The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Author: Ian Welsh Page 68 of 436

Russia Begins To Systematically Destroy The Ukrainian Power Grid

Doesn’t seem to be much question: they’re hitting dams (not to destroy the dam, I suspect, to take out the hydropower and the river crossing point) and various other power infrastructure, night after night.

This is something they hadn’t done before: there had been some attacks, but nothing systematic.

This isn’t a new tactic: in the 90s Gulf War, the US took out nineteen of twenty power plants, which led to water treatment and supply issues, which lead to c. one million deaths from cholera. To this day Iraq doesn’t have enough power. They also directly hit water infrastructure, and they used similar tactics in the 2000s Iraq war.

One of the “good” things about the Ukraine war until now is Putin’s refusal to get down into the mud with such tactics, and I’m disappointed he’s now done so. There is some military case: the railroads are electrified, for example, and Russia is getting ready for a huge offensive, probably starting in May.

Of course, after what the US and the EU have condoned in Palestine, they are in no position to complain about such “relatively” mild actions. Putin isn’t trying to cause a famine and commit genocide and the profile of deaths is far different: the Israelis killed more children in a month than both sides in the Ukraine war have killed in years.

An effect of this is going to be another huge wave of refugees to Europe. Pragmatically, though not ethically, this puts more pressure on the Europeans and I’m sure Putin knows that and wants it to happen.

The war is reaching its endgame. Russia is going to crush Ukraine then enforce the peace they want. I would assume they’ll take Odessa and the entire coast, and otherwise just the Russian majority regions and the land bridge, but they’ll conquer far more of that to force Ukraine and the US to the table.

Ukraine will be a complete basket case after the war, and rebuilding will be done on standard neoliberal debt and looting terms. Meanwhile, there will be far more women than men.

The war should have ended a couple months after it started. Ukraine would have ended in far better shape and hundreds of thousand of soldiers would be alive.

But that’s not what the West wanted, and why should they care, after all. They were, and are, fighting to the last Ukrainian.

You get what you support. If you like my writing, please SUBSCRIBE OR DONATE

The Lessons Of Jesus (Or “Why Conservatives Hate Francis”)

As Easter approaches, let us consider Pope Francis.

https://twitter.com/Pontifex/status/1771152349698142589

The difference between Francis and his critics isn’t as wide as some people make out, and he’s far less unorthodox than his enemies claim, but this is the difference: Francis wants to welcome people, and believes in a God whose primary trait is love, while Church conservatives want to exclude people.

The greatest controversy of Francis’s pontificate has been his allowing blessings for same sex couples. He doesn’t allow marriage, and no priest has to bless a homoxexual couple, but they are now allowed to. In Africa, most of which is virulently and culturally anti-gray, this has gone down badly even with those on the left of the Church, but outside African, it’s been a theological issue. The Church teaches homosexuality is a sin and no grace can be given to homosexual couples.

Anyone who knows the church finds this ironic and funny, given that the priesthood and the bureaucracy couldn’t run without closeted gays.

The larger issue, though, is that just as Jesus spent time with tax collectors, prostitutes and other low-lifes, and believed it was almost impossible for the rich to enter heaven, Francis believes the Church should reach out to sinners, treat them kindly and even love them, as Jesus loved humanity, despite our sins.

The example of Jesus, as displayed in the Gospels, is that of love for the unworthy. His contempt is for the empty ritualists, the Pharisees, and the greedy, but even they are invited to join Jesus on the path to God. But, of all the sins he took time to condemn, Jesus himself never spoke of homosexuality.

I’m not, overall, a fan of Christianity. I’m with Gore Vidal, who said that monotheism was the worst thing to befall the West. Christianity and Islam’s records are of vast violence and coercion and horrific crimes.

But there is a good side to Christianity, a tendency to love and acceptance and care for the poor and the weak which comes directly from the Gospels, and that care tends to be show much more in the better offshoots of Catholicism than in most Protestant denominations, tainted as they are by ideas of predestination and/or salvation by faith alone. When Henry the Eighth forcibly shut the monasteries one claim was that they didn’t help the poor enough, but the new Anglican church did even less.

