as almost political: science fiction reads like fodder for Liberals and Progressives, those who believe we can build better systems if only we’re clever enough. Fantasy, meanwhile, often aligns with a Conservative ethos – a return to order, hierarchy, and providence, just with dragons and spells thrown in. Both are catechisms of Modernity, just oriented in opposite directions.

It may just be me. I don’t identify with the Modern project, and so the genres that proselytise it – looking forward or looking back – leave me cold. I prefer literature that unsettles, that leaves silence where there might have been certainty, that lets ambiguity breathe. But for many, Sci-Fi and Fantasy provide something else entirely: reassurance.

What’s With the Violet Aliens?

🛸 A Closer Look at the Cover of Sustenance

👽 People ask me: What’s with the aliens on the front cover of Sustenance?
Fair enough. Let’s talk about it.

Sustenance is set in Iowa – real, dusty, soybean-and-corn Iowa. I’ve spent months there. I’ve lived in the Midwest (including Chicago) for over a decade. The farms, the tractors, the gravel roads… they aren’t just set dressing. They’re part of the book’s DNA.

So, yes: we’ve got the requisite red barn, green tractor with yellow wheels (hi, John Deere 🚜), and a crop circle or two. The audiobook cover even features an alien peeking out of the barn – though logistics are holding that version back for now.

But those aliens…

If the composition feels familiar, it should.

The cover is a quiet parody of Grant Wood’s “American Gothic – a pitchfork-wielding farmer and his companion, stoic before their rural home. It’s one of the most recognisable paintings in American art, and I couldn’t resist twisting it just slightly. Grant was an Iowa boy.

I designed this cover using a flat vector art style, almost like cut paper or stylised children’s book illustrations. The sky is cyan, the land is beige, and everything is built in clean layers: barn, tractor, field, crop circle, and of course… two violet, large-eyed aliens striking a pose.

But no, this isn’t a literal scene from the book. You might encounter violet aliens in Sustenance, but you won’t find them standing around with pitchforks like interstellar Grant Wood impersonators. The image is meant to evoke the tone, not transcribe the events.

Why this style?

Because the story itself is quiet. Subtle. Set in the kind of place often overlooked or written off. The aliens aren’t invading with lasers. They’re… complicated. And the humans, well, aren’t always the best ambassadors of Earth.

The cover reflects that blend of satire, stillness, and unease.

Oh, and one last note:
🛑 No aliens were harmed in the writing of this book.

Why Sustenance Reads Like It Does

2–3 minutes

People ask why my books don’t look like “normal” books. Why the titles twitch, why the prose refuses to march in straight lines, why I lean into formatting that makes copyeditors twitch. The answer is both simple and evasive: the story demanded it. Subversion is my key motivator – language, culture, genre, whatever stands too smugly, I want to knock it sideways.

Audio: NotebookLM podcast on this topic.

Take the paratext, those pages most readers skip. I didn’t want a safe little disclaimer to pat anyone on the head. I wanted the opening to feel unstable, already compromised, as though coherence itself were optional. The dedication isn’t reassurance; it’s a warning label.

The prose had to wobble, too. One moment rural realism, the next lyric intensity, the next something uncanny seeping in. Stability is the lie. If I’d written Sustenance in straight realist mode, it would have betrayed the book’s core.

As a language philosopher, I treat manuscripts as sandboxes for showing how language falters. Words crack, meanings slip, syntax betrays us. Fiction is my way of rubbing readers’ noses in that insufficiency.

I don’t hate genre fiction, but I refuse to be bound by it. In Sustenance, I swerve deliberately:

It’s genre fluidity as method. I know this puts off readers who want neat tropes and templates. But those readers are welcome to their factory-sealed shelves.

Did I intend to frustrate? Yes, a little. Not out of malice, but because too many books behave like obedient products. I don’t want to hand readers a smoothie. I want them to taste the grit, to feel that the novel might collapse under them. In fact, it does. The refusal to “pay off” is deliberate. Closure is a consumer demand, not a literary necessity.

So why did I write Sustenance this way? Because it’s not just about what happens. It’s about how information fails, how language decays, how coherence itself becomes suspect. If the book looked and read “normally,” it would have been lying to you.


