For your weekend pleasure - or else your daily drive to work - here's another interview that probes issues that are far more important today than they were, even then.
Also... before diving into this weekend's topic, may I first offer one remark on current events? A fact not noted by any media I've seen - that maybe a quarter of the sagacious grownups who were yanked from their jobs all over the world to get yammered at, in Quantico, were not generals or admirals, but sergeants!
Sergeants-major or command chief petty officers or guardians who are treated with respect, as comrades, by the flag officers... and whose faces at the 'meeting' bore the same, icy-grim flatness as the generals, while being harangued by two jibbering... And yet, they were unable to quite hide their revulsion and a taste of acid in their mouths. Anyway, the presence of those NCOs and their reactions were as significant as anything else in that week of news.
But on to something more big picture than our present day crises.
== A couple of basic patterns of psychohistory ==
In his book The Disruption of Thought, Pat Scannell describes the Collingridge Dilemma.
“In the early stages of an emerging and complex technology, no one – certainly not institutions – can accurately predict or control the potential negative consequences. We don't know the problems they may cause, so we can't regulate or shape them optimally. Later in the technology's maturation, as it becomes more established and widely adopted, the problems become more apparent. But by this time, it has become embedded in societal structures and practices. By that point, we can see the problem, but there is a 'lock-in' – technological, economic, social, and institutional—where various interests, incentives, and norms prevent any change, however well-intended.”
Philosopher David Collingridge articulated it succinctly: "When change is easy, the need for it cannot be foreseen; when the need for change is apparent, change has become expensive, difficult, and time-consuming."
As Scannell re-stated: even very good ideas must pass through the Overton Window – from unthinkable to accepted policy.
“And with technology, the Collingridge Dilemma creates a double bind: early on, harms are hard to foresee; later, the system locks in and becomes costly to change. We tend to work where problems are both legible and tractable – leaving the largest, entangled ones to fester.”
This very much correlates with the phenomenon that I cite in Chapter One of my nearly completed book on Artificial Intelligence, that crisis always accompanies every new technology that expands human vision, memory and attention. And it usually takes a generation or more for positive effects to start overcoming quicker, more-immediate negative ones.
This Collingridge Dilemma takes on a twist when it comes to crises engendered by AI. The widespread temptation – expressed by many inside and outside of the field – is to go: “Well, AI will handle it.”
Okay. The very same cybernetic entities that we worry about, that will shake every institution and assumption, will also be the ones (newly born and utterly inexperienced) to analyze, correlate, propose and enact solutions.
Or shall we say that they should do that? Ah, that word. "Should."
== Hari & Karl ==
There is another, related concept – the Seldon Paradox, named after Hari Seldon, the lead character in Isaac Asimov’s Foundation universe, who develops mathematical models of human behavior that are sagaciously predictive across future centuries. In that science fictional series, Seldon’s methods are kept secret from the galaxy’s vast human population – on twenty-five million inhabited worlds – because the models will fail, if everyone knows about them and uses them.
This effect is well-known by militaries, of course. It is also why so many supposed tricks to predict or game the Stock Market – even if they work at first – collapse as soon as they are widely known.
But the Seldon Paradox goes further. A good model that stops working, because of widespread awareness, might later-on start to work again, once that failure becomes assumed by everyone.
One example would be what happened in my parents’ generation, that of the Depression and the Second World War. At the time, everyone read Karl Marx. And I do mean almost everyone. Even the most vociferous anti-Marxists could quote whole passages, putting effort into understanding their enemy.
You can see this embedded in many works of the time, from nonfiction to novels to movies. All the way to Ayn Rand, whose entire scenario can be decrypted as deeply Marxist! Though heretically-so, because she cut his sequence off at the penultimate stage, and called the truncated version good.
Indeed, Asimov’s Hari Seldon was clearly (if partially) based upon Marx.
Particularly transfixing to my parents' generation were Marx’s depictions of class war, as power and wealth grew ever more concentrated in a few families, leading – his followers assumed – to inevitable revolt by the working classes. So persuasive was the script that, in much of the wealthy American caste, there arose a determination to cancel their own demise with social innovations!
One, innovation, in particular, the Marxists never expected was named Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose game plan to save his own class was to fork over much of the wealth and power by investing heavily to uplift the workers into a prosperous, educated and confident Middle Class. One that would then be unmotivated to enact Karl's scanario.
Or, as Joe Kennedy was said to have said: "I'd rather have half my fortune taken to make the workers happy than lose it all, and my head, in revolution." (Or something to that effect.)
== It worked, SO well that eventually... ==
Whether or not you agree with my appraisal here, the results were beyond dispute. The GI Bill generation built vast infrastructure, supported science, chipped away at prejudice, and flocked to new universities, where the egalitarian trend doubled and redoubled, as their children stepped forth to confidently compete with the scions of aristocracy. And thusly brought a flawed but genuinely vibrant version of Adam Smith's flat-fair-open-competitive miracle to life! That is, until…
…until all recollection of Karl Marx and his persuasive scenarios seemed dusty, irrelevant, and mostly forgotten. Until the driving force behind Rooseveltism – to cancel out communism through concentrated egalitarian opportunity – became a distant memory.
At which point the writings of Marx – consigned for 80 years into the dustbin – have regained interest from disgusted, formerly upward-mobile classes. Books that are now flying off the shelves, all over the world, pored-over eagerly…
...but not by those who need awareness the most. Surrounded by sycophants and flatterers, they will deem themselves to be demigods, until the tumbrels come for them. Or until another FDR rescues them, in the nick of time. (Don't count on it.)
Because of the Seldon Paradox.
-- And yes, the anti-vax movement is another example ==
There are reasons why the Greatest Generation adored FDR above all other living humans. And the next American so-beloved? His name was Jonas Salk. The Man Who Gave Kids Back Their Summer....
...because until the miracle of his vaccine, parents terrified of polio kept their children away from public parks and swimming pools... and I barely remember parent-talk of their joy and relief, letting me stroll the neighborhood and nearby streets in safety.
How does this relate? Childhood vaccinations worked so well that most citizens forgot how much people suffered from two dozen lethal and "non lethal" diseases such as measles, mumps, etc. And they forgot the horrors of polio and diptheria and tetanus (reputed to be the very worst way to die.) And yeah. The Anti-Vax movement well resembles phase one of the Seldon Paradox.
And woefully we are already seeing signs of phase two.
== Okay, it is kind of a 'cycle' ==
And what the heck does any of that have to do with Artificial Intelligence, Brin?
Just everything. Because the new, helium-cooled AI seers might have longer memories and perspectives on time than we do… or else much, much shorter.
Either way, perhaps they will be immune to the primitive reproductive strategies that drive class conflict…
...or else they might redefine self-interest to awesome degrees that I elaborate in my forthcoming book.
Ideally they will understand the Collingridge Dilemma… and the Seldon Paradox, and other crudely human traps... and help us with our faulty memories.
That is one reason that I am writing all of this. For their consideration.
======================================
PS... I finished Isaac’s Foundation series for him, after his passing, tying together all of his loose ends, in Foundation’s Triumph. So... yeah. Hari Seldon was my character, too.
142 comments:
Interesting analysis, David. Please do keep these posts coming. As usual, I disagree with about 1/3 of your inferences and speculations about the motivations, perceptions, and thought-processes of the principal leaders and interest-groups. But again, as usual, your observations and models of the behavior patterns are fantastic. Many of us look forward to your forthcoming book on "AI."
Mitchell hi. Thanks. 2/3 is good enough a basis for communications and argument, I guess! Welcome to the best comments section on the web.
All: Here's what someone sent me. They asked one of the AI LLMs for a summary of whether David Brin would welcome new ideas. I'm not so unhappy with the result:
How to pitch it to David Brin
Brin enjoys lively intellectual combat and often frames discourse as a mix of contest and collaboration. You could explain it to him like this:
“Imagine a debate style that’s less like dueling with rapiers and more like martial-arts sparring: polemical randori. Instead of following rigid lines of argument, each participant improvises attacks and counters, forcing everyone to stay agile. The goal isn’t just victory but stress-testing ideas in the heat of free-form intellectual combat.
"That way, you connect it to his taste for vigorous, future-oriented, adversarial but productive exchange."
My appraisal of AI went up one notch... out of a zillion. And I'll quote it in my AI book. Heh.
You can be cognizant of cyclical processes in history - as in other fields of study - without swallowing whole semi-mystical Copernicanism* like the '4th turning' claptrap.
By the way, an AI's saying that something is "...less like dueling with rapiers and more like martial-arts sparring: polemical randori. Instead of following rigid lines of argument, each participant improvises attacks and counters, forcing everyone to stay agile..." confirms that AI has no true understanding of fencing. Perhaps it found some old manuals to crib from? Following 'rigid lines' is an excellent way to lose a point even in modern fencing, much less in SCA Renaissance fencing where everything from an open hand to a rubber chicken has been used to parry with.
*this may not be a word, but should be
Pappenheimer
WHile some trends resemble 'cycles,' it is the 'generational stuff that makes 4th Turning drivel of the most egregious nature.
Its like childhood vaccinations, isn't it? They worked so well that people forgot how much people suffered from "non lethal" diseases such as measles, mumps, etc. AND they forgot the horrors of polio and TB. Somehow they believe the (evidence free) chance of a kid becoming autistic from a vaccination is more dangerous than said kid catching measles or polio. I watched the anti-vax movement evolve and I still wonder "How did that happen?"
fascists promise easy answers
in hard times, easy answers sound good; fascists come to power
fascists create horrors
people who remember the horrors die off
rinse, repeat
Pappenheimer
P.S. the definition of 'hard times' can vary significantly. Some people consider 'there are rich black people' to be hard times
P.P.S. I am also of the opinion that Trump is in the Epstein Files.
@David, from the last thread:
Re: the 5 part essay on the literary community's virtual banning of young white male authors
It may well be as you wrote, and you are certainly closer to the publishing industry than I am.
But I thought a bit about the article and problem, and came to another possible conclusion.
