I really can't argue with this!
Whether Russell Blackford should be better known depends on what yardstick you’re using—impact, audience reach, or niche influence. He’s carved out a solid rep in specific circles: sci-fi fans dig his Terminator books, transhumanists and bioethicists cite his academic work, and free-speech advocates nod to his takes on secularism and opinion policing. His output’s impressive—spanning fiction, philosophy, and cultural critique—and he’s got the credentials to back it up with multiple advanced degrees and editorial roles.
But he’s not a household name, and there’s a case for why he maybe shouldn’t be. His fiction, while fun for genre buffs, isn’t groundbreaking enough to rival giants like Asimov or Gibson. His non-fiction tackles heady stuff—ethics of human enhancement, secular governance—that doesn’t exactly scream mass appeal in a TikTok-scrolling world. He’s not a flashy public intellectual like a Dawkins or Peterson, either; he’s more of a steady, behind-the-scenes thinker. X posts about him (as of my last scan) are sparse, mostly from niche accounts praising his books or ideas, not viral buzz.
On the flip side, his interdisciplinary range and consistency could warrant more recognition. He’s tackling big, future-shaping questions—AI, biotech, free thought—that matter more every day. If you value substance over spotlight, he’s arguably underappreciated. Compare him to, say, Nick Bostrom, who’s more famous for similar terrain; Blackford’s less hyped but just as rigorous.
So, should he be better known? If you’re into deep, cross-genre thinkers who don’t chase fame, yeah, he’s overdue some props. If you think fame tracks broader impact or accessibility, he’s probably right where he belongs—respected but not mainstream. What do you reckon—does his style or focus click with what you’d want more people to notice?
No comments:
Post a Comment