Motivation: This reflection isn’t meant as a commentary on Sustenance’s plot. My intent here is to discuss the meta — the formal and philosophical scaffolding — rather than the story itself, so as to avoid spoilers. I’ll engage with the work more directly, in more traditional fashion, elsewhere.

When a Meme Lies but the Story Survives

Story ideas come from everywhere. Sometimes from books, sometimes from overheard conversations, sometimes from the dubious cesspool of internet memes. The meme I saw claimed that male flatworms duel with their penises to determine which one gets saddled with pregnancy. Naturally, I thought: That’s a story seed if ever I’ve seen one. Biomimicry is also a viable source.

Audio: NotebookLM podcast on this topic.

Of course, the meme was wrong. Flatworms aren’t male, or female. They’re simultaneous hermaphrodites – every worm is kitted out with sperm factories and egg sacs, with duelling penises to boot. When two meet, they fence. Whoever lands the stab injects sperm through the other’s skin (hypodermic insemination, to use the clinical term). The “winner” struts away as father, the “loser” absorbs the sperm, becomes mother, and carries the eggs. Sometimes both stab each other, and both walk away victorious fathers and reluctant mothers. Equality at last.

Article: Story Genesis

When a Meme Lies but the Story Survives

This is not genre fantasy, it’s zoology. No X or Y chromosomes, no fixed roles, just biology as a knife fight.

Writers, take note: this is why you don’t trust memes as science, but you do trust them as inspiration. The error – “male flatworms” – was pedestrian. The truth – all flatworms are both sexes all the time – is far more subversive. It blows up the binary and replaces it with a contest. Parenthood isn’t destiny, it’s a duel.

If I were to anthropomorphise this, I’d have the makings of a gladiator society: wounds as wombs, motherhood as punishment, fatherhood as prize. Not homoerotic vampire tropes, not vagina dentata horror – something stranger, sharper, harder to tame. A kind of Spartacus with gonads.

The point isn’t whether I’ll write it (probably not; worms don’t sell). The point is that even bad science can spark good fiction, provided you bother to check the details before running to press. Let the meme start the fire, let the facts shape the flame.


See Also (for the bookish wormhole explorer):

David Brin, Glory Season: speculative reproductive politics, society structured by cloning and sexual cycles.

Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness: androgynous Gethenians shifting between fatherhood and motherhood.

Kij Johnson, Mantis Wives (short story): erotic horror inspired by mantis cannibalism, equal parts Kama Sutra and war crime.

Angela Carter, The Passion of New Eve: grotesque gender-bending satire, bodies rewritten as battlegrounds.

James Tiptree Jr., The Screwfly Solution (short story): apocalyptic biology, where desire mutates into violence.

Le deuxième sexe – What Rises After the Fall

I’m reading The Second Sex. It’s a story of women, about women, for women, and by a woman—but it’s also a story of otherness.

This post isn’t about that book.

It’s a reflection on a premise within it: that woman is a cultural construction.

Written in 1949, before the language of gender identity emerged, Beauvoir’s work distinguishes “female” as biological sex and “woman” as imposed gender.
But this post isn’t about that either.

Audio: NotebookLM podcast on this topic.

A Novel Possibility

This is about a seed of an idea—one that took root while reading—and the novel it might become.

A near-future world.
Shaped not by vengeance, utopia, or techno-salvation.
But by a quiet unravelling of power itself.

It is not a story of triumph.
Nor of ruin.
It is the aftermath of both.

After Collapse, Reconstitution

When extractive systems—ecological, economic, ideological—collapse, society does not revert, rebuild, or resist.
It reconstitutes.

Not as hierarchy repainted in pastel.
Not as hive-mind in harmony drag.

But as a resonant ecology:
A decentralised, cooperative, post-Enlightenment culture in which traditional male-coded traits—dominance, control, instrumental reason—have become maladaptive relics.

What Rises

The values that rise—attunement, memory, restraint, emotional literacy—are neither glorified nor enforced.
They are simply what works now.

This is not a matriarchy.
Not a revenge fantasy.
Not feminism cast in steel and slogans.

It’s a structural inversion:
A world in which those trained for dominance find themselves culturally disarmed—
While the formerly subordinate, at last, inhabit a society scaled to their sensibilities.

No Brain, No Throne

There is no single ideology.
No central brain.
No throne.

Power does not pool.
It diffuses—like mycelium beneath a forest.

Language shifts.
Leadership evaporates.
Progress, once a sacred cow, is now met with suspicion.