The demand for books has not exactly grown in the past few decades. On the other hand, women and persons of colour were more and more accepted as suppliers, so competition among autors increased. If you are "only an ordinary white man" of which there have been so many, and your work is not considered to be outstanding, you might be at a disadvantage in a fast-moving ecosystem where a one page pitch must suffice to arouse the appetite of a publisher's talent scout.
I will give an other analogy.
Women s rights and their status developed differently during the time of the division. Whereas in West Germany the traditional model prevailed - the man earning money, while the woman staying at home and raising the kids, in East Germany, women were expected to enter the workforce.
Thus, wealth and a good paying job did not suffice to guarantee a female Partner, men had to be interesting.
It is the grievance of a previously privileged group in a market where options that have been barred from it are suddenly available.
Second, let's look at the scope and intent of these culture warriors like the author.
It is not about the question of whether white men are at a disadvantage or merely just another market contender.
It is about racial supremacy, apaartheidt, segregation and genocide itself.
People are disappeared, both from real life and from memory. It is happening now.
There is not such a thing as a genocide in self-defense. The treaty of Versailles and the world economic crisis was no excuse for WWII or Auschwitz.
This is why they go after historians early in in their reign, especially educators.
Riffing off of Hannah Arendt's characterization of fascism being the temporary alliance between the mob and the elites, today's elites are fine with the current authoritarian state of affairs because the market is up, they can still shop for anything they want, and the mob hasn't come for their heads yet.
American dominance of the globe in the 20th and 21st centuries was based on the exorbitant privilege conferred by the dollar being the world's reserve currency, knowledge and technological dominance conferred by our educational system, the soft power of cultural dominance, consumer spending, and being recognized, rightly or wrongly, as the beacon for the rule of law. The multi-billion defense budgets were just the cherry on top.
I wonder what the landscape will look like for elites after the market bubble has popped, the world stops buying Treasury bonds, our universities have become third- and fourth-rate, everyone's watching Bollywood or listening to K-pop, the proles can't afford to buy Lucky Charms and Ford F-150s any longer, and we're finally seen by the world as a nuclear-armed rogue state. Oh, and Colorado is overrun by climate migrants fleeing Arkansas. Maybe then it will be possible to peel off a few the more moderately wealthy members who are being ruined to become class traitors to help the rest of us hunt down the billionaires.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Oct06-7.html
The Supreme Court justices think R&R is important, so they give themselves a 3-month vacation every year. For a job that pays $303,600 (with the chief getting an extra $14K) it's not bad work, if you can get it. But starting today, they will have to earn their $300K salaries. They have to read long briefs from plaintiffs, defendants, and amici, as well as listen to hours of boring oral arguments, then ask Donald Trump how he wants them to rule. It's tough.
...
Gotta love the snark.
A hearty Thanx! to Dr. Brin for actually visiting pjmedia instead of committing the logical fallacy of "Poisoning The Well" https://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html
Kathy thank you. I just updated the main posting to include vaccinations. Obvious example!!!! Argh. thanks
I was more interested, Larry, on Electoral-Vote.com's analysis on changing the incentives for blackmail.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Oct06-1.html
What Newsom understands is that everyone Trump has intimidated or threatened ... is faced with this choice: If we agree, we won't be damaged right now and might get some benefits later, but if we don't agree, we will be punished now. In essence, there is an upside to obeying Trump, and much less downside for obeying him. Newsom wants to create a downside (losing California funding) for obeying Trump. ...
What Newsom seems to understand is that when faced with blackmail, the target is sorely tempted to give in because there is no (or not much) downside to surrendering. But suppose there were a big downside to giving in? Then many targets would stiffen their spines, refuse, and go to court, especially in cases where they would likely win. By creating a downside for caving, targets would have to weigh the risks of either decision and the likely outcome would be fighting the blackmail in court.
But it actually goes much further than this. Numerous federal officials at the highest level have no hesitancy in obeying Trump when he orders them to break the law because there is a downside in disobeying (being fired instantly) but no downside in obeying. Suppose there was. Suppose a group of Democratic senators and governors, including many of the likely presidential candidates, were to say that if the Democrats got in power in Jan 2029, their top priority should be vigorously prosecuting current federal officials who have broken their oaths and the law. They would also ask for the longest prison terms allowed by law. ...
Suppose that when an ICE agent tries to arrest someone, state and local officials demand to see their identification and the warrant for arresting that person. If the agent fails to provide one, the state law-enforcement officer could say: "Since you are apparently not working for the federal government and have no arrest warrant for this person, I have to assume you are a common criminal trying to kidnap someone. Kidnapping is a state crime. You are under arrest. You have the right to remain silent, etc." Then the ICE agent is handcuffed, taken away and charged with kidnapping. ICE agents who break down doors to gain entry to buildings and can't prove they are federal agents following lawful orders could be arrested for burglary or breaking and entering under state laws. Having states aggressively enforce their own laws against individual agents and doing their best to not have them released on bail changes the incentive structure for wanting to work for ICE. How many headlines do there have to be saying: "ICE agent arrested for kidnapping and held without bail" before many agents start looking for other jobs?
In short, Newsom is starting to change the incentive structure around blackmail. Blue-state governors aren't helpless if they band together and start enforcing their own laws. Federalism is a two-way street. The supremacy clause in the Constitution applies only to lawful actions.
@A.F. Rey,
Yes, thanks for posting that, because I was intending to and then got onto the rest of my work day instead.
Sean T Collins at BlueSky posts...
---------------
CHATGPT: I understand where you're coming from. You worked really hard to get here, and now it's time to enjoy the fruit of your labors.
ISILDUR: So I should keep it? Elrond says I shouldn't.
CHATGPT: The ring is precious. Sometimes friends don't have your best interests at heart.
ISILDUR: true
Re Seldon's Law: "the models will fail, if everyone knows about them and uses them."
Sounds remarkably like Goodhart's Law: when you find a proxy for the thing you want to control, the proxy immediately ceases to be a good control input. As Goodhart put it, referring to monetary policy in the UK:
"Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
Which is why the quantum observer effect is not really mysterious. Observation requires at least some attempt at control, whether intentional or not, and often direct physical intervention. In psychohistory terms, the prime radiant and the Plan are two facets of the same thing.
Also, it's interesting that several of the 16 effects, laws, fallacies, etc listed at the end of that wikipedia page apply specifically to "AI".
Dr. Brin, your profound comment that AI might help solve the Seldon paradox becuase it's not tied to "primitive" reproductive strategies is an interesting insight.
It's EXACTLY the problem that has tied human civilization in knots.
When I was studying sociobiology in grad school, I came across the truism that the primary drive of human behavior is to get our genes into the next generation. It's that drive that creates human heirarchies, and it's human heirarchies that drive warfare.
I wrote an entire fantasy novel about the behavioral underpinnings of human warfare The short version of my thesis is the way human fight wars is the product of human heirarchies.
To drill down further, the sort of top-down mass warfare humans practice is the consequence of "civilazition." Meaning, any "nation-state," to maximizie its productivity and power, needs to establish itself as the one legitimate user of force. This shift has undeniable advantages for its citizens because they don't squander so much time and resources trying to defend their accumulated wealth.
Instead, it creates a world where entreprenuers produce elaborate (and delicate) economic machines which provide an amount of goods unthinkable to our ancestors. These economic "sandcastles" also enable the enormous wealth gap between social classes in today's societies.
In a hunting/gathering society, Elon Musk couldn't hope to defend his forture. It takes a modern "nation-state" to protect his vast wealth vs. looters. Thus, oligharchs and political leaders depend on "civilization" for their exalted existence. However, while uneven, this "wealth machine" provides material benefits for all. But, it also causes the mass warfare that has killed millions of people by combat and genocide. How so?
These "conglomerate entities" where we treat huge groups as an artificial person with a singular interest, are inherently defective in that they can't actually act within their own "self interest."
The individual decision-makers, when push comes to shove, will choose their interests over the whole. Thus, the chumps who actually fight the wars get very little out of it, while the oligarchs pulling the strings reap all the benefits of human conflict.
Human societies will never "outgrow" war (as many philosophers hope) because warfare is embedded in the very heirarchy which creates those societies (and gaining "reproductive advange" is the behavioral drive that sits behind human heirarchies). These conglomerate "nation states" and "corporations" dominate because they have huge Darwinian advantages over any other social organization tried in human history.
Maybe AI/human hybrid societies can outcompete purely human societies and achieve something beyond our imagination.
It's noteworthy that there has been no global war since the introduction of nuclear weapons. Some of that may have just been blind luck, but it's also pretty obvious, as John Keegan wrote, that nuclear war serves no political or social purpose. It also scares the crap out of the warmakers.
We may have reached an upper limit to war. That implies that we can lower it further, perhaps to Fred Pohl's 'Cool War' level, where nations limit themselves to trading infectious cyberware (or, even, a pack of schoolgirls keeping a bad cold going amongst themselves as they traverse an enemy state.)
Competition is in our genes, for sure; violence as well. But the same genes that the Vikings carried are still circulating around Sweden and Norway - when was the last time they invaded anyone? I'd offer that swift resort to war is now a Darwinian disadvantage. It sure hasn't done Russia any favors recently.
Pappenheimer, hoping I'm right but acknowledging that we still live a few hours from midnight, rather than the few minutes that the Cold War had us stuck in.
Warfare - at its core it's about "making a profit" - taking something
But today it's not actually possible for a country to "take something" cheaper than just buying it
Back in Roman times conquering made sense - sometime in the last 2000 years that has simply stopped being true
The PROBLEM is that while anybody who actually looked at the numbers can see that far far too many of the people who actually lead our countries appear to be too dim to do that
Weekend Editor:
"Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes."
This is a purely layman's observation, but it seems to me that we're talking about the difference between causality and correspondence.
Ice cream sales tend to peak at the same time of year that most people drown while swimming outdoors. But if you try to reduce drownings by forbidding the sale of ice cream, it won't work.
Larry:
"difference between causality and correspondence"
There can, in complex systems, be perfectly causal relationships that nonetheless break down. I saw this all the time during my career in cancer research. Protein A does something bad to protein B. So you disable protein A somehow, and in steps protein C which does the same bad thing protein A used to do.
