First a blast about old older piece of mine that still may be (I've been told) a fast-track to at least some kinds of wisdom.
My “Questionnaire on Ideology” is even more pertinent now than ever, allowing you to probe some assumptions and drivers that may underlie a lot of your own beliefs. Certainly, you'll come away with better understanding of what drives others, including both foes and allies!
I promise at least one "Huh!' insight. More likely three or four!
Possibly as many as ten.
Okay, we're doing several riffs in the political realm, this time. Starting with a quick question:
Why, oh why, has Pres. Biden's Attorney General not yet primly and judiciously, but firmly, UN-redacted Bill Barr's bowdlerized version of the Mueller report? ... And changed the insane 'advisement' of the Office of Legal Counsel that a sitting President cannot face legal action? (Replace it with 'slow' accountability, where a sitting President may not be distracted by legal troubles more than ten hours a week. But no one is above the law!)
On to this weekend's posting. Further down, I'll offer some observations about dry matters like strategic reserves of things like oil and Helium and metals... and why that one sub-topic, alone, illustrates the total and irreversible corruption of one of the U.S. political parties.
But first...
== Ah those libertarians ==
Lately - as it does - the Question of libertarianism has come up again.
I used to speak now and then at Freedom Fest, back before the Libertarian Movement became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Steve Forbes, AEI, Cato, Heritage, United Russia, the House of Saud, the Kochs and the world aristocratic cabal. Their latest catch-phrase?
"The world is turning increasingly authoritarian. One thing that can keep us free? Creative destruction."
I agree! Till they go on to scream that the only threat is government bureaucrats. Riiiiight. Shall we look to who is subverting us right now, and with what goals?
Is it half a million mostly-sincere (sometimes a bit cloying) civil servants? A 'threat' that was never once mentioned by Adam Smith or by the U.S. Founders?
Or might freedom and competition be endangered by the same force that subverted or crushed those fine things for 6000 years? A recurring flaw in human nature that was denounced by Adam Smith and the Founders? I refer to the ever-returning pestilence of oligarchic cheating by inheritance brats who owned nearly everything already, but pushed oppressive schemes to own the rest? From 'divine' kings and lords to plutocrats conniving to give their lazy sons ownership over everyone else.
How much respect should we give a 'movement' that claims to love human freedom and competition... while letting itself be suborned to do the bidding of the ancient enemies of both?
A "Freedom Fest" that ignores the age-old enemy of freedom is - at best - a stunning irony. At worst, it is among the greatest, sell-out hypocrisies in all the world.
== Strategic reserves ==
Another lie judged false by PolitiFact: "Biden's war on American energy caused this crisis (in oil prices) and his only response has been to drain our strategic petroleum reserve."
Oh, it's true that JoBee 'drained' the US strategic petroleum reserve to lower levels. But... well... all right... let's parse this out.
When oil/gasoline prices skyrocketed, Biden sold oil from the reserve, it's true. An action which:
(1) helped reverse the price climb for consumers (it worked) and
(2) made the US Treasury a lot of money, selling at high prices!
Profit which he thereafter used to buy oil when the panic ended, to refill the reserve at LOW prices.
It's called "Buy low and sell high." Adam Smith would approve. But today's Mad Right hates Adam Smith! (And he would certainly reciprocate, despising their feudalism-loving butts.)
Democrats always do this during oil price swings. Obama and Clinton did the buy low and sell high thing too. Using the strategic reserve to both soften swings and to make the taxpayer billions in profits.
What do Republicans always do? They sell from our reserves at LOW-bottom prices to pals. The Bushes did it several times. Under Trump, the world's only large Helium reserve was sold off to pals for almost nothing. And now there's almost none to be had! Those who need Helium (e.g. for science or medical equipment) must pay those insider GOP pals an arm and a leg. And Party City blames this in part for going out of business.
In other words, anyone who believes 'conservative' pretensions at actually believing what they preach is a fool. And I have a standard wager on offer that Democrats are always more fiscally responsible than Republicans on matters of deficits and public debt. Always.
Please, oh please, step up with escrowed wager stakes on that.
== A final note on libertarians ==
I know these folks... in part because I have a reflexive dread of too much power accumulating in the hands of ANY power center! A reflex called Suspicion of Authority (Soa) that pervades nearly all American mythology!
As I describe in VIVID TOMORROWS: Science Fiction and Hollywood, a baseline worry about oppression by elites is reasonable. And yes, SoA toward bureaucrats is worth discussing!
In better times, when we aren't in an incited phase 8 of the US Civil War, Americans of left or right share the same passionate SoA worry, only aimed at different elites they suspect of grabbing power. And at some level, they all are right.
Alasm this reflex can tumble into cultism. Indeed, I have decrypted the cult of Ayn Rand, in ways that (I believe) no one else has. Those followers of a mad Neo-Marxist heretic used to be a side fringe of libertarianism, but it suits the world cabal of plutocrat looters to promote this pack of dogmatic loons.
It seems there's little to salvage. Still, let me conclude this longer-blog with yet another attempt to make things crystal clear.
I believe a 'libertarian' might be a non-hypocrite if they:
1. acknowledge that flat-fair-open COMPETITION - by the largest number and variety of knowing and unafraid participants - is the soul of productive creativity and the justifying practical outcome of freedom. That word, seldom mentioned anymore by 'libertarians', should be the heartbeat of the movement.
2. avow that freedom's worst enemies across 6000 years - the destroyers of markets and freedom denounced by Adam Smith - were principally armed bullies, owner-rentier lords, kings and inheritance brats, who used wealth and power to cheat. And that cabals of such oligarchs are a principal threat, to this day! And that Smith recommended calibrated use of civil servants and cheat-reducing law - even wealth levelling - as partial remedies.
3. set a high priority to eliminating poverty, abuse or rights-limitations of any child on Earth - since those crimes waste talent! Talent that might otherwise deliver that child to market-participation, competition-ready.
Hence, feeding all poor kids NOW, while providing basic rights and education, must be a high priority for any libertarion who actually belives in market competition. And if the mass-bulk solutions to child poverty include tax supported interventions by 'government,' then libertarians should support that, while looking inventively for other viable solutions to replace or improve state interventions, What no sincere libertarian would do is whine or bitch about those near-term fixes - especially because of item #6, below - until alternative ways to rescue talent are ready.
4. that there is such a thing as a 'commons' meriting protection and preservation, including the natural world and the needs of future generations, and these are legitimate matters for negotiation between libertarians offering market solutions and liberals demanding state-organized approaches.
5. that there is plenty to discuss amid further negotiation among people of goodwill, over how to further our unique historical experiment in freedom and creative cooperation/competition and mutual respect. But there are forces in the world - hostile powers, cheaters, criminals, oligarchs and predators, who would act to destroy our enlightenment experiment. And hence some degree of united effort to thwart such forces is justified.
6. and finally that no other human civilization ever produced so many libertarians! Especially including those millions - even graduates of public schools - who declare their own rambunctious independent mindedness and hostility to oppressive authority. Even if many of those folks aim their SoA ire at different authority figures than the libertarians happen to choose.
None of the above is meant to imply that libertarians should cease their reflex of skepticism toward statist 'meddling'! That reflex has many justifications. It merits a place at the table for discussion and argumentation and negotiation.
However, it does call for libertarians who actually want a world of creative-competitive markets etc. to note those state endeavors that preserve talent, enhance flat-fairness and preserve essential commons and public safety... and distinguish those justifiable activities from other statist meddlings that seem less well justified by #1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Those who claim to be pro-freedom and pro-creative-competition, who do not avow to the blatantly obvious facts of #1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are shrug-dismissible as tools of oligarchy, whatever masturbatory ‘freedom-incantations they recite into a mirror.
191 comments:
You know I absolutely hate the term "creative destruction". It is not the destruction that is creative - it is the creation that is destructive. We didn't invent cars because horses disappeared. This matters!
It might be best to switch to a German descriptor so we can say it as one big word. That’s how I think of it. CreativeDestruction.
Renowned marine biologist Roger Payne died June 10 at 88. I knew/admired him from FiRe conferences. His 1970s album introduced the world to whale songs, spurring the drive to save them from near-extinction. And a fine fellow.
https://www.vermontpublic.org/local-news/2023-06-14/remembering-roger-payne-whose-recordings-of-whale-songs-changed-the-world
Reason, do you really want to take on a billion worhsippers of Shiva?
Science proceeds by zeroing in on whatever might still be wrong about the current theory (perhaps a microscopic corner) and demolishing/disproving that part.
You know I absolutely hate the term "creative destruction". It is not the destruction that is creative - it is the creation that is destructive.
Destructive Creation would have been more accurate, grammatically.
I'd suggest Creative Replacement, or Creative Supplanting, because that is what we want to happen.
However, some people are really after the Destruction, because it's possible to make lots of money by destroying things.
In any case, we're stuck with the phrase now.
David, I have no idea what you are talking about, but I often see people taking the term literally and thinking it is enough to destroy things and the creation will follow (especially people talking management babble). NO - the process works the other way around.
It's a big catch-phrase in these here parts these days:
https://creativedestructionlab.com/
Not my peeps, but then who is?
Creation often does follow if destruction leaves a vacuum. I’ve seen it a lot with my various employers. Creativity was common but clearing the less effective ideas required layoffs. Stressful… but it worked.
Larry,
Forcing for me almost always involves persuasion. 99% of the time. Maybe higher.
Think of the way we persuade and you’ll encounter the topic of rhetoric. I think more of us should take up the study.
Shiva is called The Destroyer and Vishnu the Preserver and Brahma the Creator. But Shiva is bar far most popularly worshipped. And he is said to destroy most often so that something new can take its place. I have often called Science the Dance of SHiva.
I think you may be too swift to assign malign intent to those who use a word you don't like. You assume that destruction is the aim. In some cases (e.g. Kaczynski) that is true. Your assumtion though closes you to curiosity about what THEY think they mean.
Robert:
In any case, we're stuck with the phrase now.
My oft-worn Asimov line.
"We've known for centuries that 'oxygen' is a misnomer too, but what can you do?"
Science IS a destroyer, but most of the time it is on the level of pulling weeds to make room for other things. Even when it appears we topple something big, it's usually just us making enough room that something else grew and toppled the big one.
An old example involves Aristotle's theories of the cosmos. He actually got attacked from many directions long before Ptolemy's cosmology collapsed. Many of those attacks came from outside. Gunners noticed cannonballs didn't follow trajectories he described... and came up with a better way to predict them. Venetian's noticed things about how boats slip through the water that didn't agree with Aristotle... and came up with a better way to model water friction. The only reason planetary motion wackiness didn't get remodeled earlier is people weren't measuring it with the precision Brahe did in the 16th century. LOTS of weeds got pulled before Galileo and Kepler pushed the tottering mess over (17th century) making room for Copernicus' idea (16th century, but it goes way back) to grow larger in modified form.
------
Where I think of Science as a destroyer first and foremost involves the behavior of some researchers toward each other. I got to see how much some of them dislike each other. I got to see how some of them happily commit a form of assassination that snuffs out the research careers of their adversaries. However, even that is about removing old ideas to make way for new ones.
Collegiality is the fake smile many put on for the sake of public viewing. Reality is a little different. In that, we are rather like any other group of real human beings. 8)
I believ you Alfred. I was a victim of a crazed scientist, in grad school. And yet, far more often I've seen the competition done with humor and collegiality.
Almost all of the elderly, veneriable... I mean venerable... scientists I knew did NOT become stodgy defenders of the standard paradigm. Almost all deemed it their final role to be invulnerable shit disturbers, rocking the boat with "Sure, but what if maybe..." impudent notions.
Yep. I think the odds still favor humor and collegiality. I didn't get attacked for anything other than perceived laziness... which in hindsight I had to admit was true.
------
My advisor, however, was shredded for what many saw as a published error. He had to change topics and schools and had a very different view regarding research and publication after that. VERY defensive. I inherited his filing cabinet of research, scribbles, and comments about his peers. WHAT an eye-opener!
He brought down a lot of crap on himself in later years with his alcoholism, but the period before that... not so much. I don't mean to beat up his memory, though. He was human in every sense.
A wonderful little twist happened after he was gone when his daughter won a Nobel. I got quite a smile out of that.
@ Alfred:
It might be best to switch to a German descriptor so we can say it as one big word. That’s how I think of it. CreativeDestruction.
Actually, a term like "Kreativitätszerstörung" would mean the exact opposite - the destruction of creativity, while "Zerstörungskreativität" could mean "The ability to come up with interesting and new ways of destruction".
The correct translation with the intended meaning would be "schöpferische Zerstörung".
I don't have it handy, and it's not my work, but someone recently typed "talk like a Millennial" into ChatGPT. I chuckled for an hour when I read the response. AI is currently at the level of Snow White's mirror. An amazing and brutally honest reflection of humanity's form, but with no subtlety or nuance. Sort of a clown in the machine.
In contrast, AGI might produce 'blitzkreativität', perhaps a better watershed moment than passing the Turing Test. Of course, FORTHat to happen...
(sorry, couldn't resist. Someone recently described in a meetup a previous honcho at LLNL who insisted that all devices, rigs, and experiments be implemented in FORTH, thus proving that ideologues come in all flavours)
That was the Evil Queen's mirror, not Snow White's.
Dr Brin in the main post:
When oil/gasoline prices skyrocketed, Biden sold oil from the reserve, it's true. An action which:
(1) helped reverse the price climb for consumers (it worked) and
(2) made the US Treasury a lot of money, selling at high prices!
Republicans and non-political voters have the attention span of a flea. Otherwise, they would remember that
(1) Oil prices spiked after Russia's invasion of Ukraine cut off petroleum supplies from both of those sources.
but even before that...
(2) Gasoline had been selling for less than $2/gallon in the US when the former president (that's not Joe Biden, people) brokered a deal between Russia and Saudi Arabia to raise oil prices. He even bragged about how he "SAVED THE OIL INDUSTRY!!!"
Alfred,
it may be theoretically possible that "destruction" may make room for new things - at least in theory - but that process is not dominant. Or is the rust belt a figment of our imaginations?
To all for whom it applies, Happy Father's Day.
larry,
Hey, thanks. Took my wife, son and DIL through a nice D&D session yesterday - they explored a literal Goblin Market. Today, car-shopping. Yeccch.
Dr. Brin,
"a sitting President may not be distracted by legal troubles more than ten hours a week" rather than flat out facing no legal action - I can see why a suggestion like that won't fly. First, it's hard to get a branch of gov't to voluntarily reduce its own privilege. Second, the USSC ruled (1982) that a sitting president has absolute immunity from civil action damages. There's no half-way: it's either/or, and no lawyer is going to push it any other way.