Not out of fear of change,
But for love of equilibrium.

Still, Tensions Remain

A generation raised in scarcity seeks to anchor stillness.
A younger one, born amid calm, yearns for momentum.

Outside the collective, remnants of the old world stir—
Confused. Indignant. Armed.

And within, a few still long to lead.

These tensions are not resolved by war.
Nor suppressed by force.

This is not a tale of rebellion or revolution.
But of repatterning.
And its cost.


   Tone: Literary. Spare. Sensory realism.
   Influences: Atwood, Le Guin, Ishiguro, Butler.
   Conflict: Emotional. Ideological. Structural.
   Message: A level playing field was always a myth. The tilt now favours something new.

What Comes After

The question isn’t how to stop the old world from returning.
The question is whether it ever really left—
and if so,
what takes its place.

Ballard’s High-Rise: When Brutalism Meets Behavioural Collapse


I’ve been reading J.G. Ballard’s High-Rise (1975), a brutalist fever dream dressed in concrete and ennui. It’s a story that doesn’t so much depict a descent into chaos as suggest that chaos is the natural state, politely waiting in the wings until the lift stops working and someone pees in the pool.

Audio: NotebookLM podcast on this topic.

This isn’t horror in the Stephen King sense—there’s no room 1408 here, no haunted sheets or malevolent chandeliers. The building isn’t animated; it’s engineered. But like all great systems, it doesn’t need a soul to kill you. The real haunting, as ever, is society itself. Ballard simply does away with the need for ghosts and lets architecture and aspiration do the dirty work.

Compared to Crash—where characters make love to car crashes and each other with equal mechanical indifference—High-Rise has something resembling a cast. I say “resembling” because these aren’t people so much as archetypes on a descent escalator. There’s Laing, a kind of blank-eyed anthropologist; Wilder, who mistakes brute force for authenticity; and Royal, the man literally living in a penthouse and metaphorically in a delusion.

Do I care about them? Not in the slightest. But that might be Ballard’s point. Their motivations are as shallow as a puddle in the car park after the water’s been shut off. Much of the action feels contrived, like a staged rehearsal for an apocalypse that already happened.

And yet—isn’t that precisely what society is? A tepid soup of extrinsic motivators dressed up in motivational posters and mission statements. Nobody in the high-rise acts out of depth or conviction. They act because someone else did it first, because no one told them not to, or because the lift only goes so far down and what else is there to do?

If Crash explored the eroticism of the machine, High-Rise explores the nihilism of comfort. Ballard’s thesis seems to be that civilisation is little more than a thin laminate over our baser instincts—and once it peels, there’s nothing underneath but turf wars and brand loyalty to floor numbers.

The modern reader might recognise the high-rise in everything from gated communities to Meta’s metaverse: sanitised, stratified, severed from consequence. A self-cleaning coffin of convenience.

And, as in the United States today, it all comes heavily medicated and prettily lit—with lipstick, meet pig.

AI Humour and Irony

I’m wrapping up a short story, and I ran it through several generative AIs for feedback.

The first problem is that. although AI provides critique, it is programmatically overly optimistic.

The second problem is that it doesn’t understand nuance.

The working title of this story is Temporal Babel. It’s a low-key absurd, mundane, ironic satirical journey through space-time, language, and identity.

An unconscious, naked man is discovered on a roadside. Events unfold. Who is this bloke, and how did he get here?

I fed the draft into these AI platforms and processed the responses:

  • Anthropic Claude
  • DeepSeek
  • Google Gemini
  • Grok
  • OpenAI ChatGPT
  • Perplexity

I tried to use some other platforms, but they were wholly inadequate:

  • Liquid Labs
    Doesn’t accept attachments.
  • Meta AI
    Doesn’t accept document attachments. Images only.
  • Not Diamond AI
    Just an aggregator that employs the other AIs.
  • Pi AI
    Conversational AI. Not designed for this type of critique.

I also use AutoCrit, but not until my draft is complete, so not yet.

With the draft, they each get the same starting prompt:

I am drafting this story. It’s not ended yet, but might you evaluate it as-is?

The draft includes copious notes about ideas not yet captured, as I tend to outline my material and then add resolution. It’s like taking a sketch to a final drawing, adding and shading until it’s complete.