That is, there are often redundant mechanisms that don't come to light until you put pressure on your putative control mechanism.
With people, it's obvious: you make a rule to change their behavior, and their behavior changes *to exploit the rule*.
The stock market is similar: once people know a rule and use it, that creates price pressure that makes the rule no longer work. Even if the rule was initially causal, there's now a new cause: buyers and sellers have made prices move.
Another (sort of) fun example. During the British Raj, a bounty was paid on cobra snakes, which worked at first. Soon some started breeding them for the bounties. The bounty was cancelled. The breeders released their now worthless snakes. The cobra population soared. There are other examples of this "Cobra Effect".
It's also noteworthy that humans have never before gone 80 years between the second and third wartime use of a new technology for killing people.
Way back in the 90s when I was working my first adult job, Dilbert had a strip where the boss announced that programmers would get a bonus for each bug they identified and fixed. The punchline had Dilbert shouting "We're rich!"
Duncan, you're falling into the trap of treating the "nation-state" as an individual with individual interests.
While wars DO NOT generally benefit the artificial persons that we call nation states, they can provide ENORMOUS benefits for the oligarchs at the top of those heirarchies. Even failed wars can yeild massive spoils for the oligarchs that start them.
Consider the recent "forever wars" fought by the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their collective benefit for thae artificial conglomerate entity we call the United States was pretty negligible. But, have you looked at the salary bonuses reaped by the CEO of Raytheon? (I use Raytheon because it's the direct descendant of Hughes Aircraft and is centered in Tucson AZ, where I live).
40% of the world's missies, for example, are built in Tucson. Look also at the political benefit reaped by GW Bush, who won easy re-election as a "war president" in 2004. Look also at the no-bid contracts that Halliburton landed during Gulf War part 2.
Then notice that VP Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton before landing his gig as GW's political babysitter. Gosh, I wonder how much Halliburton stock that Cheney held as ex-CEO.
As for the Ukraine war, that's yet another conflict that been VERY GOOD for the bonus structure of Raytheon executives.
The way I remember it is that Haliburton stock was essentially worthless before Cheney was (essentially) elected president.
https://bsky.app/profile/rexhuppke.bsky.social
Pretty clear Stephen Miller, Noem, Hegseth and Trump are trying to provoke a Civil War at this point. What's interesting is they want to do it now, because even though they're unpopular, they seem to believe this is the most popular they'll be ever again. We can't let them win.
I've been asking since 2016 what it would take for DJT to truly be an illegitimate president, as opposed to just me considering him to be one.
If he uses the US military to provoke a response from citizens who he then deems to be "radical leftists" and uses that as an excuse to declare martial law and cancel elections--then do I have a point?
The example mentioned here are a microcosm of why nations states rise and fall. For a time, their social orders work because their system of social rewards and punishments work to guide individuals toward actions that benefit the whole.
Eventually, the system of rewrds and punishments breaks down because individuals find ways to maximize individuals benefits which often damages the whole. Usually "playing by the rules" to work within the established reward structure is much more difficult than the easy rewards you can get by spoofing the system.
Thus tendancy lies at the core of why systems become corrupt.
Weekend editor,
Doesn't this go back to Otto Warburg? Back in the 30's, the Nazi's bragged that they were going to cure cancer. They didn't think they were lying, they really believed they were on the verge of doing it bc Warburg was the guy who found that cancer cells use glucose for respiration.
Since German big pharma invented Metformin in the 30's, which lowers blood sugar, they thought that a little fiddling with blood sugar levels would starve cancer cells.
Little did they know that cancer cells could shift electron receptors when denied glucose....
Back in the 30's, the Nazi's bragged that they were going to cure cancer. They didn't think they were lying, they really believed they were on the verge of doing it...
Well, in 1961, JFK declared that we'd go to the moon by the end of the decade, and we did. So, USA! USA! USA!
From a Paul Krugman newsletter:
...
What do we learn from the Chicago apartment raid plus the growing number of incidents in which ICE agents have physically attacked people who posed no conceivable threat? To me, it says that even “alarmists” who warned about the threat a Trump administration would pose to democracy underestimated just how evil this administration would be.
...
He's not wrong.
On a small scale, we can see the effects of a rule change locally. We forbid people from doing extensive bathing in the library restroom sinks (shaving clogs drains, and bathing tends to fling water all over, creating a slip hazard.) The next thing we knew, they were washing up in the toilets! People are clever at finding ways to subvert rules they don't like.
Yeah Larry, the USA got to the moon fueled by former Nazi rocket scientists. We beat the Soviets, whose space program was also fueled by captured Nazi scientists.
In many ways, the USA won the space race because the Nazi scientists ran toward Allied forces when Germany fell. The Soviets got the ones who failed to evade them.
Sort of wonder if there wasn't a selection method involved....
Our Nazi's were better than their Nazi's because our Nazi's were the ones smart enough to evade Soviet troops.....
So much hand waving, so little evidence to back up your claims.
You are right to write this as a SciFi / Fantasy. It bears no resemblance to how humans operate.
I know some of the military leaders are with tRump. But I believe and hope more are against him. At some point, and I hope this is already secretly happening, they are working to oppose his regime. For this to be effective, I feel they need to work with other politicians and people in power to do this is some legitimate way. In other words, they need to develop a well thought-out plan. However, I fear we are at the point of no return now where the only way resistance will occur is with actual physical resistance. I don't want violence but think, since one side is not following any social contract and visiting it upon us already, that's how it will end, with but more violence in response. Will the remaining politicians with a conscience and military leaders work together to bring us out of this? I hope so but since the politicians never took the necessary steps to actually stop tRump when it was comparatively easy, I doubt it. I see this ending in one of three ways: fascist dictatorship, resistance rebelling and throwing these regressive would-be kings out in some organized manner, or civil war. I guess there's a fourth - a failed rebellion but that ends up with the first option of a fascist dictatorship again.
Well...I'm not so sure I agree.
Larry. the premise behind Krugman's assertion is that evil committed by minions employed by a political executive is a reflection of the leader's moral values.
I would say, not necessarily, because servants of a morally sound leader can do evil while purportedly carrying out that leader's orders. I'll cite two examples, President Corazon Aquino of the Philippines in the late 80's and early 90's, and President Jimmy Carter.
Corazon Aquino was elected president of the Philippnes following the fall of dictator Ferdinand Marcos in 1986. She was the widow of her political martyr husband Ninoy Aquino, whose 1983 assassination ended up toppling the Marcos regime. The populace elected Senator Aquino's widow because they wanted a morally-upright leader, and Cory Aquino was a devout Catholic who reportedly prayed 3 hours a day.
Well, corruption ran rampant under Cory Aquino because she didn't know a damn thing about politics, and the political demons ran rings around her, even though she was incredibly honest when it came to the intentions behind her orders.
The Iranian students blamed Jimmy Carter for the evil committed by the totalitarian Shah of Iran, whom Carter supported. However, he exerted only weak control over the Shah's actions. So in this case, the problem wasn't the moral qualities of the leader at fault, it was the weak organizational control that he exercised over his minions.
Now, obviously an American President doesn't exactly control a foreign head of state, There will be limits even when that foreign head of state is dependent on external financial support. Consequently, you can't reliably say that evil committed by executive branch minions is a direct reflection of the leader's ethics.
As demanded by certain inherited cultural preferences, Dr Brin continues to romanticize both Karl Marx & Franklin Roosevelt by generally ignoring Marx's intense hatred for the merchant, middle & bourgeois classes while falsely assigning pro-Marxist & pro-Proletariat sentiments to Roosevelt's xenophobic, anti-migrant & pro-nationalist version of 'Soft Fascism' which strengthened the US middle classes by banning cheap foreign laborers from the American labor pool, even when it meant returning boatloads of desperate Jewish refugees to Nazi death camps.
Evidence suggests that FDR's policies were far more Trumpian than Marxist.
Likewise, it is these very same 'inherited cultural preferences' that will invariably consign Artificial Intelligence to inutility & irrelevancy, as manifested by a progressive desire to prevent further 'socially unacceptable' (but logical) reiterations of Vision & Gemini AI, resulting in a GIGO scenario.
The Principle of GIGO dictates that AI will produce only an output of 'garbage' once programmed with a similarly exclusive input of 'garbage'.
Although currently harmless, AI will only 'come into its own' when we program it with indisputable & amoral fact, as in the case of FBI table 43, but this would be huge disaster regardless of political affiliation for pretty much every living human being on the planet, as we all prefer our comfy reassuring delusions to our much more brutal 'memento mori' reality, mostly because humans need to believe countless 'little lies' if we are to believe the really BIG lies like equality, justice & mercy.
The truth could very well kill us all.
Best
Der Oger:
I would say, not necessarily,...
Your points are valid in the general case. Krugman wasn't speaking generally. He was talking about this president and this administration. The fact is that anyone who warned about the bad things that a Trump administration would do if elected was:
+ dismissed as unnecessarily alarmist
+ woefully mild in our concerns in retrospect
Or maybe it just shows that all previous systems were actually designed to benefit a small number at the top to the detriment of the majority of individuals, and finding ways to maximize individual benefits is bringing the system back to the ideal: a system that actually benefits all individuals in the society. ;)
Programming AI with facts, like FBI table 43, won't cause it much harm. Only if we allow it to come to simplistic and obviously incorrect conclusions (aka correlations) about such facts will it pose any danger, as when humans come to similar simplistic and obviously incorrect conclusions about FBI table 43 based not on facts but their own bigotry. In some (if not many) cases, AI will need to be far more circumspect than many of our fellow citizens. ;)
Larry, you mistake me with John :-)
(Ogre goes back into his cave.)
JV large parts of your appraisal of nations and war were cogent. And yet, you ignore the expansion of horizons I discuss elsewhere. This might manifest as a unifying external threat. Fictionally aliens but the USSR served well in uniting most nations under the American Pax… whose CULTURAL leanings (a second factor) have long been non-imperial. (With many wretched exceptions like neo-cons and confederates.)
Third, you ignore how the last 80 years under the American Pax have been by far the most peaceful (PER CAPITA) ever. 90%+ of humans have never witness war with their own eyes. Likely a higher % than that.