That's going to apply to criminal liability, too. It would be extremely hard to argue that a prez is only 'slightly' liable, which is a lot like being 'slightly' pregnant. (Here's hoping that some of of next presidents can get pregnant, btw. Would be a change.)
Pappenheimer - who had 1 law class in college, so please add large grain of salt to above.
Pappenheimer:
Second, the USSC ruled (1982) that a sitting president has absolute immunity from civil action damages.
I'm too lazy to look up the case, but doesn't that ruling apply to actions he took in his capacity as president?
That's going to apply to criminal liability, too.
So if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue, he really would be immune from prosecution? If President Obama had killed a white man*, he'd be free from prosecution too?
Too long ago to remember which day, the Electoral-Vote.com site suggested an argument in front of the supreme court: "So, the president could come in here with an AR-15 and mow all of you down, and then as long as his party controlled the Senate, he could not only remain in office, but appoint nine replacements. You're really ok with this?"
* Decorum forbids the first example which came to mind, which didn't involve a white man.
it may be theoretically possible that "destruction" may make room for new things - at least in theory - but that process is not dominant.
There's a big difference between clearing a field to plant a crop, and clear-cutting a forest without bothering to replant. Something that seems to escape many fans of "creative destruction".
Having watched too many of those who "creatively destroyed" companies making out like bandits while the workers lost their jobs and pensions, I am disinclined to regard the phrase as anything more than cover for looting.
"So, the president could come in here with an AR-15 and mow all of you down, and then as long as his party controlled the Senate, he could not only remain in office, but appoint nine replacements. You're really ok with this?"
He wouldn't even have to do it himself — just pardon the shooter.
Come to think, the same argument would work with Senators and Congressmen, wouldn't it?
Thanks for that Der Oger. German is so interesting. You might enjoy how I inserted polysyllabic-conjoined words in my Hug winning short story “The Crystal Spheres.”
Alfred you tell the coolest stories.
Scidata: “Sort of a clown in the machine.” They may REMEMBER LATER that you said that!
Larry,
Reread my comment and can see how you construed my statement, but it wasn't what I meant.
Not saying it's established that Prez is immune to criminal prosecution. That's never been tested.
Just saying it's going to be either/or.
And yes, the USSC decided a prez couldn't be sued in their capacity as prez. Which does leave a lot of wiggle room, which may be tested pretty soon. Hopefully.
Pappenheimer
P.S. even Germans shorten words, particularly under fire. "Ready the Flugabwehrkanonenpanzer!" becomes "Ready the Flakpanzer!"
Robert:
He wouldn't even have to do it himself — just pardon the shooter.
That, unfortunately, is probably true right now.
The part about being immune from prosecution for doing the killing himself, I'm not sure is the case. Especially if the murder is committed somewhere other than DC, so he can't pardon himself.
Dr Brin:
If JoBeepropsed certain judicious restrictions on his own presidential power, it would both LOOK GOOD (Polemical Judo) and help to save the republic.
I've been wondering if it would be a good idea to let the Republican investigations of JB's complicity in Hunter's scandals go forward to the point where they demand the sitting president be indicted. Then, either Merrick Garland says, "Sorry, I've been informed that a sitting president is immune from prosecution, or else the Republicans put themselves on record bringing forth such an indictment, removing that argument from Trump's arsenal.
point being...
Law and precedent seem to proceed much like Calvinball from Calvin and Hobbes. "Hah! I wrote 'Calvin equals Stupid' in the book. Now, it's a law!" The moment Republicans find it advantageous that a sitting president can indeed be prosecuted, they will write it in the book, and then it doesn't matter what came before.
If JoBeepropsed certain judicious restrictions on his own presidential power, it would both LOOK GOOD (Polemical Judo) and help to save the republic.
I have a whole list and have posted often... and nothing happens.
Like Secy Blinken is in a place right now where vexatious rhetoric reigns. Trying to soothe inflated wrath that is based on one need, an autocrat's use of an outside enemy to distract his own people. The stated rationalization for incited rage? Past ill-treatment by outsiders imposing 'unequal treaties" by force. And there is some justification for that resentment! Though only if you include:
1. Home liability for allowing Qing/Manchu monsters like the dowager empress Cixi to botch all relations, stymie reforms and crush all hope.
2. The fact that Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan did all those things but AMERICA DID NOT. We are entirely innocent. (Well, almost) and in fact inveighed against those travesties. And we were the only friend that nation ever had, in fact, coming repeatedly to her aid, without recompense.
I deem pathetic that Blinken - nor anyone else - ever says, firmly: "Not us!"
3. "Take a hint from ALL your neighbors ,except a couple of monstrous regimes. All of the rest of them like us and fear you."
4. Speaking of the most monstrous neighbor, let's settle all the screaming and saber rattling and threats right now. Anything that puppet regime does - any harms that it wreaks in the future - upon nighbors or upon us - will simply be taken to have been committed by the hand within the puppet. The giant next door is entirely responsible and accountable for any actions taken by the fulminating, howling puppet dynasty.
"they will write it in the book, and then it doesn't matter what came before."
But if Pelosi had passed a House rule given each member one subpoena per term or year, THAT would not have been reversed but would have become a jealously guarded member privilege.
Dr. Brin: They may REMEMBER LATER that you said that!
After all these decades of solder smoke, I expect their judgment of me will be unchanged by such quips, be it friend, foe, or dust speck. Only a fool tries to flatter a god.
Robert:
Come to think, the same argument would work with Senators and Congressmen, wouldn't it?
The president doesn't appoint their replacements. But I guess he could technically avoid impeachment by continuing to kill any replacement members of the legislative branch.
Okay, this is worth pondering as another worry on our plate. A year or so astronomers were saying “Don’t worry (much) about Betelgeuse going supernova any time soon, despite the earlier nerves set off by the Great Dimming Episode. Now? A new paper says “Never mind that nevermind!”
This is from the conclusion: “We conclude that Betelgeuse should currently be in a late phase (or near the end) of the core carbon burning. After carbon is exhausted in the core, a core-collapse leading to a supernova explosion is expected in a few tens years.”
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.00287.pdf
Yipe, we’re told that 150 pc seems a reasonably safe distance. Uh, one hopes.
Me: Come to think, the same argument would work with Senators and Congressmen, wouldn't it?
Larry: The president doesn't appoint their replacements. But I guess he could technically avoid impeachment by continuing to kill any replacement members of the legislative branch.
If Senators and Congressmen were being killed and their killers pardoned, how long before the survivors fall into line? Would the Republicans step in and impeach a Republican president if that was happening? Especially if advocating for impeachment placed a target on their own backs?
Pardons don't need a conviction (Ford pardoning Nixon) and can be for any federal crime. It seems to be a hell of a legal (and consitutional) loophole, especially for a president who is Ok with racists and nazis and militias as long as they support him. Imagine a Trump, but with enough intelligence to play a longer game and reward loyalty, and the ruthlessness to go for the jugular. A Stalin-type, say.
That's not a loophole. Try channeling Alexander Hamilton briefly. Read some of his stuff from the Federalist papers if you need a refresher.
He'd tell us no amount of written rules will deal with something like that because we have bigger problems... and the solution would be obvious, so we don't need to write it here drawing the attention of security algorithms.
[He said things like that when it came to the standing army debate.]
Der Oger,
Thank you. My late father took German for his college language requirement and might have been able to inform me. My generation of Americans did away with that requirement, so about all I know is you have some really long words and I can't read a number of physicists except in translation.
I guess "Creative Destruction" is one of those English idioms that takes a bit of effort to translate. A lot of fluent English speakers don't know it either, so I shouldn't be surprised.
reason,
You are vastly oversimplifying things. In fact, you are coming at it as if one had to interpret the term "Sour Grapes" in a literal sense of acidic fruit. Creative destruction by definition involves creation behaviors. When you examine purely destructive behaviors you aren't even in the realm.
Maybe you are dealing with people who abuse the term? Like vulture capitalists might? I don't know.
Anyway, there is nothing about the idiom that requires the people doing the destruction to be the same people doing the creation. USUALLY things start with the people creating things that happen to destroy other things. A modern example of this is on display with SpaceX and their Falcon 9 rocket. They created reusable launch capacity. In doing so, they've destroyed their overseas competitors who claimed the commercial launch market with US companies abandoned it around the time the US retired Shuttle. Look at who competes with them overseas and you'll find either very small launchers in a neighboring niche OR government backed competitors that don't experience profit pressures.
———
I grew up in desert states, so ghost towns and abandoned mines were a common site. I get it, but I don't feel much sympathy unless government put their thumb on the scales of competition. They do that a lot, but back in the days when those ghost towns were alive, they did it less with some very obvious exceptions backed by Robber Barons. If a place evaporates when a subsidy is lifted, though, I'm not sympathetic at all… but I AM willing to help people affected to move or retrain. Moving is usually best, though.
Subsidy lifted
That's OK - but what about the situation when a small subsidy keeps something in operation - but removing the subsidy actually costs a LOT more when the company goes bust and all the workers stop paying taxes and start collecting unemployment
When all of the local shops and subsidiary companies go bust
That was the situation in the UK when Maggie Thatcher saved a few pennies
Arranging a "soft landing" would have cost less AND made peoples lives a lot better
Alfred Differ:
Maybe you are dealing with people who abuse the term [Creative Destruction] ?
I think that was exactly his point. "Disruptors" who seem to think that the very act of destruction is creative.
* * *
Way off on a tangent here, but is it out there in public discourse that artistic creators are now called "creatives"? I've seen two separate references to this in Doonesbury, but nowhere else.
duncan cairncross:
Arranging a "soft landing" would have cost less AND made peoples lives a lot better
Spending any money to "make people's lives better" is a no-no in Reagan/Thatcher philosophy. Their slogan may as well have been "Millions for defense--not a cent for promoting the general welfare!"
Alfred,
we seem to be talking at cross purposes. My comment was to emphasize that the creation is what does the destruction (and yes they are usually different people and even different places) and that there is no evidence that it is sufficient (or even necessary) to "create room" for creative processes (they can PULL people away from other tasks).
Mankind has been governed by libertarianism for most of its history.
Only it was called "feudalism".
Re: Betelgeuse supernova
May I recommend "What Supernova Distance Would Trigger Mass Extinction?" from PBS Space Time?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrRvJUZaswo
Betelgeuse is about 640 LY away so we should be safely outside its kill zone.
20 LY direct supernova kill zone
50 LY for cosmic ray supernova kill zone
150 LY for x-ray supernova kill zone
1000s LY (directional) gamma ray burst hypernova kill zone
With supernovas occurring more frequently near the galactic core, instead of tout here in the spiral arms, along with the lack of metallicity in stars near the rim, lend credence to the idea of the "galactic habitability zone" (part of the Rare Earth Hypothesis.
More frequent gamma ray bursts sterilizing entire sections of the galaxy occurred frequently during the early life of the galaxy, meaning there are no ancient old alien civilizations millions of years more advanced than our own.
I doubt if we are the only intelligent species in the galaxy.
But though we may not be completely alone, we almost certainly are very lonely.
Daily Betelgeuse news:
https://twitter.com/betelbot
A trusted Musk brand :)
Two thoughts combine: (1) Alfred speaking of American ghost towns and (2) Duncan’s “that's OK - but what about the situation when a small subsidy keeps something in operation - but removing the subsidy actually costs a LOT more when the company goes bust and all the workers stop paying taxes and start collecting unemployment…”
I have long held that we should pick pairs of dying towns near each other in Flyover America and subsidize the folks in Town B to move to Town A and make it viable. We then use Town B to serve a wide variety of needs, filling it with folks who would then do business with the citizens of Town A.
- Very Low Security prisons. Elderly or harmless inmates or those finishing sentences with spotless records. The only supervision needed is to help them refurbish homes and run garden plots big enough to mostly feed the facility.
- Inexpensive havens for refugee families near residences & transport for lawyers working their immigration cases. Let em work refurbishing and farming to both pay their upkeep and eagerly show their intent to work hard.
- Refuges for every kind of spurned minority… especially sex offenders who presently get rejected by every neighborhood they try to live in.
You can imagine many other groups. But here’s the deal. Those small towns were often dying because they JUST BARELY could not make a profit. But these new denizens don’t have to. If their farms only 90% pay for themselves and the feds must cover the rest, then the feds – we citizens – accomplish feeding and housing such groups at an incredible bargain! The subsidized businesses likewise almost pay for themselves while training new entrepreneurs. And cash flows go also to Town A.
Efforts must be made to ensure these don’t seem like islands in a gulag archipelago, which some future despotism might convert them into! So care must be taken. Still…
==
DP: “Mankind has been governed by libertarianism for most of its history. Only it was called "feudalism".
That is the core point I always make to libertarians. If they truly are for freedom, then like Adam Smith and the US Founders, they should notice freedom’s worst enemy.
===
Thanks for the supernova parameters, though it’s still kinda close. We WOULD get tons of science!
While astronomy might help explain paucity of civilizations befor 4 BYA, it doesn’t do much since. I stick with the notion that human sapience is extremely rare.
Duncan,
I invite you to think carefully before supporting subsidies to the equivalent of buggy whip manufacturers.
It's not nice to prop up certain hopes people have no matter how much they like them. It's uncomfortably close to giving money to homeless people when you KNOW they are going to buy alcohol with it.
I'm not advocating hard landings, but I DO think we have to ponder how much of a problem we create with every choice.
Larry,
"Disruptors" who seem to think that the very act of destruction is creative.
Please don't surrender term definitions to people who abuse them.
———
…is it out there in public discourse that artistic creators are now called "creatives"?
I've seen it in a few places. It's better than calling them creatics in line with autistics, but kinda the same idea. 8)
reason,
Okay. That helps. I think you put too much hope in pulling people away from what they do, though. I've seen plenty of examples where a round of destruction led to creative infill sometimes just replacing it (the forest grew back) and sometimes substituting for it (something else emerged). I've seen it in entire industries including the one I first joined on leaving grad school. The financial industry changed a lot in and around the sub-prime niche after '98 when the Russian ruble collapsed.
If you want to help me understand what you think would constitute a proof of sufficient and/or necessary, I'll consider it. I'm obviously working from anecdotes, but my understanding of markets as evolutionary processes makes me hear those terms as non sequiturs.
Alfred Differ:
Please don't surrender term definitions to people who abuse them.
Don't quote marks count for anything?