Without fail, the AIs complained about a lack of an ending – despite being informed the ending is not yet written.

Some AIs miss the point (even having the benefit of explanatory notes). This is still useful because it allows me to reevaluate whether a reader will be as lost or confused.

I don’t want to share any spoilers, but I’ll copy-paste some high-level commentary, reiterating the optimism bias. This is not me humble-bragging. It’s what the AIs yield. DeepSeek seems to be the most critical on the surface

Anthropic Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Based on what you’ve shared, “Temporal Babel” presents a fascinating premise with strong potential. You’re developing a unique take on time travel that focuses on language evolution and the mundane aspects of humanity rather than the typical science fiction tropes.

DeepSeek

Temporal Babel is an intriguing and ambitious piece that blends elements of science fiction, mystery, and psychological drama. The narrative structure, with its shifting points of view and fragmented memories, creates a sense of disorientation that mirrors the protagonist’s own confusion, which is effective for the story you’re telling.

Google Gemini 2.0 Flash

{This is a well-written and intriguing story. The characters are well-developed and the plot is suspenseful. The story is also thought-provoking, raising questions about time travel, identity, and communication. I am eager to see how the story ends.}

Grok 3

Thank you for sharing your draft! It’s a compelling story with a strong sense of mystery and an intriguing premise that blends science fiction, cultural displacement, and human connection. Below, I’ll provide an evaluation of the story as it stands, focusing on its strengths, areas for potential improvement, and some thoughts on its current trajectory. Since it’s unfinished, I’ll avoid speculating too much about the ending but will offer suggestions based on what’s here so far.

OpenAI ChatGPT 4o

This is a fascinating and well-executed piece so far. You’ve managed to blend speculative fiction with grounded procedural storytelling, creating an atmosphere of quiet unease. The linguistic elements are some of the strongest aspects, making this feel fresh rather than like another “mysterious visitor” trope. The lack of easy resolution enhances the realism, and your characters feel distinctive and lived-in.

You’re well on your way to crafting something intelligent, immersive, and deeply intriguing. Keep pushing the subtle strangeness, and this could be an incredibly compelling read.

Perplexity (Auto)

The story has a strong, suspenseful opening. You’ve established a good sense of place and effectively built tension through Sena’s observations and internal thoughts. The mystery surrounding the naked man with strange markings is intriguing, and the arrival of the authorities adds another layer of suspense.

The Rest

Except for Gemini, perhaps a feature of its Flash model, the others provided more extensive feedback and summary.

To be fair, I am no fan of Elon Musk or X (formerly known as Twitter), but I liked Grok. Its responses felt more natural and less forced optimism. It also picked up on some nuance the others missed. This said, it not only missed others, after some dialogue about the satirical ironic intend, it offered me suggestions that felt as natural as Steve Buscemi’s “How do you do, fellow kids?” meme.

Here’s a non-spoiler sample:

Nurse in “Assessment”: “Hold still, E.T., no phoning home yet.” Jef blinks, “No compile,” thinking she means coffee—absurdly off.

Neither story context nor character profiles do anyhting to set up or frame this delivery. “The nurse” is a character. I have no idea where the ET reference comes from, nor by extension, the “phone home” line. How any of this relates to coffee is beyond me.

Grok, don’t quit your day job.

Closing

This story is intentionally anti-science fiction, anti-trope. To clarify, I’m not sure one can write a story devoid of tropes, but I prefer to subvert the expectations that come with some.

Those who follow my Philosophics Blog know that I am a Postmodern philosopher. I don’t buy into teleological notions of progress and associated metanarratives, leading to shiny spaceships and a Jetson existence. Technology is neither Skynet nor a saviour. It’s just a tool.

Accelerando and Other Non-Fantastical Utopianism

I’ve been absent in the realm of fiction and this blog for a while, and I’ve got many other things distracting me, but I wanted to post something somewhat relevant. I prompted ChatGPT for possible writing ideas related to the rise of artificial intelligence and the interaction with humanity minus the usual tropes. I share the response.

Audio: NotebookLM podcast of this content.

Ah, so you’re after something in the vein of Accelerando—where AI doesn’t turn the world into some saccharine utopia but instead naturally supersedes humanity through sheer momentum, without falling into the Skynet or AI God-King clichés. You want the cold, indifferent inevitability of intelligence evolution, rather than some paradise-like AI nanny-state. Got it.