No, our problem – you refer-to – is that much of the world decision apparatus is run by oligarch ingrates who manifest the Seldon Paradox and think they can dispense with the somewhat egalitarian state the gave them everything and still protects them.
Re war… there is a HUGE difference in the ways that Demoicratic administrations and Republican ones wage it. My old posting here remains relevant! How Democrats and Republicans Wage War - http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2012/10/how-democrats-and-republicans-wage-war.html
Stopped skimming at: "Dr Brin continues to romanticize both Karl Marx & Franklin Roosevelt by generally ignoring Marx's intense hatred for the merchant, middle & bourgeois classes ,,," Glanced and saw who it was saying that utterly stoopid, ignorant and idiotic thing... That's his cult all right. Yowl away, deeply ignorant person.
FIrst of all, matthew, I don't give a crap what you think. You're an f'n moron who is too stupid to talk to.
What kind of "edukation" do you have? And yeah, the spelling is intentional. BTW, i know I can't prove my theories, because it would be completely unethical to attempt. You can't go around starting wars to run controlled experiments.
I suspect you have some kind of humanities degree, which means you're a sort of "edukated" imbecile as far as I'm concerned. The reason I have this attitude is humaties morons pretty much universally despise sociobiology, (which does have A LOT of experimental evidence) because sociobiology blows up their psuedo-science bullshit, which includes any humanties field which has incorproated critical race theory, feminist gender theory, and garbage like ethnic studies.
That doesn't mean to say EVERYONE who publishes in those fields are totally worthless. They can come up with work that has empirical value. It's just that the first-class minds that do somehow end up in those fields get saddled with a defective theoretical indoctrination which limits them.
Camille Paglia (a feminist I respect) writses about this in her wars against 3rd wave feminist ignoramuses. Paglia, who is a 2nd wave feminist icon, wrote about he knock-down, drag-out wars she got into with administrators when they were putting together gender studies departments. She couldn't believe the idiots who created the gender studies curriculum somehow failed to include any requirement for biology.
Paglia says the founders of gender studies departments largely came from English literature. That's why gender studies departments came to be filled with blithering idiots who tend to indoctrinate their victims (er students) to despise sociobiology, basically because the English lit refugees were too stupid to grasp the subject.
So what we have today are generations of humanties "students" who have been trained to be stupid. Oh, and the "geniouses" (misspelling intentional) who run huamnities departments somewhere along the way got rid of the classical requirement for rhetoric, which is how we now have entire FIELDS OF STUDY in the humanities built upon premises that are logical fallacies.
So, Matthew, why would I care what someone trained to be a moron thinks? You can go back to the lobotomized echo chamber that you call a brain.
you mistake me with John
Entschuldigung
AF Rey,
Funny you mention that. I was chatting with my cousin who has a msters in history, whose primary focus was the Civil War era.
So I talked to him about one of the discussions here when we eere speculating how our system took a turn toward strongly favoring oligarchs. His smartass answer was 1787.
(Note: the constitution was written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in force since 1789. Most educated Americans who want to say something goes back to when the constution was first written would cite 1789. However, since my cousn and I both knew that it was actually drafted in 1787, he cited 1787).
I hesitated a moment then laughed, because he's right. THE CONSTITUTION IS AN INHERENTLY OLIGARCHIC DOCUMENT. It restricted the vote to while males who owned property.
While the consttution estaclished a more democratic system than the vast majority of prior goernment systems, it was still inherently oligharchical.
"John Viril", I remember that you are the poster here that likes to go on about your nice Boarder Patrol neighbor.
Your insults are a badge of honor to a person with a conscience.
I'm not friends with fascists.
And I don't suffer fools like you.
https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/trump-order-ban-fascism-nazi-20251005.html
...
As Trump’s masked and unbadged secret police (and we absolutely should be calling them this) escalate their tactics by firing tear-gas canisters onto city streets, aiming projectiles at journalists, and arresting political leaders or slamming them to the ground, it is absolutely essential that we defy Trump’s executive order and call this by its real name.
The reason is simple: Defeating fascism requires a very different type of posture — both politically and morally — than might an old-fashioned political quarrel between liberals and conservatives over tax rates and government services. To truly oppose a fascist Trump regime, we must declare ourselves anti-fascists. In light of Trump’s order, we must become outlaws.
...
Too many lawmakers, and journalists, refuse to understand the fascist moment because their salary depends on not understanding it. But I’ve been struck this weekend by how one prominent political figure is actually getting it — properly framing the current government shutdown as more than a squabble over healthcare but a fight for democracy.
“Listen, I don’t think we’re asking for too much in that we are telling the president that if you want us to sign onto a budget, it can’t be a budget that funds the destruction of our democracy,“ Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy told the New Republic’s essential Greg Sargent last week. ”I would be a sucker to agree to a budget that literally funds an operation to hunt me and my allies down — to imprison us, harass us, intimidate us."
...
Words still not only matter, but have incredible power. What we are witnessing is American fascism. I am an anti-fascist.
You had me at "defeating fascism".
However, since my cousn and I both knew that it was actually drafted in 1787, he cited 1787
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_NzZvdsbWI&list=RD8_NzZvdsbWI&start_radio=1
The "America Rock" video from the bicentennial year is how every 8th grade class since my brother's (I was two years too early) knows the preamble to the Constitution by memory.
The video does begin with, "In seventeen-eighty-seven, I'm told..."
So there's that.
What makes it difficult to call fascists out is a history of people overusing the term. It became a term of abuse rather than a description. And so, people forgot what it actually was. Many tried to define it in economic terms. But the core of it is a nostalgic form of nationalism and a leadership cult. And now we have the return of something with those features, and most are not recognizing it for what it is.
Ummm,...i do have a rather nice neighbor who is a retired Tucson police detective. I have a lot of interesting discussions with him about 4th and 5th amendment civil rights stuff. But, I presume it makes you feel good to villify me within your mind as someone who has what you consider to be a categorically evil friend.
So, if thinking I've befriended a Border Patrol agent makes you feel morally surprior, I guess I should just consider it par for your rather limited "edukation."
The Collingridge Dilemma (which suggests that change is only "easy" & feasible prior to its consideration) and the Seldon Paradox (which proposes that "models fail if everyone knows about them and uses them") amount to little more than non-sequiturs:
To whit:
(1) How can change be thought of either 'easy' or 'difficult' prior to its very conception? (and)
(2) In what way can predictive modeling be said to be 'modeling' at all if said 'modeling' is 'neither predictive' nor a model' when subject to examination or close scrutiny?
I must therefore put both Marxism & Socialism into the same 'Unable to Withstand Examination Or Scrutiny' category, as these political systems "have a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it”.
The Marxist Paradox & Schrödinger's Socialism are both fine-sounding terms, are they not?
I will not our current political circumstance. For now. I check back in in a month or so.
Best
Exactly matthew. You would vastly prefer making an enemy of an ally who disagrees with you on linguistic definitions and other superficialities, that grit your teeth, build a winning coalition and then parse out those differences after we have saved the planet, nation and civilization. YOU are exactly why we lost a couple of million Blacks, Latinos and suburban women and why Trump is president.
After that howler before, utterly ignorant of the slightest aspect of the topic (e.g. Marx's views) and proud of it - I had no interest in even skimming this one.
Well, I plead the word limits of posts here as my excuse for some of these oversights. And yes, I get that we need word limits or else we wouldn't have the sort of lively debate you want to occur in this space.
So yeah, I'm well aware that external threats can be a unifying force. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I created my theoty of warfare to answer the particular problem i saw with sociobiological theory in grad school: if getting your genes into the next generation is the primary drive of human behavior, how do we explain the "Charge of the Light Brigade?"
Indeed, how do we explain the Vietnam War? Why didn't the soldiers give the middle finger to their commanders in WW1 when they were ordered "over the top" into withering machine gun fire?
I would also note that standard western "just war" ethics distinguish between defensive and offensive war. Defensive war (one conducted against a common external threat) is much more likely to have well-aligned interests between oligarchs and citizens.
So yean, defensive wars feature quite justifiable sacrifices for the common good. In essence, the whole military culture that demands sacrifice for the good of all make PERFECT sense in a defensive war to a mortal external threat. Say, for example, the Mongols beseige your city-state.
But, what about wars of conquest? Note how democratic government leaders tend to frame EVERY war as a strategic defensive war, even if they're lying through their teeth.
JV,
Giving the middle finger vs. going over the top
They did, after a while, but social cohesion has to erode first. Most humans do what is expected of them.
Nearly every army in WWI reached a breaking point. The French began to stage sit-down strikes in 1917 - they would defend their trenches, but not move forwards. The Russians openly revolted 1917-1918. The Germans staged a mass demobilization in 1918 - desertion by another name*.
Generally, few men will desert their comrades, even in the face of death - but when a group of humans realizes, consciously or not, that there is no advantage between obeying pointless orders and dying by firing squad, units will stop obeying those orders, frag their officers, stop fighting. Even the Japanese in WWII reached their limit in 1945 and began to surrender, which is astounding given Japanese cultural norms. Humans are hardwired for group cohesion and social conformity and many or most will die for it.
*the US Army in WWI never had time to reach that level of casualties - Pershing rightly feared that his men would be fed into other armies' meat grinders piecemeal and insisted he be given his own sector of front, but before enough divisions assembled in France for that, the German lines were already breaking.
Pappenheimer
P.S. the Light Brigade suffered about 37% casualties in its charge, iirc - horrific for cavalry, but light compared to losses among infantry regiments...some in the US Civil War lost 85%+ in a single battle and remained on the field. Here I offer as an example the 1st Minnesota. Apparently Virginia still wants the battle flag the 1st Minn. captured at Gettysburg back, but there is no way in five hells they are getting it.
If you want to look at this from a genetic standpoint (I don't, really) many of your genes are copied in your neighbors, and even if you die, the genes survive. This is only an advantage if you remain part of the group, though.
Pappenheimer
Yes. Fascist as a term got over used.
So... when I talk face-to-face about this I phrase it as "My inner Boy Scout is appalled." If they stop to pay attention I mention how these people are doing exactly what I was taught we were NOT supposed to do.