I was thinking of the "inbrethiate" guy in Glass Onion. He didn't specifically use the term "creative destruction" (that I remember anyway), but he did seem to take as a given that breaking stuff was a good thing.
Re: Betelgeuse Supernova: Assuming in >650 years we have a technical civilization a century or so more capable than we are now, this shouldn't be a problem.
FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supernova_candidates
@DP, @Dr. Brin: Re: "But though we may not be completely alone, we almost certainly are very lonely." My GUESS: there may be a handful to a few hundred civilizations at/above our level in the MWG, separated by several thousand light years- no Vilcans at $0 Eridani., No Andorians at Procyon
Dr. Brin, you may have mentioned it somewhere in the Uplift series- but why couldn't we detect the Civilzation of the Five Galaxies (CFG) until we met up with them in 2212?
Please excuse typos...
Keith,
The 1st novel supposed that we were in a part of the galaxy left 'fallow' for some time to allow new species to develop that were ripe for uplift. 'Some time' = tens of thousands of years? Don't remember that bit.
Pappenheimer
I get the urge to intervene and save Town B, but I think it is VERY important to understand what it is that we are saving. Towns and cities emerge due to economic accumulations of capital that make sense at the time they emerge. Like a forest that springs into being after enough trees get a foothold, trading hubs turn into towns and maybe cities. That means saving Town B must address the causes that changed what made sense about capital accumulating there in the first place. If it no longer makes sense, we must consider why that is so and then decide whether intervening is about patching up a small wound or more like fighting a tide.
It doesn't take much for the cause of accumulated capital to erode. A mine might play out. A road might bypass the town. A drought might change the cost of water. A superfund site might be discovered next door. A war might start or end. When whole regions are affected, though, the list reasons is usually shorter and related to regional macro-events. Technological shifts, competition from another region, and climate change count among them and all look like the movement of a tide.
I'm not interested in propping up any industry to prevent the erosion of capital's interest in remaining in a region largely because among that capital is human capital. People SHOULD move much like money does and I'm far more willing to help them do that than intervening in ways that lower their temptation to move. Having said that, though, there are some terrible ways to do it that rank up there with bussing children.
———
Refugees/Spurned minorities: Moving them into any concentrated area is way, way too likely to look like a concentration camp before long. Efforts should be made so they don't seem like gulag archipelago's? Agreed, but I don't believe in my neighbors enough to have any hope there. I see too many of these places already even here in California. Section 8 neighborhoods and their unspoken fence lines walled in by school districts with insufficient cash due to piss poor property tax revenues.
Move sex offenders into these places and they'll become inverse-gated communities. The barbed-wire will go up keeping them in and nearby neighborhoods will advocate for Open Carry and Stand Your Ground rules.
———
Very low security prisons: Interesting idea as long as it includes federal and state prisons. I see a financial problem, though. Once they are bought up for that purpose, their property tax revenue going to the locals dries up. That turns a town on the financial brink into one that collapses along with their budget. There are lots of reasons for NIMBY-ism I dismiss, but ones that create existential threats for a town make a bit of sense.
Keeping their costs down is a decent idea, but they alter the causes for capital accumulation that were already eroding. I'd want to see a case made that these places won't erode causes further.
———
Inexpensive havens for refugees: We definitely need them, but I'm leery of concentrating them or undermining local revenues. I'm ESPECIALLY leery of putting them out far from our big cities where there are already obvious causes for more accumulation of capital. Want the refugees working hard? Put them where the work is. Put them where the work is already flowing toward.
Humans moving into big cities is a world-wide trend. That is a tide that won't be fought successfully.
——————
Tides: No matter how good your intention is when it comes to intervening, ask yourself whether you can command the tide to recede.
Human Nature: If your intervention isn't fighting a tide, THEN ask yourself are you fighting human nature.
If your preferred approach can deal with these two tests, I'll consider chipping in. If not, I'll turn my attention to rescuing people and letting towns die. We do this occasionally in the US when a river floods and the locals are convinced NOT to rebuild. We are going to have to do quite a bit of it this century with the climate shifting.
Libertarian Hypocrisy
I know next to nothing about the Libertarian movement except for having read the Little House on the Prairie books multiple times, which thus indoctrinated me to the beliefs of Rose Wilder Lane who is considered (along with our hosts beloved Ayn Rand) to be one of the founding mothers of the American libertarian movement. She HATED FDR and the new deal.
The article I read a few years ago that brought this to light mentioned Laura's family taking the liberty to build their homestead by squatting on Native American land (recognized by treaty) and villainizing the government for sending soldiers to move the family off their illegal homestead. The article also mentioned the hypocrisy of not mentioning that her sister Mary's tuition to attend the college for the blind was actually government subsidized--and not paid for by Laura's sacrificial teaching job as readers are lead to believe in the books.
Mulling this over, the most interesting thing I can think of in the books (that I didn't read in the articles) is during the Long Winter, where Almanzo (Laura's future husband) is homesteading with his brother in South Dakota. While the snowed-in town (including Laura's family) is on the verge of starving and all out of grain and supplies, Almanzo is hoarding a stash of seed wheat in the walls of his cabin. The details are vivid. While Laura's family is burning twisted hay to heat their house above freezing, Almanzo and his brother are eating giant stacks of pancakes. But rather than sell (we are not talking give or share) his investment with the town, Almanzo risks his life and goes on a heroic journey between blizzards with a buddy to buy a stash of wheat 20 miles a way from another homesteader. The two young men save the town and are heros. Hooray for Freedom!
The subtle message: Almanzo doesn't have to sacrifice his individual investment (which one might argue he values more more than his life, the life of his friend or the lives of his community.)
Keith Halperin:
Re: Betelgeuse Supernova: Assuming in >650 years we have a technical civilization a century or so more capable than we are now, this shouldn't be a problem.
That was my first thought too. But then, I realized that whatever observations we're noticing now indicating that the star is about to nova are already 650 years old. If we see it blow next week, that would mean the light (and radiation) from its explosion gets here next week. We don't have a warning that something will reach us 650 years from now. It's already on the way.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Larry,
Heh. Your reference is lost on me at the moment. I haven't seen Glass Onion. 8)
I don't mean to give you a hard time about any of this. You're just seeing my usual irritation when I run into things that look like attempts to distort meanings of terms that matter to me. If I'm not careful, I'll wind up writing out dictionary definitions as responses and then take over the role normally filled around here by the good doctor who we haven't seen in a while.
———
I will note, however, that the most recent posts complaining about libertarian hypocrisy really boil down a simple fact. Many libertarians disagree with the rest of you about the rules of Justice. It's NOT an uncommon fight in our civilization and recent changes (starting around three to four centuries ago) are behind the Great Enrichment. These rules matter.
At the risk of channeling someone, Justice is a virtue that people of character display when:
1) they know what is expected of them and act appropriately and
2) they know what to expect of others and hold them to it.
These expectations are best described as unwritten rules that map to common law.
Libertarians disagree with the current consensus about what can reasonably be expected of them AND what they reasonably expect of others. In a literal sense, they disagree on the definition of that virtue that many of you use.
Way off on a tangent here, but is it out there in public discourse that artistic creators are now called "creatives"? I've seen two separate references to this in Doonesbury, but nowhere else.
It's been mainstream for quite a while. I first heard "creative" nouned roughly a decade ago. Certainly long enough to be listed in Oxford:
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/creative_2
Mirriam-Webster also notes that "creative" has been used as a noun for over two centuries:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/can-creative-be-a-noun-usage-history
Spending any money to "make people's lives better" is a no-no in Reagan/Thatcher philosophy. Their slogan may as well have been "Millions for defense--not a cent for promoting the general welfare!"
The British expression is "I'm alright, Jack!".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_alright,_Jack
Robert:
Mirriam-Webster also notes that "creative" has been used as a noun for over two centuries:
Yes, but the article you linked to says that that was "creative" being used as a synonym for "creation", not for "creator".
The article chides people for objecting to a new usage of the word when that usage isn't actually new at all. My irritation isn't that a word is being used in a new way. It's that it is being used in place of the perfectly good word "creator" with the implication that "creative"-as-a-noun is somehow an improvement. I only object to the connotation of "Oh, you're still saying 'creator'? How 20th century!"
Just don't get me started on 'irregardless'. :)
And while everyone responds to that objection by pointing out that 'flammable' and 'inflammable' mean the same thing, I wonder why they never mention 'habitable' and 'inhabitable', which I believe are both more common expressions.
Alfred Differ:
Justice is a virtue that people of character display when:
1) they know what is expected of them and act appropriately and
2) they know what to expect of others and hold them to it.
Does that relate to "courage"? Because it seems to me that there is a big difference between "Having the courage to do what is right (what is just?) despite negative personal consequences" and "Having the courage to perpetrate injustice for personal benefit, despite the subsequent stain on your reputation."
I would only call the first one "courage", but I'm not sure how to justify that distinction.
@Pappenheimer: Thanks, I remember that too. ISTM the CFG should be at least a Kardashev 1.5+ civilization (~10e4 species, ~10e4 power generation > us today) and even if a large section of the MWG around us is left as a sorta "Galactic Wilderness Area" and/or unless they do things that would be very hard/impossible for us to detect (neutrinic communication through “normal space," D-level hyperspatial internet, etc.) and/or there's a CFG "Institute for Energy Conservation"- we should be noticing something from one of the FGs (which I assume are: the "Notorious MWG," "Big Magie," "Little "Magie," and which other two: “Andy” and “Ding-a-Ling” (Triangulum)?).
Also, I would think that the CFG would put a number of Bracewell probes around every life-bearing "fallow" world in the FGs just to keep track of things and make sure nobody gets the CFG equivalents of "getting caught with their pants down" as they apparently did with us. Maybe there's an "Institute for Massive Stupidity" handling this sort of thing, or maybe everything is being handled properly: the Hoon got the initial paperwork on us 4x6e6 choduras ago and are waiting for approval signatures...
@Larry: DOH! Well, at least we should only be getting ~1/20th of the lethal dose, and we won't have to do things like the aliens in Poul Anderson's "The Pirate" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_(short_story)) did.
@Re: Libertarian Hypocrisy: I just had a discussion as part of a group I run with a pleasant gentleman who describes himself as a Libertarian (was involved with his local party chapter) and lives in subsidized housing.
“Hypocrisy is the lubricant of society”.
- David Hull
“Do I hypocrisize myself? Very well then I hypocrisize myself, (I am large, I contain platitudes…)"
- Me (with apologies to W2)
I really hated Glass Onion. Oh, good carpet-chewing actor performances. But not a single character - not one- had ANY plausible motive to do what they did. Certainly not to commit murder or take out their meal ticket.
See Francois La Rochefoucauld re hypocrisy. \\
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/10/05/in-praise-of-hypocrisy/20e75377-9d6e-4e6f-a08d-efa1b3aeb055/
Larry,
Courage is a different virtue that for historical reasons is usually tied to battle. In the oldest sense it was a manly virtue not expressed in the characters of women*. (Aristotle didn't include Love in his list of virtues.)
Courage is less about Justice and more about a willingness to battle when called upon to do so. If the unwritten rules make it an expectation, then it is ALSO Justice, but that is not always so.
Bourgeois Courage broadens the kinds of battles that count SO much so that people who cling to the older definition see the broadening as emasculating, but the bourgeois version is currently dominant in The West… except among the pussy grabber clade who are obviously willing to do battle with us over this.
———
Imagine you know the future outcome of a baseball game with a 99% chance of being correct. (You have a friend in the future with a time machine, but his writing is occasionally like a doctor writing a prescription. You can bet on the game in Vegas with no one knowing that you know, so how much do you risk? Are you willing to put up your home equity? Are you willing to bet the kids college fund? Your retirement money too?
Feel the danger? You don't have a 100% certainty, so things could go wrong, but 99% is pretty damn good considering the odds you'd get in Vegas for a single game. Aristotle wouldn't have called taking the bet a form of courage, but among us it is and it's easily shown. Some would think you a coward for not risking a lot. That belief on our part has nothing to do with the unwritten rules around expected give-and-get behaviors and everything to do with whether you are "A Man" or "A Loser". See?
Classical Courage was a manly virtue. Even the word 'virtue' has its roots in descriptions of men, but 'courage' is the oldest of them all. Women noticed it too, but our version in use today is quite a bit broader.
* Romans fighting the tribes of Germany knew better because the barbarians they faced often counted women among them.
Someone's already suggested that the tales of Betelgeuse' demise may be premature.
Both are pretty technical arguments concerning radial oscillation modes and stellar radii.
Let's just say one doesn't bring a bowl of cherries to a sci fight.
One a related topic, imagine being an alien Kepler living in one of *these* hypothetical 3-body stellar systems!
Tony - I'm looking forward to the "3 Body Problem" in 2024.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lj99Uz1d50
Alfred Differ:
Courage is less about Justice and more about a willingness to battle when called upon to do so.
The usage I object to is Paul Ryan's, when he talked about having the courage to cut benefits to powerless people. Presumably the danger a congressman faces by doing so is the voters' anger, but there was a lot of pushback (which I totally agreed with) that congressmen exhibit courage when they support the powerless against the powerful interests arrayed against them, not when they do the opposite.
I would say that Adam Kingsinger showed courage in being one of only two Republican congressmen to stand against his president's treachery, but that Paul Ryan did not exhibit courage by "daring" to do his sponsors' bidding against his constituents'. I'm looking for a way to justify the distinction that doesn't rely on my own political bias.
Classical Courage was a manly virtue.
In today's coarser language, it is often referred to has "having balls", but the word obviously has French roots referring to the heart. The phrase "He didn't have the heart to..." has softer connotations, but I can certainly see the overlap.
The term "Trump derangement syndrome" has been used incorrectly. It should be a description of Trump's personal mental state.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-and-fox-news-anchor-bret-baier-clash-in-heated-interview
...
“First of all, I won in 2020 by a lot,” Trump told Baier when challenged on how he plans to attract independent votes in 2024, before repeating various unfounded claims about voter fraud and stuffed ballots.
...
When challenged by Baier on the criminal indictment against him for mishandling classified documents, Trump denied waving around a highly sensitive plan detailing a potential attack on Iran–despite an audio recording obtained by federal prosecutors in which the former president allegedly expresses a desire to share the war plan with others. Trump denied bragging about the documents to people at his golf club Bedminster, N.J, as prosecutors allege.
“There was no document. That was a massive amount of papers and everything else, talking about Iran and other things. And it may have been held up or it may not, but that was not a document,” Trump told Baier, “These boxes were interspersed with all sorts of things; golf shirts, pants, shoes, all sorts of things.”