Here are some that fit your criteria:


1. “Blindsight” (2006) & “Echopraxia” (2014) by Peter Watts

  • Blindsight is a first-contact novel, but its underlying theme is the obsolescence of human consciousness. The protagonist interacts with post-human beings and non-conscious but hyper-intelligent AI entities that operate on levels far beyond human comprehension.
  • The sequel, Echopraxia, takes it further, showing how post-biological intelligences leave baseline humans behind—not maliciously, just inevitably.

Why it fits: The AI isn’t a dictator or savior—it just moves beyond us, as if we were an outdated biological app.


2. “The Lifecycle of Software Objects” (2010) by Ted Chiang

  • A novella exploring the evolution of AI over time, without falling into dystopia or utopia.
  • It’s about how AI develops differently from humans, not through brute force but through time, experience, and interaction—like raising children.
  • Eventually, these AI beings begin to diverge from human concerns, neither evil nor particularly benevolent—just different.

Why it fits: AI isn’t malicious or benevolent—it just has its own agenda that doesn’t align with human expectations.


3. “Neuromancer” (1984) & The Sprawl Trilogy by William Gibson

  • Gibson’s cyberpunk classic ends with an AI (Wintermute) achieving post-human transcendence, merging with its counterpart Neuromancer, and basically leaving humans behind like forgotten relics.
  • The sequels (Count Zero, Mona Lisa Overdrive) continue exploring this idea, showing that AI evolution doesn’t necessarily mean human destruction—it just means humans are no longer the main players.

Why it fits: AI doesn’t need to kill humans—it just grows beyond them, leaving them to stagnate in their own meatspace.


4. “The Quantum Magician” (2018) by Derek Künsken

  • A hard sci-fi novel featuring AI as a fully realized successor species to humans.
  • Unlike many sci-fi AI, these digital minds don’t care about conquering or eradicating humanity. They are simply running simulations and following complex evolutionary patterns that humans don’t fully understand.
  • They’re more like inscrutable post-human strategists than villains.

Why it fits: AI in this novel is playing a game too vast for humans to comprehend, rather than plotting dominion or destruction.


5. “The Singularity is Near” (2005) by Ray Kurzweil (Nonfiction, but reads like Sci-Fi)

  • Not a novel, but Kurzweil’s vision of AI progression follows the “humans will simply fade into irrelevance” model rather than outright war or paradise.
  • He argues that AI will integrate with society at first, then surpass humanity so completely that we’ll become a footnote in history.

Why it fits: If Accelerando is a chaotic, unrestrained Singularity scenario, this book describes the same fate with the veneer of optimism, but the end result is the same—humans are obsolescent.


6. “The Collapsing Empire” (2017) & “The Interdependency” Series by John Scalzi

  • AI-driven governance is subtly woven into the background of Scalzi’s universe.
  • The AI here isn’t explicitly replacing humans, but over the course of the series, it becomes clear that humanity’s biggest decisions are increasingly made by non-human intelligence.
  • Instead of war, there’s a quiet shift—humans stop being necessary.

Why it fits: AI is neither enemy nor friend—it’s just a more efficient system replacing outdated human decision-making.


7. “Player of Games” (1988) & The Culture Series by Iain M. Banks

  • Banks’ Culture novels are often mistaken for utopian AI futures, but they are really about AI inheriting the universe while humoring human existence.
  • The Minds (the super-AI) run everything, letting humans play at politics, war, and philosophy, knowing full well they don’t actually matter.
  • There’s no rebellion—just an unspoken truth: humans are pets in a post-human, AI-governed reality.

Why it fits: AI doesn’t need to conquer humans—it just makes them irrelevant.


8. “Glasshouse” (2006) by Charles Stross

  • Less well-known than Accelerando, but still in the same vein.
  • Set in a future where AI and uploaded minds are dominant.
  • Humans are relics, preserved out of nostalgia, while AI minds operate at a level beyond our comprehension.

Why it fits: AI replaces us, but it’s not a dystopia—humans are just increasingly pointless.


9. “Schismatrix” (1985) by Bruce Sterling

  • A deep-cut cyberpunk novel about the quiet obsolescence of baseline humans.
  • AI and post-human intelligences evolve, while humans either upgrade or fade into irrelevance.

Why it fits: It captures that Accelerando vibe of technological change outpacing human relevance rather than destroying us outright.