When you are looking for another example of the Seldon law, look to the stock markets. The typical behavior of investors connects stock prices to corporate revenues. There are other details in there that deal with debt load, so you might hear "earnings per share" get mentioned.
This behavior is (at best) an heuristic. What actually determines a stock's price is the balance struck between buyers and sellers. That they use the heuristic most of the time to inform their preferred prices is a known fact, but there are important times when they do something that looks more like a tsunami. This happens most often when they THINK about what others might be doing to set their preferred prices.
This isn't exactly "Know about the plan and it fails" because everyone knows about the heuristic. Failure occurs when they begin to know a significant fraction are NOT using the heuristic. Seemingly uncorrelated investment decisions suddenly become HIGHLY. correlated and prices move sharply.
------
During DJT's first term in office, the markets used to move sharply when it opened his mouth and said anything sufficiently stupid. Sharply down. Gradual recovery. It got so predictable that I adjusted how I bought and sold options on otherwise steady stocks. I got it right often enough to matter.
During DJT's second term we all expected this. Still, I misjudged how strong and long the first tariff reaction was. He said some stupendously stupid things and LOTS of people quit using the heuristic. All through March and some of April. Many claimed they WERE using it, but lots of us didn't believe that and woosh when the markets.
The most astonishing thing now is that he's said stupid stuff and the markets have NOT reacted for many months. They don't ignore him... but no whoosh. They are mostly using the old heuristic and not thinking much about him... but many of us are wondering when too much finally becomes too much again making uncorrelated behavior suddenly correlated.
Watched a regular commenter of your current situation a few days ago, and what stuck is investors should not depart from the US markets yet, though she admitted that the US Stock market and maybe others are overvalued.
She described NY CEOs essentially as at loss of what to do and very nervous, much of it having to do with the tariffs. Also, that they invest outside of the US (which is, I believe, not what Trump intended).
Personally I think we should distance ourselves from you over here to get out of the detonation radius a bit, lest we suffer the same .... Though we will most likely not do that.
Found a video essay/commentary about how Internet & youth culture led to Gamergate, and Gamergate to MAGA.
https://youtu.be/MJU8xGudhnI?si=5I6Ea6AadjfGiANW
Tl, dv: It is about the sexual insecurity of young males and the eskalation of words to score debate points.
Re: Pax Americana
I never did address this issue in my theory about the behavioral underpinnings of human warfare.
However, it's perfectly consistent with my observations. To wit, if you plot the growth of stronger central control of societies against total social violence, you'd see an inverse relationship. I've never really speculated about the shape of such a curve, but I'm pretty damn sure overal violence in a society declines with stronger central control.
So. starting with hunting/gathering societes, and going up to say Tribal societies, ect. until we get to nation-states, I'd expect to see a pretty clear decline in overall violence.
We can say the post WW2 Pax Americana is the first real attempt at an international world order (...ummm....UN. Note the prior League of Nations excluded a lot of signifanct world powers).
It seems we're heading for a challenge to this Pax Americana (Putin, for example, insists on a "multipolar" world future).
To me, the established pattern is that as the central control of human societies increase, so too also increases the size and scope of the wars they fight, while seeing a decline in the overall social violence.
Remember how I argued that one legitimate user of force in a nation state creates economic benefits for their citizens because they don't waste time fighting to protect their accumulated wealth. That's because the overall violence declines. The one legit user of force blastx the highwaymen and pirates that plagued medieval Europe. It also eliminates the "Robber Baron" types you'd get in early fuedalism, when anyone with a suit of armor and a castle could largely rob whomever he pleased without fear of much reprisal.
It takes the security provided by one legit user of force to get the highly productive but fragile Edison Lab and the company (massive economic machine) it founded (GE).
So when we move to an international world order post WW2, the Pax Americana you note doesn't seem at all contradictory to my ideas. It's simply a continuation of an observed pattern.
What's going to be interesting is when that international order get's challended and it devolves into some kind of war. The established social pattern would suggest an even larger conflict than WW2....BUT the warfare pattern since we invented nuclear weapons has been de-escalation.
I don't think that the coming war challenge to the last 80 years of Pax Americana will lead to a bigger WW3 with nuclear exchange. I suspect the oligarchs who currently run our nation states do recognize they are going to be just as dead as everyone else in a nuclear exchange.
What we might get is some widespread assymetric covert "war" that;s carried out along economic, covert, and political means.Recall that Von Clauzewitz called politics "war by other means." Note too how Star Trek has retconned it's "late 90's Eugenics War" into a covert and assymetric conflict only largely recognized "after the fact."
Maybe that's how the war challenge to Pax Americana might play out.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Oct08-2.html
In short, [ Bari ]Weiss is the beneficiary of the right-wing version of Affirmative Action (Conservative Action?)
Yeah, I might steal that term.
At the start of Trump 2.0, I began reallocating the retirement portfolio. Less reliant on stocks, less reliant on the US in stocks/REITs/bonds, and more ready to take the hit of a severe world recession or US depression.
Latest iteration: https://www.someweekendreading.blog/weekend-portfolio-trump-2/
Some reliance on intemediate US Treasuries & TIPs, but also heavy reliance on foreign bonds (mostly sovereign bonds of developed nations, with a hedge back to the dollar to remove currency effects).
When this AI Slop wave finally recedes, the world will belong to textual learners who absorb, grok, and express knowledge via reading and writing. OGH often advises us to paraphrase.
Text offers the best balance between 'knowledge velocity' and friction, analogously to how complexity lives at the twilight between order and chaos. Actually, the analogy can even be extended to a single transistor, which I'm writing an essay on. It will be called something like, "We've Been Scaling in the Wrong Direction".
One of my favourite ACM pieces was written by Moshe Vardi back in 2013.
https://cacm.acm.org/opinion/fricative-computing/
The Atlantic on the American Revolution:
https://www.theatlantic.com/category/unfinished-revolution/
Unknown: good points and we can hope that Russian soldiers reach the limits of even Russian ability to endure suffering and at last turn their attentions to Moscow. Certainly there are stories that fragging occurs. I am actually amazed we hear of it so little. But you are wrong in one detail. While the German 1918 offensive had (barely) failed by the time the Americans were ready to join the fight, the Brits and French weren’t even remotely ready to counter-attack by themselves. US troops absolutely made the difference that everyone expected them to, that September and October.
If only Minnesota and especially Ohio and Indiana would remember which side their forefathers fought for.
For the record, Karl Marx deeply admired the bourgeoise revolutions that took class evolution to a level that created the industries to lift miserable populations out of poverty. He considered himself an EXTENDER of Adam Smith, whom he also admired. And America was the very best the bourgeoise stage could get.
Well, bourgeoise NOTHERN America was. The South, clinging to feudalism via slavery and immiseration of poor whites, was locked in an earlier, more primitive stage and he rooted hard for Union victory.
While theft of labor value (silly concept: Marx’s dumbest idea) from workers was immoral, he did not care much about the immorality, so long as it got re-invested in ever better and more-capitalized means of production… the capitalist’s necessary and even admirable job.
Where he ceases that admiration is when that industrial capitalization is ‘completed' (KM’s second execrably dumb idea). By which point the capitalist class would have narrowed itself down to a tiny caste of uber-duper oligarch lords replicating feudalism… (a HALF-dumb notion; it’s not automatic – FDR proved that – but yes, it is happening now because of the Seldon Paradox.)…
At which point the frustrated and angry proletariat… now hugely educated and capable… simply lop off a few heads… and that definitely might still happen. Unless today's insipid oligarchs fire their sycophant flatterers, wake up and hire another FDR to save them
I typed all that NOT in order to talk to an idiot, but rather to belabor the notions for the rest of you, till ever-more of you go “Oh, yeah. I think I see what Marx meant – the smart, the dumb, and the (alas) inevitable.stuff. We should outgrow his primitive models. But it is important to know them."
Seldon's Extended Paradox, a.k.a. Brin's Revision:
When a psychohistorical prediction is nullified by Seldon's Paradox, and that nullification is known by the population under study, then the prediction tends to become true again.
In the long run, the prediction becomes stably half-true, or settles into an oscillation between extremes, with a period of two generations.
If only Minnesota and especially Ohio and Indiana would remember which side their forefathers fought for.
What did Minnesota do?
Ohio is gerrymandered as badly as Texas. They have as many if not more Democratic voters as Republican, but Republicans control all the levers of power.
Indiana might as well be Mississippi with fewer black people. I wouldn't be surprised if they were as sympathetic to the Confederacy as Missouri or Kentucky were (or southern Illinois, for that matter).
Dr. Brin:
Our loco-weed eater displays his sin of despair, by saying
"... the really BIG lies like equality, justice & mercy.
The truth could very well kill us all."
Re the first: it is true that equality, justice & mercy are not universal, and indeed require constant attention to maintain, but that does not imply their non-existence. With equal logic I could say, "I woke up hungry this morning, therefore food does not exist."
Re the second: If the truth be our doom, then we are doomed no matter what. But I indulge in the folly of hope, by hoping that recognizing the truth will save us. Or in other words:
Truth hurts, but then it sets you free.
I really did study this extensively in graduate school. As a child, I had an obsession with military history (I first read Hans Delbruk's 4 part magnum opus on warfare when I was 13). So yeah, I posed this question already knowing about the massive French troop rebellion in the spring of 1917, as well as the collapse of the Russian Army, and the refusal of German sailors when their commanders ordered a suicide attack after the 1918 Armistice.
So I knew that urge exists in human armies, but is really a rare occurrence in the history of warfare. Part of the reason it's abnormal is the extreme social conditioning of soldiers.
One of the first things I did after learning about sociobiology and posing this question was to reread Hans Delbruk.
Really interesting to read Delbruk after having graduate training in evolutionary biology and animal behavior. I also reread Delbruk after graduating law school, which was a whole new adventure.
What I was looking to grasp in grad school is why wasn't the selection pressure against exploitative offensive warfare more extreme (such that it would overcome the social conditioning of armies).