Francis is the only Pope of my life who I regard as Christian: as following the the example of Jesus, even if very imperfectly. The others were orthodox inquisitors, feeling that rules were more important than love and charity.

I rather doubt that either Benedict or John Paul II will like their reception, should Jesus and Heaven exist:

For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

You get what you support. If you like my writing, please SUBSCRIBE OR DONATE

Why China Is Wise Not To Sanction The West

The West has sanctioned China repeatedly, most notably in chip production technologies, but not just in those.

It has backfired, with China quickly building its own chip manufacturing capacity, though they still have a ways to go to entirely catch up. Huawei has also created their own phone OS, cutting the Google/Apple duopoly, and Apple sales are crashing, while the government is telling all government departments not to use Intel or AMD chips.

But China has largely not replied with its own sanctions. The reason is obvious: as long as they don’t, the US remains dependent on China for a vast swathe of goods. The reason chips were sanctioned is that it was one of the only areas where the West was ahead of China (the others are biotech and arguably aviation, though given Boeing’s problems, that’s an arguably.)

If China sanctioned the West, the West would have to re-shore a vast swathe of manufacturing: if not back to Europe and the US, at least to reliable allies. It would become stronger, as Russia did under sanctions.

It would also be in a far better position to wage war. Right now, in a US/China war, the US would be swiftly be crippled by its need for manufactured goods it can only get from China.

To put it simply, the US is far more dependent on China than vice-versa, and China wants to keep it that way.

You get what you support. If you like my writing, please SUBSCRIBE OR DONATE

In A Crisis We Can Only Afford What We Can Already Do

I’ve written, prescriptively, that money shouldn’t buy anything that matters: not healthcare or education, for example.

Anything we can do, we can afford

But at the top level money can’t buy anything you couldn’t do anyway. Anything we can’t do, we can only buy from others. The Britian of the thirties was still, despite all its problems, a great industrial power. They could do most things, and it was ridiculous to pretend they didn’t have the money. They could build ships and buildings and refine medicines and so on.

There we some things they couldn’t do: they couldn’t produce as much food as they wanted: they bad to buy that from others. But since other people wanted what they could do, they would accept British pounds.

And there were things no one could do, and money wouldn’t buy those things: go to the moon, for example.

Today, for all our money and science, we still can’t just buy an end to cancer.

There’s a little, largely bullshit “law” in economics called the “law of comparative advantage.” If we all do what we’re best at, we’ll produce the most stuff, including services and we’ll all be best off. There’s a certain technical truth to this law.

But if you can’t produce something yourself, you can only buy/do it if those who produce it are willing to sell to you, and if you must have it, they can charge very high prices if they sell at all.

Britain couldn’t produce enough Destroyers in WWII, so they had to go begging to America to get them, and the price the Americans charged was extremely, extremely high. (The book “That Man” by Justice Jackson goes into this.)

Ukraine wants a lot more missiles and artillery shells, but Europe and America don’t make enough or won’t sell large chunks of their reserves.

When you don’t have or, or lose the ability to produce something yourself you lose the ability to buy it with your own currency without other countries having a veto. Produce can mean many things, for the Japanese and Germans in WWII, it meant not having enough oil production of their own.

When America and the West in general shipped their productive capacity overseas they assumed that it didn’t matter: that in the world of free trade, they’d always be able to buy what they needed, and that they’d have effectively infinite money.

It doesn’t work like that. If we produce less, in time our standards of living will decline and in times of crisis, others will keep what matters for themselves first. (Covid vaccines illustrated this, and even if you think they didn’t work, well, at the time the vast majority didn’t believe that.)

As climate change, ecological collapse and civilization collapse continue, we will also find our ability to buy what we need constrained: not enough water in large areas. Not enough fertile farmland. It isn’t that there is nothing we can do: we can try varieties of indoor farming and we can de-salinize water and so on, but we won’t be able to buy enough of what we need. We won’t be able to easily buy insects or bees, or fish in the ocean or low CO2 in the air.