“Iran war plans?” Baier asked.
“Not that I know of,” Trump replied.
...
The Morning (in the NY Times): Republicans Against Inequality
https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20230620&instance_id=95547&nl=the-morning&productCode=NN®i_id=115690114&segment_id=136153&te=1&uri=nyt%3A%2F%2Fnewsletter%2Fcc222fed-d879-5fb7-9c9f-a9a9482ba24e&user_id=c4b8b85cde103971fadec54f2e925e2e
Increased government economic intervention + restrictions on personal behavior (populism):
this seems as anti-libertarian/classical liberal as you can get (http://factmyth.com/understanding-liberalism-and-conservatism/).
I think I've mentioned before that during the COVID lockdowns, I watched a lot of what I refer to as "America porn" on video, a large subset being "WWII porn".
Recently, I've seen quite a few Netflix movies taking place in the latter days of the war, either in late 1944 or 1945. Assuming that the historical settings are accurate, there's a lot I didn't know about that period, and how much damage and cruelty the Nazis were still inflicting in Italy, France, and the Netherlands, as well as in London via the V2 rockets. I guess I always had a sense that the war progressed directly from D-Day to the taking of Berlin, much the way that American schoolkids learn about the pilgrims and the Revolution without noting much of the 150 years in between.
Alfred’s question re courage comes up when I dare MAGAs to bet $$$ over their incantation assertions. They always flee. Always. My wife asks “So? What have you accomplished?” Well… if there are witnesses then the vaunted value of macho is damaged along with the very notion that incantations have a relationship to fact.
This does NOT work with Woke-ists. They are immune to wager demands and laugh at them as toxic masculinity.
===
“First of all, I won in 2020 by a lot,” Trump told Baier when challenged on how he plans to attract independent votes in 2024, before repeating various unfounded claims about voter fraud and stuffed ballots.
I have yet to hear ONE journalist or dem point out: “Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona all had REPUB:ICAN state officials running their elections. No
Larry,
Yes, the latter-day Nazis were still rounding up and killing civilians in occupied countries long after the diversion of manpower from the fronts made any sense. It's almost as if Dr. Brin's hypothesis* that they were engaged in mass blood sacrifice was correct, though what was happening was more likely bureaucratic self-sabotage**. The V2 program was similarly pointless and expensive.
There was a slim chance the war could have been ended in 1944 after a huge part of the German army in the west was encircled due to Hitler's direct meddling, but Hitler's other move to strongly garrison northern French ports rather than reinforce the main line across France forced the Allies to rely on a makeshift logistics route all the way back into Normandy. Allied armored columns ran into supply issues and slowed or stopped.
*see Thor vs. Cpt. America
**Martin Gilbert makes a point of that in one of his books.
Pappenheimer
Larry, after seeing Trump's latest interview on Fox we have to wonder what kind of person would still vote for him?
The answer is simple if you just accept that harsh truth that fully 1/3 of our fellow Americans are racist/misogynistic/anti-Semitic/homophobes.
They love Trump because he made it OK to be a hater again. They can do so openly instead of whispering it among themselves.
Once we accept that, there is no mystery.
Pappenheimer:
*see Thor vs. Cpt. America
One of my favorite Brin short stories. And I like his afterward note about how that was probably the most plausible reason the Nazis did as they did.
* * *
DP:
The answer is simple if you just accept that harsh truth that fully 1/3 of our fellow Americans are racist/misogynistic/anti-Semitic/homophobes.
No argument. As disturbingly large as it is, I don't think his support is enough to win again, even with the electoral college. I do worry about "independent state legislatures" flexing their muscles in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, or Arizona, and the rogue supreme court. And remember, a Republican doesn't have to win in the electoral college. If no one gets a majority, the House of Representatives picks the winner, and not by individual votes, but by one vote per state.
Trump can't win another free and fair election, but there are plenty of ways he can get away with cheating.
Should have read ahead first. Here's an even better example of "Trump derangement" in the more accurate meaning of the term. All-caps in the original:
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2023/Items/Jun20-1.html
...
And over the weekend, Trump uncorked this ALL CAPS tantrum on the same subject:
SO NOW THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT. PLUS THE CLINTON SOCKS CASE, TOTALLY EXONERATED ME FROM THE CONTINUING WITCH HUNT BROUGHT ON BY CORRUPT JOE BIDEN. THE DOJ. DERANGED JACK SMITH. AND THEIR RADICAL LEFT. MARXIST THUGS. WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO DROP ALL CHARGES AGAINST ME. APOLOGIZE. AND RETURN EVERYTHING THAT WAS ILLEGALLY TAKEN (FOURTH AMENDMENT) FROM MY HOME? THIS WAS NOTHING OTHER THAN ELECTION INTERFERENCE!!!
"The answer is simple if you just accept that harsh truth that fully 1/3 of our fellow Americans are racist/misogynistic/anti-Semitic/homophobes.
They love Trump because he made it OK to be a hater again. They can do so openly instead of whispering it among themselves."
- I am most of the way finished with a book called "Subliminal" by Leonard Mlodinow, which goes into how unconscious processing leads to the creation of these kinds of people, but how people who may be naturally inclined to stereotype and scapegoat can be diverted from that sort of thing. In one spot he quoted a description of what life was like on the street by the Twin Towers just before they came down and right after, which beautifully illustrates the Law of Segmentary Opposition, though I doubt he has ever heard of it. Well worth the read for people who are trying to understand humans.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13058637-subliminal
PSB
Larry, after seeing Trump's latest interview on Fox we have to wonder what kind of person would still vote for him?
The answer is simple if you just accept that harsh truth that fully 1/3 of our fellow Americans are racist/misogynistic/anti-Semitic/homophobes.
They love Trump because he made it OK to be a hater again. They can do so openly instead of whispering it among themselves.
Well, in Everybody Lies (I think, running on memory here) Seth Stephens-Davidowitz noted the strong correlation between Google searches using the term "n*****" and actual voting for Trump, narrowed down to polling areas. (Note: he used the actual term, but I'm not certain what David and Blogger's policies are on it, so I'm eliding it here.)
Discussed a bit here, along with some rather disturbing data about abortions and miscarriages.
https://www.msnbc.com/live-online/watch/here-s-what-we-re-googling-in-the-age-of-trump-1010764355996?featureFlag=true
DP redux...
that harsh truth that fully 1/3 of our fellow Americans are racist/misogynistic/anti-Semitic/homophobes
The more scary point is how much of our institutions--especially law-enforcement--are part of that clade. Stephanie Miller was discussing a recent Washington Post story that detailed how much the FBI and the DOJ were in the bag for Trump and the insurrectionists. Trump and his allies speak truth when they say we've got a two-tiered justice system, but they really shouldn't be complaining about that because it favors them.
Rachel Maddow recently did an expose of similar activities in pre-WWII America in which law enforcement was not interested in investigating right-wing terrorist groups because all they cared about were commies.
Dr. Brin,
"I have yet to hear ONE journalist or dem point out: “Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona all had REPUB:ICAN state officials running their elections. No"
- I have heard this brought up many times by NPR.
"This does NOT work with Woke-ists. They are immune to wager demands and laugh at them as toxic masculinity."
- That's probably because, though wagering isn't necessarily toxic behavior, it is quite commonly done by toxic people who are simply trying to push their egos on everyone else. With the woke people, try pointing out common ground, then standards for evidence, and only then go into their specific beliefs. It might work with some of them, anyway.
As far as hypocrisy goes, it's a consequence of having rigid beliefs, especially rigidly adhering to some ideology. Beliefs and ideologies create simple models of complex reality, so none of them can ever adequately explain complex reality (a.k.a. the Ludic Fallacy).
PSB
Dr. Brin,
"I have yet to hear ONE journalist or dem point out: “Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona all had REPUB:ICAN state officials running their elections. No"
- I have heard this brought up many times by NPR.
"This does NOT work with Woke-ists. They are immune to wager demands and laugh at them as toxic masculinity."
- That's probably because, though wagering isn't necessarily toxic behavior, it is quite commonly done by toxic people who are simply trying to push their egos on everyone else. With the woke people, try pointing out common ground, then standards for evidence, and only then go into their specific beliefs. It might work with some of them, anyway.
As far as hypocrisy goes, it's a consequence of having rigid beliefs, especially rigidly adhering to some ideology. Beliefs and ideologies create simple models of complex reality, so none of them can ever adequately explain complex reality (a.k.a. the Ludic Fallacy).
PSB
Apropos of nothing, I recently read what might be the most important book I have seen this year. It's called "Weathering: The Extraordinary Stress of Ordinary Life in an Unjust Society" by Arline Geronimus. It starts with Robert Sapolsky's research on the effects of chronic stress, then moves into the systemic biases of society and policy recommendations to fix them.
https://www.amazon.com/Weathering-Extraordinary-Stress-Ordinary-Society-ebook/dp/B0B5SB9D68
https://mitpressbookstore.mit.edu/book/9781668630389
https://www.harvard.com/book/9780316257978_weathering/
https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780316257978
PSB
Off the present topic, but relevant to the several types of denial of reality in support of ideology on both the left and the right that is often talked about here, Dr. Brin and some of the readers here might find this article interesting.
The Ideological Subversion of Biology - Jerry A. Coyne and Luana S. Maroja
It is thorough, relentless even, but easy to read and understand. A brief explanation of the article by one of the authors . . .
"Our purpose was to demonstrate how “progressive” ideology is worming its way into organismal and evolutionary biology, impeding research and promoting misconceptions about science to both the public and scientists themselves. We do this by discussing six areas: the sex binary, evolutionary psychology, sex differences, individual differences, group differences, and the sacralization of indigenous knowledge." [Jerry Coyne]
You'll note right off that these are highly contentious topics these days and that just mentioning them is liable to immediately instigate a yelling match. I don't know much about Luana Maroja, but I've known of Jerry Coyne for more than 10 years, have participated at his website for that time and have corresponded with him a bit personally, and I can assure you that he is a bleeding heart liberal that in any other era prior to the current would have been dismissed as a "hippie, commie, pinko, scumbag" by any respectable conservative.
Pappenheimer there were many mistakes amid general allied cleverness and excellence. The Falaise Gap was hard to close because the 15th Army in Calais sent forces to keep it open and let some of the 9th escape. A worse mistake was Monty refusing to trap the 15th in Calais allowing them to escape to the Schelt – preventing use of Antwerp for a month.
But none of that would have ended the war in 44. Fact is, a clever and resourceful people still had some men and factories and geographic barriers to defend. They were mad. But humans can be obstinate, even when mad.
The morale wrecker was their (predictable ) failure in the Ardennes, After that… they started to crack. We can hope for similar among the invaders in Ukraine.
Certainly not an expert on WWII, but IMHO Germany was a dead man walking as soon as Enigma was cracked. The British recruited widely for that effort, including bridge players and artisans. The Germans, especially their Great Leader, retained a narrow, military mindset and even chalked up suspicious Allied movements to luck and coincidence instead of entertaining the unthinkable, even decades after the war. There's that diversity force again.
“The answer is simple if you just accept that harsh truth that fully 1/3 of our fellow Americans are racist/misogynistic/anti-Semitic/homophobes.”
I still maintain that nerd-hatred is far more of a truly universal trait among MAGAs than racism or varied phobias. It’s not only more frequently openly expressed. It is also the ‘elite’ that stands in the way of return of feudalism.
----
Lena, while wager demands FRIGHTEN our MAGAs and make them flee and expose their weenie hypocrisy…
…woke-ists are utterly immune to any tactic I have ever seen. Money is irrelevant. Facts are a toxic-masculinity plot. Anyone wanting to discuss counterproductive TACTICS must perforce automatically be conspiring to weaken the STRATEGIC goal of a better, more diversely just world.
And sorry. But MLK and Gandhi would be appalled that a central tenet of that movement is now FRAGILITY. Instead of urging the victims of racism and sexism etc to stand up and grow a thick skin, in order to persevere and overcome, the motif now is to croon “poor baby!” at every client caste and declare mistakes of verbiage to be equivalent of cattle cars to Bergen-Belsen.
Yes! We need to grow more caring to those who ARE actually fragile! But assuming fragility and howling that it is omnipresent is not doing most of the disadvantaged a favor. It is a way for smug folks to see themselves as hero protectors of an utterly dependent caste. It is a kind of feudalism.
Such people are in it for sanctimony’s sake. And it is why many Latino and black males are leaving liberalism and many black females, too.
As for declarations we’re a non-binary species. Well, that's great and true and sure. First we MUST allow for the great dream of “I can remake myself” to be a central cultural tenet. But that’s not the same thing as declaring “Nature is an idiot!”
We build up FROM nature - TOWARD what we decide we want to be. And I want to be a culture of diversity an(strength) and opportunities based on character and deeds, not assumptions!
. But it is only by admitting Nature’s hand that was dealt to us that we learn to play it better. And 6000 years of feudal rule by brutal harem-keepers shows how prevalent male reproductive strategies have been, in history. And MRStrategies also are seen warping every other species. WE CAN AND DO BREAK OUT OF THAT TRAP! But we do that best by first nodding that it happened.
scidata the Nazis were doomed as you say. But a dead man can 'walk' for a very long time. The Japanese came close to shambling on until their nations was flat.
Current estimates for Russian casualties in Ukraine are over 200,000. Still, it took 400,000 casualties before Stalin gave up on Finland. I honestly don't know how much cannon fodder a belief in the Motherland gives Putin. (As for Ukraine, they know what's at stake)
Brits had to be *very* careful with how they used the information they obtained from Enigma. The most (in)famous example being the bombing of Coventry. With no other plausible source of information, it had to be let through, with all the consequences. Captured U-boat crews were (illegally) kept incommunicado so that there were no suspicions that code books had been captured from subs presumed sunk.
Having Canaris on side might have provided some deflection.
Even so, there were some close calls.
Whilst we're mapping yesteryear's woes onto today's, it's a good time to re-flag the post-war educational film 'Don't be a sucker'
Criminy this guy is 98% likely crackers. But we can afford it. I just wish he'd acknowledge he's not the 1st to think of any of this stuff. He always acts as if he is.
https://avi-loeb.medium.com/we-recovered-shock-resisting-steel-in-the-debris-field-of-the-first-recognized-interstellar-meteor-e21452e5a222
Worse than Coventry, a couple of unhappy convoys that could not be saved while keeping the Enigma secret.
Dang but Cumberbatch did a great Turing.