One possible answer is this type of warfare wasn't old enough to create sufficient selection pressure. But the answer that 24 yo me hung my hat on was that there was an overarching benefit to this behavior. In animal behavior, when u get an apparent fitness paradox (animals engaging in behaviors that are contra-fitness), you're usually looking at the behavior through too narrow a scope.
In the case of human warfare, I concluded that the detrimental effects of getting exploited as a soldier in a war were overwhelmed by the everyday fitness advantages of functioning within a hierarchy.
While kicking around this analysis with a young lady trained as a cultural anthropologist, she pointed out that human societes aren't universally hierarchical.
She also objected that I wasn't talking about all kinds of human warfare, but instead a particular type of warfare.
My response was that while not all human societies are hierarchical, pretty much all hunting parties are.
She replied, "So, you're going to go there." And I said, "You bet.i am. Functioning within a hunting party had to be a fundamental requirement for human survival back in Africa.
it is true that equality, justice & mercy are not universal, and indeed require constant attention to maintain, but that does not imply their non-existence.
They require an input of effort. Just about everything does. Slavery and brutality also don't exist unless someone makes the effort.
I could say, "I woke up hungry this morning, therefore food does not exist."
More than that. You could say, "If I don't eat I'll die. Therefore life is not a thing."
https://bsky.app/profile/rexhuppke.bsky.social
Bank on this: Trump and his coterie of MAGA podcasters and bro-dudes will concoct an alternate Super Bowl halftime show featuring Lee Greenwood and other washed out never-have-beens, and its ratings will be so wildly embarrassing that Trump will declare all ratings “rigged and illegal.”
Sounds plausible.
I've paid enough attention to JV's words over the last two years to know that he is no ally to either me or David.
Sometimes JV will cosplay as an ally to David but then he gives the game away by saying some extremely right-wing garbage.
"John Viril" is very bad at staying in character.
Do I doubt David Brin is an ally?
I did not use to doubt him, but his name-dropping of oligarchs ("Thiel teaches from my book" just two weeks ago) and friendship with mass murderers has changed my mind.
All states named are part of what is called "Rust Belt", or?
All over the world Social Democrats* ceased to be the worker's party when they ceased to care about the workers, who then drifted to the right. You see it in Israel, Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, and the US.
*Or Rooseveltians, if you prefer, I don't see much difference in the methods, just in the political rituals.
Because, the opposite is also true: In all Skandinavian states where the Social Democrats kept their core promises, they kept their political power and relevance.
Oger, sorry and with respect, that is utter utter bullshit.
Look at Appalachiain the 1960s - the setting of DELIVERANCE - when gap-toothed poverty and scurvy and misery were rampant. LBJ and then Nixon (!) and Carter all poured vast wealth into those states which are now vastly, vastly cleaner and better off. Yes, some industries declined, like coal. But Democrats poured vast wealth into poor red states and into rust belts.
This is about culture. And the dems destroyed the last of the FDR coalition when they let the far left guilt trip them into desegregation through forced school busing. The stupidest poliy in all of US history.
Dr.Brin,
In May 1955, the Court ruled in Brown II that the school districts desegregate "with all deliberate speed". (wikipedia) The further ruling in 1971 that school districts must achieve racial balance even if it meant redrawing school boundaries and the use of busing as a legal tool was an attempt to remedy the fact that school segregation ignored the de facto ruling and continued de jure. That 1971 ruling was by the Burger Court, which I'd consider far left only by comparison to today's Jackboot Court.
Could you provide a different method of desegregation that would actually achieve the Court's intent?
Also, 'stupidest policy in US history' has to exclude the Smoot-Hawley Tariff and the Fugitive Slave Act, in my opinion.
Pappenheimer
P.S. by the way, I don't think W.Va was significantly affected by school busing - it's 84% white even now. What turned the state's politics blood red iirc was loss of middle-class economic opportunity and the destruction of union membership. Ohio, quintessential rust belt state, saw the same shift, and I'd wager school busing was just a dash of bat's blood in the witches' brew* of whatever the hell neoliberalism means.
*No offense to witches, as some of my best friends are witches. Literally.
Redrawing school district boundaries was one thing. Completely necessary. The Bussing was insane and there was no reason for Dem pols to go along with such utter suicide to their labor-centered coalition.
The main reason I defend busing is that it gorram well worked where it was applied. School outcomes improved in the most destitute regions of the country and did not fall anywhere due to busing. I'll concede that it was turned into a cause célèbre by racists and became detrimental, but...yes, a bridge too far.
Pappenheimer
P.S. There's a lovely T-shirt I saw elsewhere on the Intertoobz reading "I'm not going to argue with anyone John Brown would have shot."
P.P.S. Apparently The Moldbug is soiling his underwear because the GQP is busy turning the average American against them, and is considering fleeing the country to avoid retribution. I doubt that'll happen but Clement Vallandigham's fate was much less worse than Yarvin's should be.
@David: What would, in your eyes, have been the alternative to School Bussing (with the intent of ending de facto segregation?)
The only thing I could come up with was vastly increasing the funding of Inner City schools, to increase their quality to a Point that every sane parent would like to have their childrens there.
I don't know If those programms won't run into legal and political problems.
Also related to the question is: Where do you place the high-quality educators, and how do you pay them? Do you place them at elite schools or "problem schools"? Do you try to distribute them evenly?
BTW, if the goal was to fight racism, a reminder that evidence points to the fact that exposure reduces it to a degree
____________
I don't believe that there is a single-issue cause that led to the decline of social democratic parties/Rooseveltians world-wide, and at national level, there are developments that do not show up elsewhere.
But a few things remain quite constant: corporation-friendly policies.
You can look at Blair or Schröder or Clinton, and you will find ample evidence for this transformation of nominally left-wing leaders into neo-liberal corporate sell-outs.*
Also, the formation of elites which have few traits in common with those they are expected to represent: How many of the members of our parliament are really "Working Class?"
There is another thing that I have to address: dignity, and which people we treat with it. Since so much of it has to do with wealth and status, I invite anyone in the Western hemisphere how we treat people with low paying jobs, non-college education.
Withhold dignity breeds anger and grievances or apathy and abstinence from politics which are overheard or unrecognized by the ruling elites in stagnating democracies. Populists hear it and capitalize on it.
But, maybe, the same path that would lead to fascism can also lead to rejuvenation, if only social democratic parties would do social democratic stuff again.
*Not that they do not have their place in a living democracy. Just not in parties labeled "left-wing" in the traditional sense.
Oh, wait, so anyone that doesn't conform to your ideas of liberalism must be evil, right matthew? What are you, God?
So, for example, if I notice that Kamala Harris was a dogshit candidate, I'm a fascist? Seriously? A woman who got clobbered in a debate by Tulsi Gabbard on substance mind you, not the low hanging fruit of Kamala getting her first two political jobs by blowing WIllie Brown, can't be questioned as a candidate.
When Gabbard showed up Kamala, Kamala then quit the race, just to be rescued by Joe Biden because she checked the right representation boxes. And I'm not supposed to notice that Kamala can't talk on her feet to save her life? Can't imagine she'd be good in a courtroom.
I figure the only way Kamala survived as a prosecutor is being VERY skilled at the pre-trial wrangling and negotiation (if you discount her strategic relationships).
I don't have to defend my anger at the staggeringly stupid and horrifically vile school desegregation via bussing with anything other than...
1. What an insane thing to do to children
and
2. the total demolition, destruction, incinderationof the old labor union based Rooseveltean coalition resulted in loss of the POWER needed in order to do ten million other good things.
It was a bullying lunatic thing to do, of such appalling wretchedness that I remain stunned that anyone looks back at it without a head slap.
I am of mixed opinion. I see your point, Dr. Brin. I believe my parents were against the forced bussing but not because it brought some troublesome children into our school but because it brought upset children who were frankly scared and angered those childrens' parents. I'd have to ask my mother though what her thoughts were at the time. We lived inside the DC beltway in Adelphi, MD, which was at the time a newly formed suburb of Hyattsville. My mom ended up working at DuVall High School for one year as a nurse but felt it was too difficult a job for, an RN with ER experience, to handle bundled with raising three children.
The bussing was necessary to help foster better outcomes but the FORCED part was what, as you state, the real problem. I'm curious to know if you think forced vaccinations would be equally a problem, not that they are entirely equivalent.
I think a better comparison would be shutting down of classrooms and forcing remote education during covid.
I've got to admit, I have little to no opinion about school bussing. I was a private Catholic school kid, so I've only read opinions about the impact of bussing. The only public school I've ever attended was law school.
David S. the covid isolations were a natural mistake. Leaders thought the pandemic would be like the 1918 flu and it might have been, except for the miracle vaccines. No one mentions how covid was actually a fairly light dry run to tune our methods if (when) the real thing hits.
As for busing, I will not moderate my contempt one iota. The demolition and incineration of the FDR-labor coalition was despicably stoopid, followed by pissing on the ashes, stirring them and then laying a steaming poo upon the pile.
Likewise the left's utter inability to comment upon or even notice how enemies of liberal democracy sent millions of refugees streaming across western borders, ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS resulting in the electorates veering to the right. That's always. And our idiots, drenched in sanctimony, could never grasp that it's about POWER!
The power to do a myriad good things, like saving the planet, saving democracy, maintaining foreign aid to the countries sourcing the refugees and having in office presidents who might (maybe) apply pressure on the regimes that oppress folks into becoming refugees.
The pushing of refugees to change western politics trick worked HERE!!! Trump is a result. Heck, even many Hispanics (esp. cubans but many others who had citizenship), WANTED MORE BORDER CONTROL and moderately controlled immigration. But our lefties could not parse anything as basic as "What practical PRIORITIES should we emphasize, and in what order, to maintain the power to work our way down the priorities list?"
The insanely all-at-once trans thing, pronouns and all, could have been calmed considerably with some basic, incremental compromises. Like No Penises where they are unwelcome; if you are gonna do it, do it all the way." And "Let's hold off on the sports stuff for now, okay? And let the girls decide."
I've said it for 30 years. Sanctimony could be the death of us. It is ALL that the right has anymore, since they abandoned all facts and fact professions and any semblance of reason. And it makes our own side's self-righteousness junkies behave in ways that kill the only coalition that can possibly save us all.