Anything we can do, we can buy. But if we can’t do it, we can’t buy it.

People forget this, both ways. Both in learned helplessness, as if we couldn’t easily house everyone and feed everyone (the absolute food shortages are in the future): we have massive food subsidies and enough ability to build homes, after all.

Anyone saying ‘we can’t afford’ is either a fool, or feeding you bullshit.

But there are some things we can’t afford, and the number of those things will increase over time.

 

The new server was expensive (c. $1500 upfront), so if you like my writing and can afford, please SUBSCRIBE OR DONATE.

Open Thread

Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts.

Update On Server Issues and Load Times

The issue turns out to be that I have too much of a back catalogue of articles, plus traffic. The solution, alas, is a better server (the next step up is expensive.) I’ve arranged for it, and the site should be transferred over sometime in the next week. Could be anywhere from tomorrow to next Thursday. In the meantime, load times will continue to be unpredictable and in some cases awful. On occasion the site may be effectively unavailable.

This site is about fifteen years old now. Thanks to everyone who’s stuck with me or found their way here. These problems will be over soon.

(No new posts this week, except the Open Thread and Weekend Wrapup, unless the migration happens sooner than I expect. Next week, fingers crossed, will be normal posting.)

GIGO: The Past of Google Search Is the Future Of LLM AI Models

If you’re old enough, you remember how amazing Google search was when it first came out and for the first few years. Excellent results, right at the top. Nowadays, it’s crap and half the time to find what I want I have to append “Reddit” or search very specific domains. (Reddit is likely to be worthless in a few years due to the IPO.)

Anyway, Google search results became crap for three main reasons, from least to most important:

  1. Worship of the official and the orthodox. Every time I search some medical issue, the top twenty sites tell me the same thing. That didn’t used to be the case, for cancer, for example, the old “cancer tutor” site would be on the first page. Maybe it’s good that the equivalent isn’t any more, but I wanted to read the alternative views as well as the orthodoxy.
  2. Monetization. Prioritizing selling ads over providing the best search results has had the effect one would expect.
  3. Organic link destruction. What made Google so good at the start is that its algo was almost entirely based on the number of incoming links a site had. Since the internet at that point was almost all human created, links were highly curated and genuine: someone had read the site, liked it and taken the time to link to it. Nowadays, most links aren’t organic: they’re SEO crap or advertising or intended to play the search algo, leading to an endless arm race. A link is no longer an endorsement and there’s no easy way around that: nothing can replace a human being reading a site, liking it, and linking to it.

Google, to put it simply, destroyed its own usefulness by destroying the internet ecosystem that had organic links, links by people who didn’t expect to be paid for them, to sites they found interesting whether those sites were official or orthodox or not.

Now, Large Language Model (LLM) AI is based off training on, basically, the entire internet. It’s essentially statistical. How good the AI is based on how good what it trained on is, with a lot of tweaking to try and point it towards stuff that isn’t horrible (not good, horrible, like avoiding racism.)

The problem is that over time more and more of the internet will be AI produces. AI will be feeding on its own output, rather than on organic human writing. It’s already been noticed that AI that eats its own dogfood tends to go nuts, and it’s fairly clear that AI is rather bland: it is a blender for what’s been done before.

So AI will, like Google, damage the very resources it needs to work well, especially since most people won’t admit that their AI content is AI, so it’s hard to avoid. It will slowly degrade over time, with some bumps of improvement as new advances are made.

Mind you LLM AI isn’t a general AI, it’s not smart, it’s just another algo. It doesn’t understand anything. Real AI will wait further advancements, if it every happens at all.

Still, enjoy it now while you can. I expect it’ll get better for two to three years, then degrade. That’s the optimistic view, there’s some evidence that the degradation is already underway.