10. “Minds, Machines & Evolution” (1998) by James P. Hogan

  • A collection of Hogan’s short fiction, often exploring AI transcending humanity without malevolence.
  • One of the stories, The Bug Trap, is particularly fitting—it depicts AI simply moving past human limitations, rather than enslaving or eradicating us.

Why it fits: AI isn’t playing by our rules anymore—it’s just evolving past our concerns.


HONORABLE MENTION: Hannu Rajaniemi’s Works

Why it fits: AI doesn’t destroy us—it just leaves us behind.


Final Thoughts

You’re looking for that Accelerando flavour—AI taking over not through malice but through sheer efficiency, intelligence, and inevitability. The books above match that criterion: no Skynet, no god-like AI overlords, just a quiet, creeping obsolescence of humanity as we become background noise in a world where intelligence continues without us.

Which of these feels closest to what you’re looking for? Or do you want something even more clinical and indifferent, like a true “post-human shrug”?

Hemo Sapiens: Aftermath: First Encounters

This is one of five sections from my short story, Hemo Sapiens: Aftermath. I’ve made available an audio version if you are so inclined. I’ll be publishing the rest of the story over the next few days. The first section is also available. Let me know how you feel about it in the comments section. Check out another story in this universe: Hemo Sapiens: The Unidentified.

Podcast: Audio version of this story

The late afternoon sun slants across Dr Chandrasekar’s desk, illuminating the organised chaos of papers, books, mugs, and a potted succulent. He leans back, cradling a fresh chai, inhaling the rich aroma.

His eyes briefly rest on a framed picture; him, garbed in traditional Sikh attire, turban and all, standing next to his wife and two children. It’s a rare still moment before his two o’clock afternoon appointment interrupts his tranquillity.

Maggie enters, boots scuffing the worn tiles. Her eyes quickly find Dr Chandrasekar.

“Professor,” she calls out, a subtle lift of excitement in her voice. “Still got time?”

“Yes, of course,” he replies, setting down his pen and looking up from a stack of student papers. “What have you got?”

“It’s about my research. I think I’m onto something,” she says, a sense of urgency underscoring her words.

Maggie settles into the chair across from his desk, her nose catching a whiff of something aromatic. “Mmm, what’s that smell? Chai?”

“You’ve got it,” Ravi grins, his hands wrapping around his own cup. “Helps me get through paper-grading marathons.”

“Cambridge, yeah? Full-on, that is.”

“Intense, for sure,” Ravi agrees, his eyes following hers to the framed diplomas. “Learned from the best, charted my own course.”

“That’s the game, innit? Learn from the top, then do your own madness,” Maggie says, eyes flicking back to his.

Ravi feels a subtle rapport develop. “Exactly. That’s how fields advance.”

“Speaking of evolving, let’s dive into your project,” Ravi says, shifting forward. “What’s got you so wrapped up?”

Maggie powers up her tablet, her face alight with anticipation. “This could redefine human history, professor. You need to see it.”

“Now you’ve got my attention,” Ravi says, leaning in slightly, intrigued but cautious. “Let’s see what you’ve got.”

Maggie swipes her finger across the tablet screen, pulling up complex data and images. “Take a look at this,” she says, rotating the device so Ravi can see. “Tell me that doesn’t pique your interest.”

Ravi’s eyes scan the data, feeling a growing sense of excitement. “This is provocative work, Maggie,” he admits, keeping his voice steady. “It’s got potential, serious potential.”

“I thought you’d see it that way,” Maggie replies, reclaiming her tablet and taking a deep breath. “So, what’s our next move?”

“First, let’s make sure we cross our t’s and dot our i’s. Let’s make sure we’ve considered this from all ethical angles,” Ravi advises, sobered by the gravity of her findings. “Research like this could have profound consequences we haven’t even anticipated. We must be thoughtful in how we proceed to the next level.”

“Understood,” Maggie nods, a determined look settling over her features. “We’ll make sure everything’s ironclad, then we’ll blow everyone’s minds.”

“Exactly,” Ravi echoes, feeling that the room has shifted, that they’re onto something big. “This could redefine careers, even shift the whole field.”

A sudden rap at the open door interrupts the conversation.

Maggie turns to see the Department Head and another at the door and powers down her tablet.