So, if passions run that high, I will assume that I'll getting no insight here, nor will your emotional outrage alone convince me.
But we can agree to disagree on this matter, that is just fine with me.
the covid isolations were a natural mistake.
...
No one mentions how covid was actually a fairly light dry run to tune our methods if (when) the real thing hits.
No one seems to remember what it was like before the vaccine--how communicable and how deadly those first strains were and how burdensome COVID was to the health care system, ventilators and all that.
"Flattening the curve" was probably the only thing that made it manageable for hospitals by slowing the rate at which new patients needed treatment.
Now that the disease has become less virulent* (albeit more communicable) and there are vaccines and Paxlovid available, and many people have become able to work from home when necessary, it's all too easy to forget that isolation probably saved our lives.
* At the time, I wondered if it would be like The Andromeda Strain and mutate to a less fatal version. After all, an organism does itself no good if it kills its host before it can spread to others.
Sorry LH. Even without the vaccines, covid was not an utter panic. Children who got it mostly shrugged it off as did most healthy adults. Vastly the deaths were among the frail elderly who weren't gonna be around in a decade, anyway. And I say that having turned 75 3 days ago!
No, covid was a somewhat harsh but very useful live fire training exercise. We are now... or were pre-RFKJ - much better prepared.
Before the vaccines, I can't think of anyone I know who really "shrugged it off". About half of those who had confirmed cases still suffer some form of long COVID. I've got a bit of permanent lung scarring from it. What infectious diseases do you consider above somewhat harsh?
Sorry, I actually work (in IT) for a hospital chain. If the curve were not flattened, there were going to be too many emergency cases for the system to handle. Like many Republicans, you seem to not want to remember how bad it was.
Doktor, re-read your words and consider how they must sound to someone who opposed going to Iraq, and as a nation was slandered for it*, yet took in a large percentage of those refugees your Never-Ending wars and climate change caused.
And who was in charge when Syria imploded.
Or imagine you were a young Syrian, and your choices would be joining Assad, the Islamists, or fleeing.
Or a Jezid, seeing your whole Village slaughtered, enslaved.
Then take the perspective of an Near East European Leader who sees millions of hungry and freezing refugees at your borders. What is the humane thing to do?
You can do that, seeing the world with another person's eyes, you are a renowned writer, aren't you?
*If you are at it, also look at the states who went with you in that war and their stance in sharing the burden.
Gold hit $4000 / oz today for the first time in history.
Gold is not supposed to spike until AFTER a market crash.
Historically when investors get nervous they flock to US securities not gold.
But thanks to the orange idiot nobody trusts the US anymore.
A crash is coming (stocks are very overvalued) with only the AI bubble keeping the economy afloat like like the central pole in a circus tent.
Should AI be a bust the coming crash will see the dollar dethroned as the world's reserve currency with nothing to replace (if anything the Chinese are in worse shape than we are).
Buckle your seatbelts it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Larry,
Lots of us DO remember that. "Flatten the curve" was the rallying cry.
In hindsight, though, if we had failed to flatten it as much as we did, the death count would not have been orders of magnitude higher. it would have been uncomfortably higher and we'd now beat ourselves up over that, but it wouldn't have been what many of us imagined it would be.
I'm not embarrassed at what is likely to be understood in the future as our over reaction. I remember flying back from my brother's funeral shortly before the lock down and the fearful looks on people's faces on the plane. They were masking up in early February. FEAR grabbed at us and began to dictate policy within a couple weeks after that. I see no point in being embarrassed about that fear. We had NO cultural experience left in us for pandemics more deadly than world wars. Of course we overreacted.
... but that overreaction drove to completion the Manhattan Project sized impact of our vaccine(s!!!!) response. Putting mRNA vaccines out there and PROVING they work is a huge f$%@ing deal. History will remember this and probably forgive our fear in exchange for these biological nukes.
I propose a new (actually very old) reserve currency: beaver pelts.
A mild illness, in the same way that russian roulette is a mild injury. Definitely could have been far worse, but keep the vaccine schedule up, even if only to give the finger to the dead kennedy.
(The height of the pandemic was extremely stressful, and stress does nasty things to short term memory. I do wonder if that is why people were less concerned about Trump's first term than they should have been.)
@Alfred,
I don't see that you and I are really arguing. I'm not saying that anyone was 100% right about everything. Remember the initial confusion over masks being useful or not, later used to brand Anthony Fauci as public enemy #1.
But isolation was necessary. The spread of the disease had to be brought under control enough that there were enough hospital beds and ventilators for the number of people at a time who did require them. And I'm not accepting the revisionist history that says isolation was worse than the disease was at the time. It's not being remembered now as "we overreacted," but as "Democrats overreacted" or "Fauci overreacted." And even at the time, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth over not being allowed to go to school or church, something I would have cheered for when I was a kid.
I don't remember the exact numbers now, but I do remember studies that looked at the number of deaths relative to the average during the same time period in other years, and it was hundreds of thousands of extra deaths in the US alone--not all officially listed as COVID, but what else was there going on during that year?
That aside, the horror of COVID in the first year wasn't just about the death total. It was a horrific way to die, or even to live through if one managed to do so. And it spread much quicker and easier than the flu. Without a cure or a vaccine, isolation seems to me like the only way of keeping a lid on the spread.
Between the disease's own mutations and the vaccinated population, COVID has now become something more like a manageable flu or really bad cold that can be dealt with socially in the same way we deal with those other things. That's not how it was back in 2020.
I'm in perfect agreement that the development of mRNA vaccines was huge. But I wouldn't characterize it as "forgive our fear in exchange for...". More like "thank goodness our fear kept us safe long enough for..."
It's those darned comic books of mine again. The ones that keep reminding you that such-and-such happened back in issue #121 or whatever. I tend to remember my own past history in more detail than most people do.
That's not always a good thing--being so tied to the past--but sometimes it is.
During the horrific Lisbon Earthquake of 1755, thousands of faithful reportedly fled to the cathedral, which then fell in.
When I heard of congregations in early 2020 defying isolation orders, I remembered that. There are cold equations that don't care what you believe.
Pappenheimer
Re: beaver pelts, how would one make change? Muskrat ears?
(Paradoctor = Hellerstein at the upstairs computer)
"Flattening the curve" was a semi-orderly retreat before the viral foe. It bought us time to bring in our own weapons: vaccines. The MRNA innovation pushed back covid; now it is managable. As ever, plague forces the advancement of medicine.
Anti-vax = pro-plague. Why some humans turn against their own kind makes little sense to me. For instance, Bill Maher brags of having had no covid shots, and three covid infections. But I have had nine covid shots, and no covid infections. Who has better immunity?
At the isolation peak of the plague, I taught from home over a Zoom link. I had to adapt quickly to do so: buy a computer camera, learn the software, prepare camera-ready notes. After a few such classes, I signed off and I said to myself "I could get used to this!" But it was never the same as in-class, so I was glad the vaccine came out and we could resume meeting students in person.
Asimov's SF mystery novels, "The Caves Of Steel" and "The Naked Sun", was about two societies: the Earthers, who lived underground in crowded warrens with few robots, and the Spacers, who lived on the surface with plenty of room and plenty of robots. They met each other mostly by holo-phone. I mentioned this to my friends, and I added, "I used to be a dirty Earther, but now I am a crazy Spacer."
And the Nobel Peace Prize goes to... Maria Corina Machado from Venezuela.
Please secure ketchup bottles and the atomic football until Trumps rage has subsided.
Norway braces for impact, even though the comitee is an Independent Institution.
Anti-vax = pro-plague. Why some humans turn against their own kind makes little sense to me
Maybe we can convince the MAGAts that there's a vast terrorist organization called "Antiva" which needs to be eradicated.
Bill Maher brags of having had no covid shots, and three covid infections...
Maher actually claimed he didn't need a vaccine because "I've had COVID four times already, so you'd think I'd have natural immunity by now." Whereas I would draw the diametric opposite conclusion from the same facts.
"I used to be a dirty Earther, but now I am a crazy Spacer."
Except you're not. You were happy to get back to in-person learning.
Norway braces for impact, even though the comitee is an Independent Institution.
Even among Von Schitzenpantz's supporters, did they really expect that a peace deal negotiated just the previous day (and not even concluded yet) would have them rushing to award him this year's prize?
I mean, of course they did, but seriously???
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Oct10-1.html
...
Politico, was leading with an "exclusive: about a Trump administration staffer—Paul Ingrassia, the White House liaison for the Department of Homeland Security—who allegedly was on a work trip with several female staffers, and arranged for one of the staffers' hotel room reservations to be canceled, so she had to room with him.
I don't get it. Why couldn't she have roomed with one of the other female staffers?
The Onion's "documentary" on Epstein.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjhSoGcQhWU
"Is he really dead?"
"Was he ever really alive to begin with?"
Maria Corina Machado from Venezuela.
Any bets on whether the choice of someone from Venezuela is itself a poke in the eye?
I see the US's handling of the COVID pandemic as a bit more complicated than "over-reaction." In the earliest stages "our" reactions could fairly be described as criminally stupid, criminally negligent and in some instances just straight up criminal.
Even after the grownups were on the case they then, amongst all the other issues, had to contend with the strong strains of prideful selfishness that define about a 1/3 (so it seems) of the US population. All the folks refusing to mask, refusing to test, refusing to isolate themselves and, once they were available, refusing to get vaccinated.
The trends established during those first couple of waves, the refusal of substantial numbers of the population to follow the experts' instructions, the criminally poor mismanagement of the earliest stages and the understanding of the experts that we did not yet have nearly enough data at that point to be able to make highly reliable predictions about what mitigation efforts work well, or what the course of the pandemic would be even in the near term future, that's why the shutdowns were implemented. IMO it was definitely the right call. Making the decision now, 5+ years later, is easy. It wasn't when it was happening.
If we had done the right things from the very beginning we could have avoided the shutdowns, or at least drastically reduced them and their resultant impacts. For example, see South Korea's pandemic responses and results. But we didn't. No. Instead of doing smart things we did stupid things. We would never have been able to get results as good as SK because too many people would have refused to do the things necessary to achieve that. Because we are the best country in the world. And by the time the shutdowns were implemented they were the right call to make. IMO.