So a robotic? sled on the earths ocean recovered some S5 steel flakes
Possibly - just possibly - there may have been some military action or training over that location
'The Imitation Game' was a very potted account of cracking Enigma (going after weather reports where the wording was very predictable was SOP rather than a dramatic breakthrough revelation) but, yeah, Cumberbatch portrayed Turing well.
Imagine what Turing could have done during the Cold War if he had not committed suicide.
scidata the Nazis were doomed as you say. But a dead man can 'walk' for a very long time. The Japanese came close to shambling on until their nations was flat.
I personally think, the greatest error that doomed the Nazis was that they were Nazis. Being a Nazi led to faulty conclusions and ideas, like:
- Creating debts that nearly bankrupted the state to rebuild the military and creating the necessary infrastructure for War (the Autobahn!), as well as creating "Jobs for everyone" (which was technically forced labor)
- Invading Poland
- Loosing resources and talent through persecution and corruption
- Allowing opportunistic sycophants to rise
- Setting up those in power against each other, fostering inter-Nazi rivalries (instead an atmosphere of cooperation)
- Micromanaging, and later also killing of capable leaders
- ...
(BTW, I saw many of this mistakes being repeated by Russia in Ukraine.)
On "Woke-ism":
Sure, some vocal leaders of the leftist camps exaggerate, using fragility as a tactic. They do more harm than good. I sometimes think that these "leftists" are more likely to be narcicissts and just wound up in that political camp by chance. Toxic people.
But being "woke", aware of social injustice, is nothing to scoff at. It is the duty of any citizen in a democratic country to guard it from encroaching discrimination of minor groups*, being them Nerds, LGBTQ+ people, political activists, PoC, immigrants, artists, you name it. I come to see actions, speeches, laws directed against these groups as early warning signs, tripwires against people with funny uniforms and high boots.
(Again, Russia is a fine example ... as are Trump, deSantis, MTG, the GOP... or any right-wing populist party over here.)
Der Oger, that post-WWII video I linked to earlier was about how fascists take over.
You can watch it and easily replace 'nazi' with 'Wagner' or 'Putnik'
Der Oger:
Only after the world had seen what the generation of my grandparents and great-grandparents did, they (quietly and slowly) changed their view on these topics.
I often remark ruefully that it took Hitler to make antisemitism* unfashionable.
(Or should I use Dave Sim's preferred term: Judenhass ?)
Der Oger, that post-WWII video I linked to earlier was about how fascists take over.
You can watch it and easily replace 'nazi' with 'Wagner' or 'Putnik'
Nice Video. And agreed.
Some comments:
1) AFAIK, the churches collaborated with Hitler, even after the war (google the Rat Lines), for the most part. There were exceptions (Bonhoeffer, von Galen), though. After the war, they were the only major social organization left standing, so they gained much influence (and retaining it to this day).
2) There were other factors that helped the Nazi party to rise, and they are easily forgotten or intentionally left out. Austerity policies, cutting down on welfare expanses, the population loosing trust in democracy by constantly disbanding parliament and ruling by executive orders, the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles, to name a few. (Yes, I know that those topics would interfere with the videos intent, but I think that solely putting the blame on "seducers" is somewhat lazy and dishonest. After the war, it served to sweep everything under the rug, until the Ausschwitz Trials and the revolts in the late 60s.)
3) Lets not forget that many ideas the Nazis took to the extreme - Persecution of minorities, Euthanasia, Imperialism - had a fertile soil in any allied and axis state. Only after the world had seen what the generation of my grandparents and great-grandparents did, they (quietly and slowly) changed their view on these topics.
Or to quote Berthold Brecht:
The womb is still fertile from which it crept.
(edited version of my post above)
A cool alternate history is: the transistor gets invented in 1937 instead of 1947. Lilienfeld (possibly influenced in quantum theory by Planck) filed a US patent for the FET in 1926 (and actually filed it in Canada in 1925). Today's chips have many billions of MOSFETs. In case you're wondering, my SELDON I doesn't (yet). It's based on recursion and a certain unnamed programming language for now and massive parallelism later.
Der Oger: Lets not forget that many ideas the Nazis took to the extreme - Persecution of minorities, Euthanasia, Imperialism - had a fruitful soil in any allied and axis state. Only after the world had seen what the generation of my grandparents and great-grandparents did, they (quietly and slowly) changed their view on these topics.
The Nazis admired American eugenics laws, and took great inspiration from them, as chronicled in Edwin Black's book War Against the Weak.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Against_the_Weak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
https://www.niwrc.org/restoration-magazine/november-2020/past-and-current-united-states-policies-forced-sterilization
They (American laws, not the Nazis) also had an effect in Canada, especially in Alberta (the most American province).
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/eugenics
Note that it took until the 70s (a full generation after WWII ended) for the eugenics laws to be repealed. Forced sterilizations still seem to be continuing, although that seems to be the work of individuals protected by official indifference rather than intentional government policy.
Likewise, it took until the late 80s for Canada and America to apologize to their own citizens who were forced into concentration camps during WWII on the basis of their race. And anti-Asian feelings are on the rise in both countries.
A fertile womb, indeed.
"the Nazis were doomed as you say"
Not necessarily.
The obvious "Germany wins" scenario in the West is the British not escaping at Dunkirk and the entire British army becomes POWs. An appeaser like Halifax becomes PM instead of Churchill and negotiates an armistice with Hitler (Sealion was always a logistical fantasy). The Clivedon Set comes to dominate British politics and the UK begins a long slow slide into fascism.
But how realistic is trapping the British at Dunkirk? Not very. For that to happen there has to be no British counterattack at Arras a week before.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-mystery-left-out-of-christopher-nolans-dunkirk-why-didnt-hitler-go-in-for-the-kill
>After days of disorganized retreat the BEF had surprised the Germans on May 21 by staging a counterattack, using tanks and infantry, at the edge of the northern French city of Arras.
>That counterattack seems to have unnerved a man who was to become perhaps the most proficient leader of panzer divisions, General Erwin Rommel. Rommel complained to the German commanding general, Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt, that his 7th Panzer Division had been attacked by “hundreds of enemy tanks.” In fact, the British had deployed 74 tanks of which only 16 were the latest generation and able to outfight Rommel’s armor.
>But the psychological effect of the unexpected resistance was more powerful than the British tanks. Von Rundstedt, with the support of Hitler, stopped the panzers driving toward Dunkirk and ordered that, first, the resistance at Arras should be dealt with.
>Then, at 8 p.m. on May 23, another German commander warned von Rundstedt that other panzer divisions were moving so fast through Belgium and France that their infantry was falling behind the tanks and recommended that the tanks should be halted until the infantry had time to catch up. Von Rundstedt, again with Hitler’s consent, approved a pause of 36 hours, until May 25.
Everybody in the German High Command (Halder's and Guderian's self serving post-war memoirs notwithstanding) agreed that the panzers should halt and wait for the infantry to catch up. This allowed the British to escape. Goering's boasts proved hollow since the Luftwaffe was not deployed in forward bases in enough numbers so that it could have interfered with the evacuation.
And even if the British had been trapped (possible but not likely) it would have backfired on Hitler's grand strategy in regards to Russia - the main point of his war effort. One of the reasons Russia was caught completely by surprise by Barbarossa was the fact the the UK was still defiantly at war with the Reich and Stalin could not believe that Hitler would risk a two front war and would need at least another year to finish of the British.
Interesting analysis of why Hitler needed the British to remain nominally at war with the Reich can be found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJerNud7yQI
I'm guessing that one of the, darkly amusing, things going on with "Drumph!" and his fellow travelers is an attempt to be opposite of everything progressive, or indeed any, Democrat is for. Considering any Democrat at minimum, pays lip service to "Truth, justice and the American way", it's no surprise enterprising right wing nuts looking to stand out are looking to not only disreputable past US practices, but fascist ones. Hope they can get off that before they become much worse.
One example of the (Formerly) GOP embracing the reprehensible:
https://www.businessinsider.com/free-school-lunches-in-america-republicans-will-end-2022-6?op=1
This will increase administrative expenses for school districts, I expect more and worse as young "Conservatives" on the make look for ways to stand out.
The most obvious scenario for victory in the East is an earlier start to Barbarossa.
It is often claimed that the diversion to the Balkan campaign delayed the invasion of Russia by over a month. But far more important was the late spring thaw in 1941 that turned the steppes into a sea of mud at least until early June. No Balkan campaign (assuming the British are out of the war - see above - and no British support for the Greeks and Yugoslavs) means at most a couple of extra weeks with a start in early June instead of late June. Good analysis here:
https://www.quora.com/What-if-Operation-Barbarossa-started-earlier-like-in-May-or-early-June
>May is probably not viable. In 1941 in Kiev according to the weather archive the average daily temperature climbs over zero only around first of April, this means that at least until the middle of April there’s likely still snow lying around, and the roads are not dry enough to move heavy machinery until about middle of May. In Leningrad snow started to melt only in the middle of April, stable warm weather sets in by middle of May. So starting in May is essentially driving headlong into the mud, which would blunt the offensive from the start and likely play to the advantage of the Red Army, allowing it to avoid the crushing defeats of June 1941, when Germans panzers drove full-speed into the Ukrainian steppe.
>Early June takes the mud issue out of the way, so it’s feasible as a starting date.
>That gives an extra three weeks before the autumn mud sets in and after it - the winter frost. All else being the same, this would mean that the Germans are at the gates of Moscow on the second week of September (instead of 30th September). The Germans reach the line 80–100 km from Moscow by 20 October historically (01 October in our alternative scenario). The autumn rains started on the 19th of October, starting the autumn mud season. The German offensive, as well as soviet defense were paralyzed till the 4th of November, when finally frost set in, giving mobility back to both sides. So, the question then boils down to - would the Germans be able to capture Moscow in the 19 days (01–19 October) they would have before the rains?
Driving straight on Moscow in late summer instead of diverting Guderian south to encircle the Russians in Kiev would have been disastrous. An advance on Moscow without dealing with Russian forces in Ukraine would have exposed the entire southern flank of the advance to Soviet counter attack. The Kiev encirclement gutted the Red Army, resulting in 600k prisoners and casualties - more than the entire German invasion force.
The big mistake seems to be going for Moscow in the first place.
A better strategy would be to continue the drive in the south by keeping Guderian in Army Group South and heading to the industries, resources, food and oil of the Don basin and the Caucasus. The entire southern half of the Soviet front had been shredded and organized resistance wasn't possible in the near term. Baku was always too far away but the oil fields of the Northern Caucasus were within reach.
Simultaneously reaching the Volga anywhere near Stalingrad (the city itself was not very important) would have cut off Russian oil supplies to the Red Army and Air Force (Caucasus oil was shipped up the Volga in very vulnerable and flammable barges). Lack of oil would have made any Russian counter offensive impossible.
Conquering Russia to the Urals was (like Sealion) a logistical fantasy. The Germans could not have advanced much further, and without oil the Russians could not counter attack. The war in the East ends in a stalemate, but one with Germany controlling all of the economically important areas of European Russia.
The war ends with a German dominated European continent, indirectly controlling the vast resources of the European colonial empires, a subservient Britain to the west and an impotent Russia to the east. A German cold war with America follows the inevitable defeat of Japan.
Not exactly "Man in the High Castle", but a somewhat realistic scenario for German victory.
"Criminy this guy is 98% likely crackers. But we can afford it. I just wish he'd acknowledge he's not the 1st to think of any of this stuff. He always acts as if he is."
I'm currently out on this project. Since I'm out here at sea with him, I don't want to speak too much on Avi, other than to say that he is overly eager, to put it mildly, to assume things we pick up are likely from an alien intelligence when he doesn't know why a particular bit is on the seafloor. But he isn't familiar with the kinds of things that come off of work boats as a matter of routine operations. However, this project really is cool, because it's clear that this meteor was indeed interstellar. So if we do pick up any pieces of it, we will actually get to sample bits of rock from another solar system. That would be truly amazing, regardless of the alien talk being bandied about.
Also, the sled we're using is not robotic. It's very low tech, except for the magnets. It's just a metal sled with high powered magnets on it and rollers on the front. It's towed along the seafloor behind the vessel by a high strength synthetic line, with no communications or power going to the sled. We just drag it. And it's picking up plenty of ferrous material. But I would take anything on that blog with a large grain of salt.
-Mike
A look at the Russian campaign shows the real reason the Axis lost the war: oil.
Again, an excellent analysis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVo5I0xNRhg
And a detailed look at the German synthetic oil industry, and why it was never enough:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URBlC-wjXiQ
The other classic "Germany wins" scenario involve the Reich getting the a-bomb first.
Highly recommend this video on Hitler's a-bomb project and why it never got off the ground.
Though they had a weird design for an nuclear reactor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrCc9XfNoBE
@Darrell E: Thank you. I like how Coyne says: "The guiding principle of science—and of academic freedom, on which science depends—is freedom of inquiry."
I agree that research should be not be based on ideology: it should be based upon whether or not it helps the researchers get grants/jobs/promotions/tenure...
Snarkiness aside, ISTM that a good general guide when someone is presenting you with some particular information that might involve a signifcant action depending on how it is received would be to ask yourself "What is their motivation for this?", i.e., "What's in it for them?"
In addition, while I'm not behavioral scientist, I'm willing to raise the possibility that the presentation, timing, audience and other factors for given research could be a significant factor (apart from the data/results) in its professional acceptance or lack thereof (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/).
Dr Brin, I'm not seeing where Biden refilled the strategic oil reserve... its been going steadily downwards since 2021. What is your source for Biden refilling at low prices?
https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_ending_stocks_of_crude_oil_in_the_strategic_petroleum_reserve
Thanks Mike Kelly, good clarification.
Der Oger I hate having to repeatedly describe how I fight for the same long range goals, both morally and pragmatically, since it’s unlikely feudal nations will ever take to the stars or manage a planet well. And that a guy like me will be toast in any other kind of culture than I write about in VIVID TOMORROWS: Science Fiction and Hollywood – http://www.davidbrin.com/vividtomorrows.html
To me the greatest crime of the sanctimony addict wing of woke-ism is their absolute refusal to ever call eclectic CONFERENCES to adjudicate difficult questions, e.g. faulty TACTICS that hurt our own side. And offering TRIALS of penitent sinners like Al Franken, before calm feminist etc sages. And even downgrading the ferocity of linguistic bullying. And even assessing the usefulness of fragility- preening.
As for the Nazis many ‘mistakes’ you could include driving out most of their best scientists. But do assess WHY Hitler decided to invade Poland 9/39. Just like JFK’s Senior Thesis “While England Slept,” he could see that the UK was re-arming at a furious pace, as were the USSR & France. His advantages would vanish in a year. He decided he had little choice.