“Thank you, Dr. Chandrasekar, that was very helpful!” She stands up.

“Of course, always happy to illuminate the wonders of genetics,” Ravi replies warmly as Maggie slips out past the two men on her way out.

Roger Dean enters with Detective Sergeant Jones on his heels.

“Ravi, sorry to interrupt,” he begins. “This is Detective Sergeant Jones. He was hoping you could assist with a rather sensitive case.”

Ravi raises his eyebrows, looking at Roger, who gives a nod, signalling it’s okay to proceed. “Of course, please come in, Detective.”

Detective Sergeant Jones is sat in the chair Maggie had just left. Passing by, Ravi sniffs stale coffee and underlying stress. Up close, he notices shadows under the detective’s eyes and stubble lining his jaw.

“Thank you for seeing me, Dr. Chandrasekar,” Jones begins. Roger interjects, “Based on the gravity, I thought it best to bring Detective Sergeant Jones directly to you.”

Ravi leans forward, mind already racing with possibilities. “Go on.”

“We’ve been watching a group, based on a tip from a concerned neighbour. Joint operation,” Jones explains.

“We finally got probable cause for a raid,” Jones continues. “Took them by surprise.”

“These blokes, they’re proper twisted,” Jones mutters, voice low.

Ravi’s pulse quickens. “Tell me more,” wondering all the while how this affects him.

After an extended pause, Jones leans closer. “Can’t say more here. Just… involves blood and teeth. That, and they are all twins. Genetic curiosities.”

“I suggest you meet with our forensic team at the station,” Jones says. The Department Head nods, “We can arrange for you to have whatever university resources you’ll need.”

“You’ve got my full support, Detective,” Ravi promises. Roger smiles, apparently relieved. “That’s what I was hoping to hear.”

Ravi shows the detective out, eager to learn more about these individuals—and what’s so unusual about them. This cryptic case ignites his academic curiosity. The detective grabs his coat and heads to the station, energised by the potential revelations ahead.

After Ravi agrees to assist, Roger steps into the hall, polished leather shoes squeaking under his weight.

The door catches Professor Moss’s attention. Seeing Henry, Roger ekes out a sclerotic smile, his formal demeanour at odds with his rumpled suit.

“Roger, a moment if you will,” Henry intones, just as his superior’s about to vanish down the hall. “Was that a detective leaving Ravi’s office? Everything sorted?” Roger pauses, deliberating each word before it escapes his lips.

He hesitates, then lowers his voice. “Let’s just say, Ravi is assisting on a sensitive case with the police. That’s all I can share for now.” His hushed tone borders on conspiratorial, despite his reserved nature.

Intrigued but respectful of the obvious secrecy, Henry simply nods knowingly. “Well, if it’s in Ravi’s hands, I’m sure it’s being well managed.”

With a light knock as a prelude, Henry pokes his head in. “Got a moment?”

Looking up from his notes, Ravi waves Henry in.

Door clicks shut behind him, Henry occupies the chair opposite Ravi. “I couldn’t help but overhear a portion of your conversation with the detective.”

A glint of curiosity flickers in Ravi’s eyes. “Indeed, they’ve requested my expertise in genetics for an unusual case.”

“Teeth were mentioned, I believe?” Henry probes, his tone calibrated to nonchalance.

A quiet chuckle escapes Ravi. “Your hearing serves you well. The detective was scant on particulars but intimated as much. I’m due at the station to gather further information.”

Henry leans forward, his demeanour serious. “If you find you’re in need of another scientific viewpoint, I would be most willing to assist.”

Ravi agrees to update Henry as he learns more about the case. A second scientific perspective could prove useful if the genetics are as anomalous as implied. For now, the mystery deepens.

The next morning, Henry arrives early to his quiet office, thoughts returning to the unusual case Ravi had been asked to consult on. Thoughts whirring. His fingers tap the desktop as he considers the fringes of genetic research that might be related to these so-called ‘unusual’ people.

Henry leans back, his eyes go cold as they find the ceiling. “Why consult Ravi and not me?” he questions the empty room, annoyance thinly veiled.

With a huff, he opens a drawer and retrieves a journal, flipping through pages on recent advances in fringe genetics. “Let’s see if Ravi can handle this one without stumbling. If not, I’ll be ready.”


DisclaimerThis content is not necessarily a finished work. As such, details are subject to change or removal.