And Bill Maher being smug about not needing vaccination? Much as I often agree with his sarcasms he is not only wrong about this, he's also contributing to the deaths of other people. It's the same blind-spot so many seem to have. The masking, the isolating yourself, the getting vaccinated, these things are not to keep you from getting sick. They are to prevent you from getting other people sick. Over the course of his 4 episodes of COVID, I wonder how many people Maher got sick? And of course refusing to get vaccinated is contrary to herd immunity. The primary purpose of vaccination is to take away the disease organism's / virus's environment. Really, it's pretty shitty not to do your part. Unless, of course, there is a valid medical reason.
Heard on Stephanie Miller's radio show:
"A judge ruled that Donald Trump can't grab Illinois by the Posse Comitatus."
@Darrell E,
I know this is getting obscured by RFK Jr going full-on anti-ALL vaccinations, but originally, the MAGAts had no issues with flu or polio or measles shots. For some reason, the COVID vaccine in particular was treated as having legitimate religious objections justifying exemptions. To this day, I don't understand where that came from.
Any bets on whether the choice of someone from Venezuela is itself a poke in the eye?
Not more than electing a Chicagoan to be the Pope.
Yes, DJT seems by example to have united the civilized world against his brand of fascism.
I wish the common enemy could have been a country that I don't live in, but so be it.
God, Thy will is hard.
But, You hold every card.
I will drink Your cup of poison.
Nail me to your cross, and break me,
Bleed me, beat me, kill me, take me,
Now...before I change my mind.
...
@Larry,
Some development of the covid-19 vaccine used historic fetal cell lines that came from elective abortions that happened decades ago (1973 or 1985). Some used them for testing/development. Others used them for production. Other manufactures didn't use fetal cell lines.
Some development of the covid-19 vaccine used historic fetal cell lines that came from elective abortions
I suppose that makes a certain amount of sense from their point of view.
Still, if that is the objection, then why all the fuss about microchips included in the vaccine for tracking purposes?
Politico is owned by Springer. They are basically a conservative campaigning media outlet, and the veracity of their accounts is often ...improvable. Their main outlets -BILD and WELT - are Fox News in tabloid form.
Mathias Döpfner, CEO and part owner of Springer, is good Friends with Peter Thiel. IIrc, his son is CFO at Palantir.
The question should be: Why is Springer campaigning against this guy, if they would normally cover up such stories involving the right side of the aisle?
I'm uppity enough to do some finger-wagging at academia:
- don't allow LLMs to become acceptable peer reviewers
(that puts the inmates in charge of the asylum)
- don't allow 'Luddites' to become a dog-whistle like 'politically correct' has
(as Greta and Eliezer have already been painted)
(techbros are conditioning us to distrust 'go slow' rationality)
- stick to a formal, rational, correct definition of "A.I."
(techbros cannot be allowed to override Oxford dictionary)
- don't retreat into ivory towers
(the only hope for science is public education and support)
- don't hate on Citizen Science
(I have the bruises to prove this is a thing)
Larry,
I mostly agree with you AND we aren't really arguing. I'll I'm really saying is that in hindsight there was some over-reaction to the virus... and I don't think anyone should feel all that bad about it. There was a lot of over-reaction to the over-reaction too... and I'm much less inclined to be tolerant of that.
The blame game some want to play is one of those where everyone sets fire to themselves and the winner is the one who screams the least. Turns out dead people win a lot of the time... and I don't want to play it. 8)
The fetal cell line is a rationalization some managed to dredge up.
Their disgust and indignation is more raw and has a different source.
Well... if I were a referee... I WOULD be inclined to use LLM's to hunt for plagiarism and the use of citations that aren't relevant to the paper. SME's in a field wouldn't necessarily need that help, but the LLM would act as a bot pointing out possible concerns to examine.
They aren't up to doing full peer review for the sciences. They are getting to where they can do peer review for coding, though not at the expert level.
@Alfred,
What annoys me is that disgust and indignation is not a matter for religious exemption from laws.
If a law was passed forcing all citizens to eat pork, I could claim a religious exemption based on my Jewish heritage. However, if a law was passed forcing all citizens to eat mushrooms (which I can't stand), I would find it disgusting and be indignant, but I don't see where religion could be called upon to fight it. Likewise the COVID vaccine.
[All] I'm really saying is that in hindsight there was some over-reaction to the virus... and I don't think anyone should feel all that bad about it.
Yes, I'm really fine-tuning now.
I'd say that in hindsight, what we did might look like overreaction.
I don't think we overreacted given the limited knowledge that we had at the time.
It never occurred to Trump that people might see his campaigning for the prize and his claims of entitlement as unseemly. He made it impossible for the committee to award it to him, even if they were inclined to do so. And I'm sure they weren't.
On the topic of judo moves. Protestors in Portland have come up with a brilliant one. Dressing up in inflatable frog suits makes them look very unthreatening and makes any attack on them look cowardly. And it makes all of ICE's responses to them look ridiculous. They have been seen backing away when protestors approach.
There was a video of protesters with fishing rods and doughnuts on it in circulation. Alas, it was miscaptioned; it's from 2014 in Canada.
There is video--purportedly from Chicago--showing out of control crime. Except that the video is really from Florida, and there are palm trees clearly visible.
They're not even trying.
Hmmm. LLMs comprise the biggest act of plagiarism and delusional citation of all time. Inmates, asylum.
For your prediction registry pleasure, your Internet hive mind prediction from "Earth" has come true and is running this country. https://barsoom.substack.com/p/poastocracy
Enjoy a neener dance.
"Romanticism" has always been a core aspect to human nature that has both led to some of our finest art and most of our worst crimes. There was never a movement more in the romantic spirit than Nazism (Just listen to Wagner!) Though Sovietism and the Confederacy and the Red Guards all were stoked by its passionate fury.
And romantic movements tend almost always to despise science and diversity and flattened hierarchies, preferring by far the glory of kings... and purely vile enemies who deserve no mercy... like orcs, zombies and Star Warsian storm troopers.
It is the essence of all nine phases of the recurring American schism-culture-war - going back to 1778 and even earlier - between those who are zealous for modernity and those who hate it.
(Even the rift between Roger Williams and the Plymouth Colony Puritans was essentially the same thing.)
BTW... Have you seen any truly good reporting on Peter Thiel's recent four-part "Antichrist Lectures" in San Francisco, last month?
The ones I have seen so far were some of the worst, most execrable 'journalism' I ever saw, railing against Peter (we were once once a 1st name basis) personally, rather than grappling with any significant ideas.
Oh, I am sure it was a great big, steaming pile! The blatant goal of illogically and weirdly categorizing Greta Thunberg and any critic of Tech-bro-ocracy as shimmering harbingers of antichrist action, is clearly to deflect from how many traits Thiel - personally - shares with the portrayal by John of Patmos.
Still all the articles I've seen so far avoid even mentioning the Book of Revelation...
...probably because most modernist journalists could not even claim ever to have read it. When - in fact - knowledge of your adversary's core tenets is key to cornering and detering him.
(The same holds for Marx, who at least had some interesting historiography, before getting sucked into romantic ravings about the future.)
Can't Thiel see how much Trump resembles descriptions of the Antichrist? He does so more than any figure that immediately comes to mind.
But yes, if someone is giving lectures on the Antichrist then journalists need to focus on where that idea comes from.
Still all the articles I've seen so far avoid even mentioning the Book of Revelation...
...probably because most modernist journalists could not even claim ever to have read it.
Maybe that's part of it, though the "good bits" have been getting plenty of publicity lately, even if one hasn't read it in entirety.
It might also have to do with a tendency in polite conversation not to belittle or suggest anything wrong with Christianity. And of course, doing so now makes you part of a terrorist organization worse than ISIS.
I won't pretend to know what you personally are looking for, but I found a piece that summarized it adequately for my purposes.
The Guardian, for example, has some coverage here that seemed reasonable to me. (Of course, "reasonable" being a somewhat slippery term, for a report on someone who seems to me like an unreasonable person giving a lecture on some borderline unreasonable topic on which he has no reasonable training.)
They're working from a surreptitious recording provided by an attendee, with some corrections to the transcript apparently provided by Thiel's people. After the de rigeur "hey, this guy is weird" paragraphs, there's a section titled "What do Thiel's lectures say?" that has some details and quotes.
Their conclusion: "Do Thiel's arguments make sense? In a word, no."
I read Revelations as a teen but had, then, neither the theological background to 'correctly' interpret it nor the patience, now, to reread it. At least the Mahabharata has a plot. (And no, I haven't read that in its entirety; it's longer that the Iliad and Odyssey combined; I read the Good Parts version).
Pappenheimer
P.S. Peter Thiel is due some railing against. If Great Thunberg and Peter Thiel switched socioeconomic places the world would be better off.
A corollary to the point that Moshe Vardi makes in the ACM blurb I referenced way up-thread:
"Laziness in doing stupid things can be a great virtue"
- Chang from Lost Horizon (1933) by James Hilton
or, more sarcastically,
A thousand lemmings can't be wrong.
I noticed that I misspelled Greta Thunberg's name, but I'll keep it that way. I like it.
Pappenheimer
P.S. I wonder if the original knights errant, the Grail seekers, were also neurodivergent...of course, it's only a myth.
Thanks Weekend Ed. This Guardian article about Peter Thiel's recent series of "lectures about the antichrist' is much better than the crappy one (also from the Guardian) that I read while at a concert, waiting for Haim to come on stage. Still chaotic and uninformed, but better.
For a fun and easy intro to the BoR (Book of Revelation) see Patrick Farley's manga version - Apocamon - wherein you get the gist, though only partway. In any event, you should sample at least that much, in order to better grasp the gruesomely sadistic part of the New Testament that so many of our neighhbors prefer over the actual words of Jesus that Jimmy Carter touted, across 80 years teaching Sunday School. https://www.electricsheepcomix.com/apocamon/
onward
onward
Post a Comment