DP those three weeks would have put the noose on Moscow.
DP the Nazis’ reactor design wasn’t just ‘weird’ it was stunningly stupid and insane and impractical and would likely have depopulated a German university city. As for a ‘bomb’ that wasn’t even being researched and they had nothing. Manhattan Proj was ahead by at least twenty HUGE breakthroughs.
Dunkirk
If the Germans had continued to push at Dunkirk it would have involved the German tanks fighting with the RN - not the sort of thing a tank wants to do
Those last ten miles or so belong to the naval guns
AND - British Expeditionary Force in France was only a small part of the whole Army -
German A bomb - Heisenberg calculated that the "critical mass" was many tons - which would have made atom bombs pretty well useless as weapons of war - which then removed all "urgency" from the German research
The problem with Fascism is that its actually a type of theocracy - the "leader" is a cross between a High Priest and a Prophet - and "Criticism" is "heresy" - as OGH says eliminating criticism is FATAL to a complex society
duncan cairncross:
as OGH says eliminating criticism is FATAL to a complex society
Or as George Orwell put it:
"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield,"
@DC: Re: Criticism- A good point.
What constitutes "eliminating criticism"?
Is anything short of killing, threatening, or imprisoning critics acceptable?
Is anything stronger than a neutral acknowlegement of the criticism unacceptable?
What about "soft elimination":
1) distracting people from the criticism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party#:~:text=The%2050%20Cent%20Party%2C%20also,Chinese%20Communist%20Party%20(CCP).),
2) overwhelming/exhausting/boring people with so many versions of the criticized subject that most people give up and don't care,
3) pre-empting the critic by releasing the criticism to one or more fringe groups so that it gets discredited (even when valid),
4) creating multiple "Overton Windows" where certain issues just aren't discussed except at the fringes, or
5) going a bit further by creating a climate of ideas where certain things never even OCCUR to people to discuss? (A possible future job title:"memegineer"...)
Keith Halperin:
going a bit further by creating a climate of ideas where certain things never even OCCUR to people to discuss? (A possible future job title:"memegineer"...)
That's a big part of 1984.
Keith
Criticism need not be accepted without scrutiny - a lot of "criticism" is flat out WRONG!
Another area where "competition" contributes! - criticism must "compete" to be used
The problem with Fascism is the Criticism = Heresy
Heresy is NOT permitted - it is squelched - flattened without remorse
The situation is similar to "Civil Disobedience" - Civil Disobedience is a powerful tool but part of that "Power" is because the people using that tool ARE penalized for doing so
alt.history is kinda fun, but I think people turn it into alt.historical.fantasy all to often.
The way the German beat the Russians in WWII involves a push to the Caspian and them come back up the Volga. Direct attack from their west is something of a feint intended to hold some units out of the real action. Cut off from the Caspian, Russia becomes Old Muscovy and withers back to an agrarian culture.
Besides the fact that Germany could have used the oil, keeping it from Russia ensured Russia's allies had to ship it all. The Atlantic battle made that mighty expensive.
-------
Anyone thinking a cold war would have happened between the US and the Reich while the UK was still alive is confused. Reich control of the northern plains of Europe was an existential threat to the US. Talk to real geopolitical folks to see why.
--------
Everything else we tend to debate requires foreknowledge they didn't have back then... except for one not so tiny thing. The Balkans weren't worth taking that early. They weren't going anywhere. The only reason to take them that early was to color the map. They've NEVER been worth taking... unless you live there.
Keith & Duncan excellent stuff.
that is why the sacred catechism if science is "I might be wrong. Come and attack! And let's have fun finding out."
The chief justification of free speech is to protect useful criticism. Till it became a tool of oligarch to prevent is.
---
Alfred the problem of supplying such a sothern campaign would have been hellish.
US+UK = Oceania. Just sayin'...
Italy wanted the Balkans and Germany needed Italy to have a chance at Egypt then Iran (giving you your Caspian thing). So helping italy not lose face mattered a bit.
But still... yes... it was dumb to do.
Der Oger,
I think that you pretty much hit it on the head re: the wokies. Some of them are certainly as bad as the people they revile. That's probably mostly a consequence of right-wing extremism pushing left-wing extremism. It might help to note that "woke" has been used in America's black vernacular since the 1930s. For them, it's nothing new, though to our Baby Boom Caucasians, too many of whom still think the way they did when they were kids in the '50s, it sounds like some crazy new thing.
I'm reading a book now called "The End of Gender" by Debra Soh, who is a sexologist turned journalist, largely because she got cancelled for showing what the real science shows, and the actual facts pissed off the wokies because it didn't fit their narrative. While I have a lot of sympathy for them, they can be as destructive to reality as their goose-stepping opponents.
While I am enjoying getting updated information on the state of the science, I wouldn't read the book without a grain or two of salt. She goes for the McNamara Fallacy right at the starting gate, and she insists that gender is as biological as sex is, but fails to actually define the term. She does acknowledge the role culture plays in determining what is considered masculine or feminine behavior, but says that it is biology that determines whether any individual is masculine or feminine - a kind of self-contradictory statement. I'll probably have more to say when I've finished it, though. Maybe this issue will be resolved in later pages.
Paul SB
Duncan,
An example of naval guns engaging tanks went exactly as you state. The Nazis reacted to the Allied invasion of Italy faster than expected, breaking the Allied lines at Salerno with an armored counterattack, first by a single panzer divison, then - (quick ref) - 6 motorized divisions in coordination. Each attack rolled into a firestorm of naval gunfire and airstrikes and failed. German counterattacks in Normandy after D-Day faced the same problems.
Though - the Japanese tried to eradicate the Marines on Guadalcanal the same way, and failed. Not for sure why, but those naval bombardments were at night (due to lack of air superiority) against dug in troops. Japanese infantry attacks were not coordinated with naval support because the Imperial Japanese Army and the IJN hated each other just slightly less than they did the US.
Pappenheimer, probably thinking about this too much.
P.S. Alfred, the Nazi invasion of Russia assumed (against hard evidence) that the USSR had far fewer divisions and worse equipment than it actually did and could be destroyed in a single year's blitzkrieg. If the OKW had dispassionately gamed out the actual circumstances, they might have reported, "Don't do this." There is no blindness like self-blinding. The real surprise is how far they actually got due to Stalin's initial meddling.
Overall, we had this discussion before. The Nazis were doomed because they thought like Nazis. If they hadn't thought like Nazis, there would have been no war.
Pappenheimer
Dr. Brin,
I'm not exactly arguing for conformity with the wokies. See what I wrote to Der Over above. The problem I have is when we start making assumptions about what Nature is and has wrought. Ludic fallacy, again. Nature is complicated, and so are its human products. Take the current kerfuffle over transitioning children who have gender dysphoria. As of this moment, there have been 11 longitudinal studies around the world of gender dysphoria in children. 60 - 90% of the subjects desisted (got over) their dysphoria by the time they were done with puberty. That means that if we follow the woke program of puberty blockers and hormone replacement for everyone, we would be effectively ruining the lives of most of these children. However, between 10 and 40% of them really need to transition. Variability is the name of the game for sexually-reproducing species. What we need is a way to put them into an fMRI to see which ones they are, but we don't have that, yet.
It's a similar problem to x-rays for African Americans. Most African Americans are descended from people taken from West Africa, where denser than average bones is a common trait. To an x-ray technician this presents a problem. If they have to x-ray a black person, they either crank up the power so they don't end up having to take the x-ray again, assuming the person has the denser bones, or they leave it at the standard setting that is appropriate for Caucasians and for people from everywhere else in Africa. It's kind of a crap shoot. The x-ray technician wants to expose the patient to the least amount of radiation, but without knowing exactly where an African American patient's ancestors came from, the choice is to over-expose those whose ancestors probably did not carry the extra-dense bone phenotype, or have to take a second x-ray if the patient turns out to have that phenotype.
Whatever assumptions we make about the average person, most traits in biology are not average, they're normally distributed. In some cases, there are discreet categories, sort of. There's a tiny little bit of the hypothalamus (whose name escapes me right now) about the size of a grain of sand, that has a huge say over a person's libido. The average male version is twice the size of the average female version - but these are averages only, with a whole lot of overlap. In gay men, this part is closer in size to the female average, and the opposite in gay women. In trans people, the average is right in the middle. So while we can make general statements about what Nature hath wrought, those statements will never be anything more than averages, and sometimes the range of variation is so extensive (the curve is so flat) as to make the mean next to meaningless. Sure, many humans are descendants of harem-collectors, so presumably we should all have the double-sized libido structure? But we don't, and testosterone-dominant temperaments are only 18% of human populations everywhere they have been tested, not the 25% that would be expected if all else were equal. It's complicated.
Paul SB
Pappenheimer,
the Nazis used circular logic.
They didn’t have enough resources, so they wanted to invade Eastward to obtain the resources.
But they didn’t have the resources to invade the East, thus they wished to invade to gain the resources—to continue invading...
Pappenheimer,
...assumed (against hard evidence) that...
Heh. Yah. That's a classic error made in every organization where it is more important to flatter the leader than correct his mistakes.
They also underestimated just how much Russians and their immediate neighbors are willing to tolerate hardships when commanded to do so.
David,
The theory goes that the world would wind up with one sea power and one land power if not for apocalypse weapons that would kill us all. The two powers would be like bishops on a chess board unable to touch each other.
Well... they COULD touch, but our navy can't operate far inland and has its own logistical issues when operating in waters with choke points. There are limits to our hard power.
I think both wars were stupidly handled in Germany even though they were able to accomplish a great deal facing two fronts. The only viable win in my not remotely humble opinion is to do what Germany is doing now. No hard power usage at all. They accomplished as much as they did in the wars because they have economic strengths their neighbors do NOT possess.
But this topic is about as much fun as debating American football games the day after they are played. That pass should not have been thrown! That fool should have stopped the clock! Meh. After you do it for enough years it all sounds the same and then you realize that QB just didn't have enough time to think before he was clocked by the blitzing LB. Chances are high I'd have done worse.
Pappenheimer,
...assumed (against hard evidence) that...
Heh. Yah. That's a classic error made in every organization where it is more important to flatter the leader than correct his mistakes.
They also underestimated just how much Russians and their immediate neighbors are willing to tolerate hardships when commanded to do so.
David,
The theory goes that the world would wind up with one sea power and one land power if not for apocalypse weapons that would kill us all. The two powers would be like bishops on a chess board unable to touch each other.
Well... they COULD touch, but our navy can't operate far inland and has its own logistical issues when operating in waters with choke points. There are limits to our hard power.
I think both wars were stupidly handled in Germany even though they were able to accomplish a great deal facing two fronts. The only viable win in my not remotely humble opinion is to do what Germany is doing now. No hard power usage at all. They accomplished as much as they did in the wars because they have economic strengths their neighbors do NOT possess.
But this topic is about as much fun as debating American football games the day after they are played. That pass should not have been thrown! That fool should have stopped the clock! Meh. After you do it for enough years it all sounds the same and then you realize that QB just didn't have enough time to think before he was clocked by the blitzing LB. Chances are high I'd have done worse.
@ Paul SB,
I think that you pretty much hit it on the head re: the wokies. Some of them are certainly as bad as the people they revile. That's probably mostly a consequence of right-wing extremism pushing left-wing extremism.
Yes, but while destructive leadership of right wing extremism is the goal of such policies and groups, the destructive leadership of left wing extremism is, more often than not, the result of social injustice and an apathetic stance of the masses towards the existing problems, as well as the persecution of these groups.(I will expand on that later).
Also, the sheer numbers of people killed by right-wing extremists during the last forty or so years - in both the US and Germany - by far exceeds those killed by left-wing extremists, though left-wing violence is always displayed as being "equally wrong".
Or as a contemporary satirist minced it:
I asked the Kangaroo: "What is worse for you, burning a car or burning an immigrant?"
The Kangaroo answered: "Burning the car, of course, since I own no immigrants."
It might help to note that "woke" has been used in America's black vernacular since the 1930s. For them, it's nothing new, though to our Baby Boom Caucasians, too many of whom still think the way they did when they were kids in the '50s, it sounds like some crazy new thing.
Same goes with the term "Antifa". Every upright, democratically minded person should be fighting fascism, nationalism, authoritarianism, sexism and racism wherever he/she can. Technically, the soldiers storming the beaches of Normandy were "Antifa".
But the majority of people tends to ignore that duty, because of apathy, or awareness, or lack of moral courage, leaving it to the left fringe. And thus, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and a vicious circle: Outrage is generated, the slumbering masses are aroused, they tend to support those who promise "Law and Order", thus leftists are prosecuted more, radicalize themselves and become terrorists who generate outrage.
Some of them are certainly as bad as the people they revile. That's probably mostly a consequence of right-wing extremism pushing left-wing extremism.
I suspect it's also a consequence of personalities. Some people are extremists, and what they are extreme about matters less than the extremism. Hoffer noted that "road to Damascus" conversions are actually quite common — when a fanatics worldview is overturned they remain fanatical, often taking the worldview of the side that overturned them.
I assume you've read Altenmeyer's work on right-wing authoritarians? I've long felt that he got the name wrong. He defines it as a combination of three attitudinal clusters in a person: submission, aggression, and conventionalism. What in our society translates to the right-wing (as it is conventional) in other societies (Maoist China, say) would be the left-wing. This is mentioned in his book, but the name is still a bit misleading. I think something like "establishment authoritarians" might have been a better term.
I've noticed that any organized movement attracts authoritarians (because it provides positions with authority). So I'm not surprised that someone who's spent a large chunk of their life in a "left-wing" movement or organization could be just as authoritarian as someone who's done the same thing on the right.
Of course, a chunk of the problem is also that "left" and "right" are not only relative positions (the American left is centrist by Canadian standards, for example), but also they lump together economic policies with attitudes towards a plethora of other social factors that aren't actually related.
We're nearing the time when Socratic discussion with AI becomes possible (not merely LLM mimicry). Erudition of a thousand lifetimes, but with far less human bias and delusion. Sort of like OGH's Voltaire and Jeanne d'Arc advisors, but even better. Alternate history, military what-ifs, gender and social debates, political judo, even gaming. Should be great fun.
As for the Nazis many ‘mistakes’ you could include driving out most of their best scientists.
Of course. The list was not supposed to be exhaustive. But I also subsumed it under "Loosing resources and talent through persecution and corruption".
But do assess WHY Hitler decided to invade Poland 9/39. Just like JFK’s Senior Thesis “While England Slept,” he could see that the UK was re-arming at a furious pace, as were the USSR & France. His advantages would vanish in a year. He decided he had little choice.
Yes, but there was a fiscal aspect to it, too: Germany was essentially broke at the eve of WWII. They gambled on repaying debts by plundering both the treasury of conquered states, using the ressources and enslaving the workforce.
PSB:
She does acknowledge the role culture plays in determining what is considered masculine or feminine behavior, but says that it is biology that determines whether any individual is masculine or feminine - a kind of self-contradictory statement.
I'm not familiar with the author, but from your description, I'd guess she's saying something like: "Culture determines whether enjoyment of fast cars is masculine or feminine, but an individual's biology determines whether or not they enjoy fast cars."
@ Robert:
I suspect it's also a consequence of personalities. Some people are extremists, and what they are extreme about matters less than the extremism. Hoffer noted that "road to Damascus" conversions are actually quite common — when a fanatics worldview is overturned they remain fanatical, often taking the worldview of the side that overturned them.
Horst Mahler would be a fitting example for this.
I've noticed that any organized movement attracts authoritarians (because it provides positions with authority). So I'm not surprised that someone who's spent a large chunk of their life in a "left-wing" movement or organization could be just as authoritarian as someone who's done the same thing on the right.
Yes, but I perceive differences. Right-wingers can usually be very open about what they want, since persecution is somewhat milder in many cases. They don't really care about infiltration, some even make a buck of it. They are more likely to be hierarchical.
Left-wing organisations are more conspirative and intransparent to avoid infiltration. They are less organized and sometimes not even hierarchical, sometimes prone to infighting.
In both cases, toxic leaders take profit from the outside pressure, a "Them-Against-Us" mentality. Also, I have learned that sexual offenses are as easily covered up in far-left circles than they are in the Catholic Church.
Pappenheimer:
because the Imperial Japanese Army and the IJN hated each other just slightly less than they did the US.
Reminds me of Life of Brian.
From memory:
"The only people we hate worse than the Romans are the f***ing Judean People's Front!"
Pappenheimer:
the Nazi invasion of Russia assumed (against hard evidence) that the USSR had far fewer divisions and worse equipment than it actually did and could be destroyed in a single year's blitzkrieg.
Eerie how you could plug "Russia" and "Ukraine" into that sentence in the correct places, and it would be just as true.
The Nazis were doomed because they thought like Nazis. If they hadn't thought like Nazis, there would have been no war.
Likewise.
Alfred Differ:
The theory goes that the world would wind up with one sea power and one land power if not for apocalypse weapons that would kill us all. The two powers would be like bishops on a chess board unable to touch each other.
Land power doesn't cross oceans, though.
Without the Nazis there would have been a war, at some time, for the Reich to get back parts of Poland.
But I don’t think Hitler, being aware of the odds, deep down consistently thought he would win the war; albeit through auto-suggestion sometimes he did think so—when he was on a roll.
Attempting, willpower, was as important to him as anything. If he could’ve conquered Ukraine permanently, it might have been ‘sufficient’ for him. Or east to the Urals.
Either way, he said it would have meant permanent garrisons against truncated enemy forces farther east.
He said he died with “a happy heart”, merely knowing (one might say) that he had reduced the population of Europe by x. He said the borders of the Reich were racial borders.
@Larry Hart:
...going a bit further by creating a climate of ideas where certain things never even OCCUR to people to discuss? (A possible future job title:"memegineer"...)
-That's a big part of 1984. (and a fair part of 2023, too. -kh)
@DC:
Criticism need not be accepted without scrutiny - a lot of "criticism" is flat out WRONG!
Very true; the key is how it is/isn't responded to...
@Dr. Brin:
Thank you.
..........................................
Some cultures (as opposed to only governments) are much less acceptable of open criticism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_distance) an this has sometimes led to dangerous (even fatal) situations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_culture_on_aviation_safety) where junior members of flight crews and traffic controllers were reluctant to confront/criticize pilots' behavior. Crew Resource Management (CRM, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management) has helped with this:
"Improvements can be made to CRM by drawing on the strengths of both individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Western assertiveness can be helpful in developing a low power-distance cockpit, while the Eastern interdependence brings cooperation, interdependence, and communication to create a safer flying environment. Ideally, CRM represents low power distance (free exchange of information among the crew) and collectivism (recognition and acceptance of crew interdependence), a rare cultural combination."
This approach also can also help improve healthcare, where infection rates and surgical mishaps were overly high due to physicians being reluctant to except criticism from non-physician staff (https://hbr.org/2010/04/health-care-needs-a-new-kind-of-hero).
PSB is right that we need more science and distinguishing EARLY which dysphorias are likely severe or persistent will help a lot of lives. We need to continue believing the American Dream #3: that “I get to try to remake myself, in pursuit of happiness,” And I gotta admit that even tho she is still big-jawed, Caitlyn Jenner sure has lived a whole buncha American dreams – both serially in parallel. And I’ve said before: if I live 200 years into a super tech era, I’ll likely do it, too. Still, if you CAN – on balance – choose to make do with a decent life, the way ALL our ancestors had to… One choice is the one that makes more humans.
To follow up on my comment from yesterday, levels of the strategic oil reserve have not been this low is 1984! I am not seeing that Biden has refilled it at all - levels seem to be continuing downwards.
LH:
I'm not familiar with the author either, but I guess that she's saying something like: "An individual's biology determines whether or not they feel masculine or feminine, but culture determines whether they are therefore expected to enjoy fast cars."
I appreciate Lena's 60-90% vs 10-40% statistics. Please give citation! This highlights the medical conundrum: the ailment's real, but we don't know what causes it, and we do not have accurate diagnostics, so treatment is a gamble.
Medicine often goes through three stages in the treatment of a mysterious ailment:
1. Do no harm and little good. Watch, take notes, make the patient as comfortable as possible, and wait for the patient to either recover or succumb. This is cheap and ineffective.
2. Aggressive intervention into symptoms. Surgery, radiation, drugs. This is painful, risky, expensive, and only partly effective.
3. Precise forceful intervention into root causes. This requires deep understanding of the biology involved, which in turn requires years of research. This is cheap, safe, quick, painless, and a cure.
E.g., with TB; respectively sanatoria, surgical removal of diseased lung tissue, an injection of penicillin.
Treatment of gender dysphoria is at stage 2. The trouble is that we don't know what gender is, biomedically speaking. What is the fMRI scan to look for?
Alas, admitting our ignorance of our own biology is not the sort of talking point that wins in a partisan ideological debate.
Larry,
"Culture determines whether enjoyment of fast cars is masculine or feminine, but an individual's biology determines whether or not they enjoy fast cars."
- Exactly. I'm tempted to find an email address and write to this one about it, but given the massive quantity of hate mail scientists get on a regular basis these days, I'm doubtful it would be noticed or appreciated. And I won't even try until I finish the book. With my memory, though, I will probably have forgotten by that time. Life's annoying.
Paul SB
Paradoctor,
The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths About Sex and Identity in Our Society, by Debra Soh.
I'm afraid I can't give you a page number because I am listening to the audio book.
https://www.amazon.com/End-Gender-Debunking-Identity-Society/dp/B086LJXLZN/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3TIAQ5Q8LYNSF&keywords=debra+soh&qid=1687466788&s=books&sprefix=debra+soh%2Cstripbooks%2C178&sr=1-1
Paul SB
Der Oger,
Any sort of witless conformity is a way to let evil people push your buttons. However, in these times and in this country, I have to hold my nose and vote for one side over the other. Would you rather be ruled by morons, or by evil? That's the choice between the lefties and the righties. And sure, if the lefties win, there is always the possibility that their leadership will betray the principles that propelled them to power (i.e. Emperor Napoleon & the French Revolution), but it is increasingly clear that if the other side wins, we will be led by a troop of Aunt Lydias. I'll take my chances.
Paul SB
Lena:
Some of my satirical tales refer to two political parties: the Dumicans and the Repugnocrats. The question is, to which party does any individual politician belong? I call this the "crook-or-fool" dilemma. The answer is that it doesn't matter. Everyone lies to a crook, so they become fools; and fools lie to themselves, so they become crooks. Eventually the two meet in the middle.
@Paul SB,
I can choose between three shades of left and right each, and reasonably expect they end up in parliament and even in government. Also, I reasonably expect that compromises are made in government coalitions, and principles are betrayed, invariably :-)
Yet, I share your fears. The CDU, now in opposition after 16 years of governing, has copied the GOP playbook (with CSU, the Bavarian sister party, even visiting Ron deSantis in Florida and calling him and his policies "smart"), relentlessly attacking the government ... yet, they do not profit from it. Instead, the Far Right AfD is at 20% in the polls, and at 30% and more in the eastern federal states.
Some people vote for the "original", I suppose.
@Dr: Brin: ":..if I live 200 years..."
IMSM, in the Foundation Universe the Spacers lived 200-300 T-years, but the Settlers and their descendants "decided" to live ~our current life span so as to avoid societal stagnation and decadence (R. Daneel's et cie's doing?). I can't imagine people like us willingly deciding to do that (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OUurVdRGsc).
the MEFO bills.
A clip I wanted to share here about the necessity of criticism, lies and consequences:
That is how an RBMK Reactor Core explodes, from the Chernobyl series.
Could be the CSU sees the Mussolini in DeSantis.
Paul SB actually Napoleon faithfully promoted Revolutionary values and laws wherever he went… so long as there was no questioning the top three or so layers of authority. Below that, there were elections and ghettos were outlawed and Serfs freed. A OP alternate history would be if he had tols the czar: “I won’t invade if you free Poland and the serfs then head south with me to Constantinople.” We’d all be speaking French now
I disagree with you and paradoctor. When the rate of indictments by grand juries across America is almost ONE HUNDRED times greater for goppers, there is definitely a good side vs a bad one. Alas POLEMICALLY dumb.
Chernobyl was an amazing show.
Larry,
That's why the land power winds up controlling Europe and Asia and the sea power owns the western hemisphere. Any continent with depth inland might work for the land power, but the northern plains of Europe are prime real estate because the North and Baltic seas are kinda surrounded.
Anyway... it's a theory that didn't really take Africa into account properly. That continent is huge, but lacks the internal seas and giant rivers to facilitate movement. It's a good runner-up.
From what is going on at the 'Zap', Russia may have taken away the entirely wrong lessons from Chernobyl.
From what is going on at the 'Zap', Russia may have taken away the entirely wrong lessons from Chernobyl.
Blowing Zap up, essentially, is Putin's Nero order.
And John Sweeny reports that they are quite open about it.
I hope that someone, in what passes for the Russian Army these days, has heard of Stanislav Petrov.
I've got to agree with Dr. Brin. Only he was too polite about it. Anyone who is still drawing equivalences between the US RP and DP has been bamboozled and has lost touch with reality. Really, even that is too polite. It isn't even a matter of opinion. Multiple lines of evidence make it clear.
Dr.Brin,
You seem to have misread what I wrote above. I don't go for the false equivalence. The Dumbocrats aren't exactly brilliant leaders, but the corruption and moral bankruptcy of the Repugnant Party is obvious to anyone who hasn't drowned in Guyana Punch. I'll take the Dumbocrats every time, but I really wish we had more viable options. Maybe we need to ditch politics completely and let the AIs run the show - in about 1000 years when we figure out how to make AI work.
Paul SB
Doesn't an emperor promoting democratic values seem a little disingenuous? Uncle Ludwig sure thought so.
Dr. Brin: We’d all be speaking French now
I doubt it. Napoleon totally threw New France under the bus. His narrow Euro-obsessive mindset cost several other powers their chance at global domination. Perhaps there's a lesson there - The EXPANSE explores it.
I could have been maple syrup and poutine for all.
it is increasingly clear that if the other side wins, we will be led by a troop of Aunt Lydias
If you mean the Aunt Lydia from Atwood's novel, you should read the sequel. She is not the character she appears in the first book. (Being vague because I don't want to spoiler it.)
actually Napoleon faithfully promoted Revolutionary values and laws wherever he went… so long as there was no questioning the top three or so layers of authority
Actually, he didn't if you weren't a white male. The Revolution had eliminated slavery, which he re-established, for example. And a woman had less options under the Empire than under the Republic.
Good read on one aspect of the subject is The Black Count.
https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/tom-reiss
To clarify, I did not have you in mind at all when I wrote my previous comment, Paul SB.
@ Der Oger, et al: "I can choose between three shades of left and right each, and reasonably expect they end up in parliament and even in government."
I previously mentioned where there are some ideas which aren't either discussed or possibly even considered. One of those ideas for here in the US is getting rid of our "first-past-the-post/ plurality wins" system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting) of electing lawmakers. No one (with any type of political clout) seriously mentions setting up Proportional Representation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation) and the best we may be able to get here is Ranked-Choice Voting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States) after many years and probably *much resistance.
*In April 2022, Florida banned ranked-choice voting in all federal, state, and municipal elections.
Napoleon had no intention of going all the way to Moscow.
His original plan was to stop at Smolensk, secure the Dneiper and Dvina rivers as the eastern boundaries of a restored and expanded Poland. He had sent allied flanking columns toward Riga and Kiev to close the river lines.
There with short, secure supply lines and shelter for his troops he would await a counter-attack by Kutuzov and destroy him in open battle (Kutuzov probably would have reused but the Tsar would have insisted).
A defeated and humbled tsar would have to cede Russia's richest territories to Poland, leaving it weak and herded back into Napoleon's Continental System.
But Napoleon's pride got the better of him, and so he went to Moscow and destruction.
The Poles BTW loved Napoleon, seeing him as their savior and liberator.
From "War and Peace"
On the thirteenth of June a rather small, thoroughbred Arab horse was brought to Napoleon. He mounted it and rode at a gallop to one of the bridges over the Niemen, deafened continually by incessant and rapturous acclamations which he evidently endured only because it was impossible to forbid the soldiers to express their love of him by such shouting, but the shouting which accompanied him everywhere disturbed him and distracted him from the military cares that had occupied him from the time he joined the army. He rode across one of the swaying pontoon bridges to the farther side, turned sharply to the left, and galloped in the direction of Kóvno, preceded by enraptured, mounted chasseurs of the Guard who, breathless with delight, galloped ahead to clear a path for him through the troops. On reaching the broad river Víliya, he stopped near a regiment of Polish Uhlans stationed by the river.
“Vivat!” shouted the Poles, ecstatically, breaking their ranks and pressing against one another to see him.
Napoleon looked up and down the river, dismounted, and sat down on a log that lay on the bank. At a mute sign from him, a telescope was handed him which he rested on the back of a happy page who had run up to him, and he gazed at the opposite bank. Then he became absorbed in a map laid out on the logs. Without lifting his head he said something, and two of his aides-de-camp galloped off to the Polish Uhlans.
“What? What did he say?” was heard in the ranks of the Polish Uhlans when one of the aides-de-camp rode up to them.
The order was to find a ford and to cross the river. The colonel of the Polish Uhlans, a handsome old man, flushed and, fumbling in his speech from excitement, asked the aide-de-camp whether he would be permitted to swim the river with his Uhlans instead of seeking a ford. In evident fear of refusal, like a boy asking for permission to get on a horse, he begged to be allowed to swim across the river before the Emperor’s eyes. The aide-de-camp replied that probably the Emperor would not be displeased at this excess of zeal.
(cont.)
As soon as the aide-de-camp had said this, the old mustached officer, with happy face and sparkling eyes, raised his saber, shouted “Vivat!” and, commanding the Uhlans to follow him, spurred his horse and galloped into the river. He gave an angry thrust to his horse, which had grown restive under him, and plunged into the water, heading for the deepest part where the current was swift. Hundreds of Uhlans galloped in after him. It was cold and uncanny in the rapid current in the middle of the stream, and the Uhlans caught hold of one another as they fell off their horses. Some of the horses were drowned and some of the men; the others tried to swim on, some in the saddle and some clinging to their horses’ manes. They tried to make their way forward to the opposite bank and, though there was a ford one third of a mile away, were proud that they were swimming and drowning in this river under the eyes of the man who sat on the log and was not even looking at what they were doing. When the aide-de-camp, having returned and choosing an opportune moment, ventured to draw the Emperor’s attention to the devotion of the Poles to his person, the little man in the gray overcoat got up and, having summoned Berthier, began pacing up and down the bank with him, giving him instructions and occasionally glancing disapprovingly at the drowning Uhlans who distracted his attention.
For him it was no new conviction that his presence in any part of the world, from Africa to the steppes of Muscovy alike, was enough to dumfound people and impel them to insane self-oblivion. He called for his horse and rode to his quarters.
Some forty Uhlans were drowned in the river, though boats were sent to their assistance. The majority struggled back to the bank from which they had started. The colonel and some of his men got across and with difficulty clambered out on the further bank. And as soon as they had got out, in their soaked and streaming clothes, they shouted “Vivat!” and looked ecstatically at the spot where Napoleon had been but where he no longer was and at that moment considered themselves happy.
That evening, between issuing one order that the forged Russian paper money prepared for use in Russia should be delivered as quickly as possible and another that a Saxon should be shot, on whom a letter containing information about the orders to the French army had been found, Napoleon also gave instructions that the Polish colonel who had needlessly plunged into the river should be enrolled in the Légion d’honneur of which Napoleon was himself the head.
Darrell,
No worries.
Paul SB
Robert true enough. His crimes vs Haiti were horrid. Though ending the religious wars and declaring that Jews COULD be 'white males" and ending serfdom inside Europe mattered.
In the field of vast computation (often the cloud) one finds references to the past, probably to anchor stratospheric abstraction a bit. Like the first line from "Anna Karenina" which I've seen pop up lately:
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way"
You know that world at the moment is just too weird for me. I can make no sense of it all. This whole OceanGate - thing - one thing I do not understand is why any rational person would pay so much money to make a very dangerous and uncomfortable journey to look at something on TV. It's nuts. Some people just have too much money. And now this Wagner thing. What the heck is going on. Rationality is no guide to the world anymore. Everybody is crazy.
" Some people just have too much money. "
The goal of every aristocracy, based on the insatiability of male repro strategies. And the goal of Supply Side tax grift 'economics' which accomplished none of its stated goals ... and most of its anti enlightenment and anti-fairness real goals.
It seems that Putins "Paladins" have decided to duke it out (Prighozhin vs Shoigu/Gerasimov)
... and confirmation by CNN.
@Keith: Maybe you know, but we have a kind of a mixed system. When voting for state and federal legislations, I usually have two votes: The First Vote is First-Past-The-Post and goes to a "Direct Candidate" representing my electoral district. The Second Vote goes to a party and determines overall representation of a Party in a parliament.
Obviously, at this point, the direct candidates warp the result of the proportional representation result, so additional seats are created until the number of legislators reflects proportional representation.
The official oppinion was that the Bundestag had become bloated by this method, so we had a reform this year that will affect the next election: Instead of adding additional seats at infinitum, some direct candidates loose their seats instead. Also, the rule that, when you are below the five percent hurdle and manage to secure three direct seats , you gain full representation, has been dropped.
The big looser of this reform are the CSU (who profited from direct seats) and The Left (who barely managed it to enter parliament in this period, and profited from the latter rule.)
In April 2022, Florida banned ranked-choice voting in all federal, state, and municipal elections.
Yes. This creates a large number of "False Winners".
I'm in New Zealand - we use the same system as Der Oger mentioned - MMP
https://elections.nz/democracy-in-nz/what-is-new-zealands-system-of-government/what-is-mmp/
But I don't understand the "becoming bloated" bit - the seats are recalculated every election
That’s to their stated purpose: they want to bring people Down, so they’ll come to the Lawd.
They say that poverty is good for the soul because in cleansing many of their lucre, they become Lighter, and can more readily float up to the Hereafter.
——
I wouldn’t suggest that you talk to such people; however if you did, you’d hear something like the above—IF you could coax them into revealing their ulterior motives.
@Der Oger: Thank you; I am somewhat familiar with the German system. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation)
It's also a better alternative than what we have here.
Best not get me started on what the best voting systems are, as I've done considerable research and comparison in this area and am very likely to quickly start informing people against their will...
Reason,
Humans are capable of logic, but it doesn't come naturally to them. What does seem to come naturally to a great many humans, though not all, is Conspicuous Consumption. Rich people are constantly looking for new ways to show how rich they are, how "sophisticated" they are, etc. Mostly this is an ego thing, but there is a practical side, too. A more recent rebranding of conspicuous consumption is "Wasteful Advertising." The idea is that by showing off your wealth, you attract more business, which presumably increases your wealth. No one actually needs to ride this treadmill, but the more wealth a person has, the more dopamine their brains squirt out, the more likely they become addicted to wealth. And addicts only care about one thing: getting their next hit.
Paul SB
Dr. Brin,
" Some people just have too much money. "
- And you have to have money to make money. Those who have it make more, and the momentum makes them immune to their own stupidity. Also, see what I wrote above to Reason.
Paul SB
@duncan:
But I don't understand the "becoming bloated" bit - the seats are recalculated every election
The normal strength is 598 - 299 direct mandates, 299 proportional mandates. The current Bundestag has 736 mandates, due to balancing issues. Wikipedia tells me it is the largest parliamentary body in the world with freely elected members. Mostly, cost issues are mentioned.
Personally, I would not mind it even if they surpassed 1000 members. It becomes increasingly hard to bribe them all :-)
@Der Oger, @Duncun: This is getting me into dangerous territory (informing others against their will), but based on the "Cube Root Rule" and current population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cube_root_law#:~:text=The%20cube%20root%20law%20is,of%20the%20population%20being%20represented), Germany's Bundestag should have 439 members (almost the same as the U.S. House of Representatives' current 435, which by the same rule should have 696).
Stop the war, we're having an insurrection.
Prighozin appears to be choosing his hill in Rostov, at the head of the Sea of Azov, which is a bit of a bother for supply lines to southern Ukraine.
I am reminded of a scene from an ancient Doctor Who episode (Troughton era) where two rival dalek factions battle for the control room, with the emperor dalek in the background squeaking "DO.NOT.FIGHT.IN.HERE."
It would be funny, were it not for the Zap situation.
Der Oger that was very interesting.
In a computerized age we'd use a system under which NO ONE is unrepresented. Because ANY celf-selected clump of say 500,ooo citizens can have a representative. It is up to those cisitzens to self-organize to add up to that number via say shared interest - say the Sierra Club. If defectorsmake the number less than 500k they get a grace period to recruit others.
PLUS side: ALL citizens have a representative, not just the 61% in today's district (often just 40%!)
Minus... a lot of single-issue reps. But they will dicker. Heinlein depicted this in DOUBLE STAR.
===
Tony thanks for the Rostov thing. Yipe! Gonna have to change tomorrow's blog.
Right
The German system and ours is slightly different
Here the members that are trying to be elected also declare their "Party"
So when the election is counted and they have their seats - those are counted as seats belonging to their Party
THEN we look at the party votes
If the party votes line up with the elected members - all good
If the party votes do NOT line up then there are extra members for those parties
So today we have
Five parliamentary parties represented in the 53rd Parliament by 120 MPs. These MPs represent 65 general electorate seats and seven Māori electorates. The other 48 MPs are selected from the party lists.
If by some chance the party votes did line up with the elected members then there would only be 72 MPs
Germany has about 20 times as many people!!
I think "Double Star" was one of the first Heinlein books I read, way back in 5th grade.
"Politics is the only game for grown-ups."
PSB
PSB,
Rich people are constantly looking for new ways to show...
I think you are overthinking it because that behavior isn't limited to the rich. We all like novelty to some degree.
And you have to have money to make money.
Heh. A lot of people say that, but they miss the real point. Most people making money from gobs of money are doing it in rentier style. The initial heap of cash isn't necessary if you take a different approach that requires a great deal more courage than rentiers tend to have.
Remember that money is a debt instrument. It's a hole someone is obligated to fill. You make and destroy money pretty easily on any given day.
reason,
I can make no sense of it all.
I can. When was the last time you were chased by a tiger? When was the last time your life was actually in real danger? Not only do we like novelty, some of us really like an adrenaline rush.
It's not just rich people. Next time you find yourself in heavy traffic, just wait a bit and you'll spot one of these people. It's the driver zipping about trying for quick lane changes to get a car length ahead of where they just were. Do the math and you'll see the zipping about doesn't really work. Do more of the math and you'll see it's REALLY not worth the risk to your insurance premiums let alone your life. They do it anyway, though, and there is no strong correlation to their personal wealth.
Alfred Differ,
I get an adrenaline rush from sport (mostly running and cycling these days, but used to play cricket, soccer and squash). I don't need to take stupid risks. If they want to do that they can be honest about it and play Russian Roulette.
Apparently Lukashenko's gone on his holidays, to Turkey
[Ranked ballot] creates a large number of "False Winners".
Could you expand on that, or provide a link to a reputable source?
A cursory google search shows me a lot of claims from right-wing sources, but nothing I'd call reliable. Which may just show my google skills are poor.
Asking because ranked-ballot is my favourite system because it doesn't hand more power to opaque and (in Canada at least) corrupt (Conservative) party machines, while still preserving the idea of a local representative. (Much abused at times with parachute candidates, but still I think an important idea in a country as diverse as mine.)
Not sure what 'false winners' are either.
The O'Hare proportional system used in Australia can produce some interesting results sometimes.
A candidate must gain 1+(N/n+1) votes to get elected, N being the total number of votes, and n being the number of seats available. When n=1 the target is simple: 1 + half the vote. It becomes more convoluted when applied to the Senate, when n=6
For the weird result I'm thinking of, the first round of voting yielded
1. Libs,
2. ALP,
3. Greens.
As lesser parties were disqualified, their votes were redistributed to other candidates. The Green vote. The Green tally increased until it exceeded the ALP, so that it was the ALP that was eliminated. Their votes mainly flowed to Green, and Green (who was originally third) ultimately won.
@ Robert:
Could you expand on that, or provide a link to a reputable source?
Sorry, I did not express myself clearly.
"First past the post" creates a number of false winners, not ranked-choice voting.
For example, our direct candidates seldom gain more than 30% of the vote, with other candidates often being in the same ballpark. Thus, they seldom gain the majority of their constituents behind their back.
Which would suit a party that can mobilize large masses, and keeps power out of the hands of the majority who did not elect them. And the last thing the GOP (and similar parties all over the world) want, is equal representation and proportional power-sharing.
What I am somewhat envious of are states like Ireland and even Cuba (!) which experiment with directer forms of democracy, and seem to come to sensible and reasonable reforms faster than representative forms of democracy. (An counterargument would be Switzerland, which IS a direct democracy, but rather slow with reforms.)
For example, polls in Germany show a majority in favor of a maximum speed limit. But the libertarians can and do block it, even if presented with the overwhelming strength of benefits that would provide.
I often perceive representatives as shying away from reforms, making empty promises and shady compromises ... even if the situation is already dire and requires quick and resolute action.
Because every politician wants an additional term in office, and have a reflex that avoids them making decisions that could cost them votes. By this way, nimbyness becomes a steadily growing factor in politics, and the initial bad conditions worsen.
reason,
and play Russian Roulette.
...and who are you to tell them what they may not do?
I think your enjoyment of sport is safer and smarter, but it could lead to hospital visits. Back in 2013 my immune system attacked me. It perforated by smaller blood vessels leaving my RBC's free to roam my body.
I eventually wound up in an emergency room facing a triage nurse with two other high priority patients. One was a runner who had managed to produce a VERY painful hernia. She was in an awful state, but not in immediate danger. The second was a high school quarterback who was hauled in on a stretcher. Concussion. Serious danger of damage to his brain and internal bleeding. I was something of an unknown to the nurse, so I was put in a chair for a blood draw where I immediately passed out. That's the primary reason I got bumped ahead of the kid.
Sports injuries competed with me that night. I learned later I was in a very bad state with a 50/50 chance of living. They admitted me into the ICU where I stayed for days.
Why the story? Simple. Should people like me be upset at those of you suffering sports injuries that result in hospital visits? You all bring them upon yourselves and potentially crowd out those of us who don't.
------
I actually don't begrudge the kid or the runner. Far from it. Life is barely tolerable at times, but we are free to make of it a more enjoyable experience as best we can. I invite everyone to ponder that when it comes to people accepting dangers because the experiences we choose for ourselves are often what makes living worth doing.
A perspective from an American in Ukraine on the real-time coup going on in Russia as we speak...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW7tgGhFlWg&pp=ygUNcGhpbGlwIGl0dG5lcg%3D%3D
Philip Ittner's vlog in general
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=philip+ittner
Changing status as we speak. I don't have a link other than to Hal Sparks' radio show. Sounds like the coup is over and the Wagner group is retreating to the Russian city they took on the Ukrainian border.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAxGxScujeo
onward
onward
An appropriate point for an 'onward'.
What coup?
The Georgism of left-libertarianism such as yours is a UFO cult. I can explain why if you wish to hear and debate.
Post a Comment