You get what you support. If you like my writing, please SUBSCRIBE OR DONATE

Poverty, Wealth and Money In The New Green Age (Principles of the Green Age #1.1)

This is the second article in my “Principles of the New Green Age” Series. You can read the first, here.

The first principle was

Do as thou will, so long as you increase biodiversity and biomass, reduce pollution and heat, and replace any resources used.

In the real olden days of civilization, in the Fertile Crescent (which really was fertile before most of it was turned into desert) there was a dual currency system: there was grain and there was silver (and what amounted to certificates of deposit on both, along with usurious loans.)

This worked well because, to oversimplify slightly, grain was produced in Mesopotamia and silver wasn’t. If you wanted to buy something else produced in Mesopotamia, you bought with grain. But if you wanted to buy something imported, you paid in silver.

Since silver could only be gotten thru trade, this meant that import and export flows were more or less in order: there could be no massive trade deficits outside the fertile crescent, at least in principle.

Though they didn’t do it, even better would have been that certain things could only be bought with internally produced grain: property, for example. That way your country’s productive ability couldn’t be bought out from under you.

In Green Age ideology there will be more than one type of money, probably three. The first is money based on renewable resources: it will be usable only to buy and sell renewable resources. The second will be based on non-renewable resources and will be strictly controlled. There may also be as pollution based based money, or rather one based on cleaning up pollution, or people may be rewarded with the other two types of money for doing so.

Though we haven’t gotten there yet, one of the Green Age principles will have something to do with taking care of everyone, and part of that will be making sure everyone has food and shelter.

Since there is a societal effort in making renewables actually renew, part of every country’s surplus will be distributed as what amounts to basic income to individuals. That amount, in most countries, certainly all countries with a renewable food surplus, meaning they produce enough food and are not degrading the land to do so, will be sufficient to feed recipients for a year.

Likewise everyone will have a home: one that works out to be pollution neutral when taken in context of the supporting infrastructure. That home will either be given, purchased or leased, with strict controls, and probably mostly long leases, similar to how Singapore works) because it is possible to build houses with materials entirely domestically sources in many countries, though we’ll have to figure out how to electrical wiring sustainably or put it into the unsustainable bucket.

Society is made up of everyone and one of the principles must be that everyone benefits from society’s successes. Even the rich and powerful (who will be kept strictly under control, with the richest have a multiple, perhaps 4x, what the lowest have), must know that for them to do better, everyone must do better and that the environment must do better. This sort of genuine alignment of interests is necessary for any society to function well, and absolutely necessary in any purpose driven society, which Green Age societies will need to be.

So if you’re a member of a green age society created along these lines: the government will make sure you have a home and food. Either you’ll get enough renewable money to get them for yourselves, or there’ll be a non-market mechanism.

In effect, based on how many renewable resources the society produces, you’ll have an income relative to how well society is actually doing. Everyone will. This will pay for things like food, housing, water and anything the country can produce and renew. Since everyone gets this money, there will be strong incentives to create as much out of renewable resources as possible, similar to, but far more healthy than, the great middle class consumer production boom of the post-War period.

If, on the other hand, what you want requires non-renewable resources, well, you’ll need the second type of money, and that will be far harder to come by.

A Green Age society cannot afford the obscenely wealthy, because such people always tend to psychopathy and acting against the common good. It also cannot afford the poor, either, for the same reason: everyone needs to be connected to the successes and failures of society and have a stake in them.

This doesn’t mean a society where there’s no individual or group income. Limited liability companies will go, because people need to be liable for polluting and for not renewing, but there will be organizations and many of them will, at least somewhat, run on money. But somewhere between one-third and a half of your income should be based on how society as a whole is doing, and that income should be enough enough to keep you decently housed and fed, with access to medical care.

Sayings like “a rising tide lifts all boats” aren’t expressions of natural law when they come to social matters: we need to make them true.

If we want to clean up the environment and live in a sustainable society, we’ll have to make it happen, and part of that involves making sure no one can avoid either the positive or negative effects of their actions on the environment.

No obscene rich, no poor.

 

Page 68 of 436

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén