Author Archives: rdmyers75@hotmail.com

toilet rats, and a Singaporean perspective on Asia at the end of 2025

Leave a reply

The two things in my title are only loosely related, and here’s how. The Guardian has a gleeful article about toilet rats in the (US) state of Washington. Indeed, this does seem like a pretty good indicator of US decline. Nonetheless, I have one personal experience with a toilet rat, and it was in Singapore. Older-style public restrooms (confusingly for American tourists, called “toilets” as they are throughout most of the world) sometimes have squat toilets flush with the floor rather than western toilets that you sit on. This is a traditional Asian style of toilet, only the modern squat toilet is collected to a modern sewer system rather than just a hole in the ground. Anyway, I was in the restroom/bathroom/toilet when a rat came out of a little hole in the floor, either not noticing or not caring that I was there. I stamped my foot just to let the rat know that I was by far the larger and dominant mammal in the room, and the rat reacted by diving directly into the toilet and down the drain. And it was gone. So I assume it just swam for a bit until it got somewhere with air, and returned to whatever it was doing after I left. Anyway, the advice in Washington State is if you see a rat in your toilet you are supposed to flush the toilet or close the toilet lid. I would not do either of these things because rats are FAST, they are afraid of people, and they have sharp teeth. I think I would calmly close the bathroom door and just peak in after an hour or two to see if it chose to go back where it came from. And I might keep the toilet lid closed after that.

I have been in actual sewers in the United States, and I have seen rats. Sewer rats are plentiful. They don’t want anything to do with us humans, they just scurry away if they see us coming. I have never seen or heard of one coming into a person’s house through the plumbing. So the article seems a bit alarmist to me. Mice are another story. I just wiped some suspected mouse poop off my kitchen counter this morning, which is gross and a disease risk. Anyway…

The connection between Singapore and rats is that Singapore, which has a reputation as possibly the world’s most sparkling clean very dense city, is not perfect. There is trash and there are rats, like any other city. Singapore, and its experts, have a certain self-endowed swagger. Now Singapore really is pretty clean, and its experts really are pretty smart, which brings me to my point that Singapore is pretty good but not perfect. So anyway, here is what a Singaporean expert, George Yeo, with a lot of credentials says is going on in Asia at the end of 2025. It is one person’s opinion but also a uniquely Asian perspective and different from what we hear from the US government/media/nonprofit “blob”. The article is from Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post by way of Yahoo, so also keep in mind the possibility of censorship and/or self-censorship (as you also certainly should with the US blob).

  • If it ever becomes clear that the US will not continue to support Taiwan, China will take over Taiwan. Taiwan will not fight a war it will obviously lose leading to its own destruction and loss of a generation of its young people. Right now the US and China are sort of avoiding talking about this and trying to actively suppress others (like politicians in Taiwan and Japan) from talking about it, and this is essentially a continuation of the long-term status quo.
  • When we hear about large weapons sales from the US to Taiwan, there is an unspoken arrangement that these weapons are considered defensive and do not cross a certain line. The US is seen to be supporting Taiwan, China is seen to be outraged, and both sides get their propaganda win without serious escalation. Again, it’s the long-term status quo.
  • Another reason weapons will not cross a certain line is that the US will not provide weapons where it has a technological lead. “Knowing that many Taiwanese are blue, the US cannot be sure that advanced technology supplied to Taiwan will not quickly leak into China. The military technology supplied to Taiwan is technology the US can afford to lose to China.” [Wikipedia: “The Pan-Blue Coalition, Pan-Blue force, or Pan-Blue group is a political coalition in the Republic of China (Taiwan) consisting of the Kuomintang (KMT), the People First Party (PFP), the New Party (CNP), the Non-Partisan Solidarity Union (NPSU), and the Young China Party (YCP). The name comes from the party color of the Kuomintang. Regarding the political status of Taiwan, the coalition primarily maintains that the Republic of China instead of the People’s Republic of China is the legitimate government of China. It also favors a Chinese and Taiwanese dual identity over an exclusive Taiwanese identity and backs greater friendly exchange with mainland China, as opposed to the Pan-Green Coalition which opposes Chinese identity in Taiwan.” This also, if I am not mistaken, is the status quo position going back many decades.]
  • “There is growing realisation that the road to independence is a dead end…If the young people of Taiwan build their hopes on an illusion – as the young people in Hong Kong once did – it will only lead to tragedy…Taiwan can enjoy more autonomy by negotiating now rather than waiting another 10 years.”
  • Taiwan has economic and industrial strengths that China would like to maintain and benefit from after a hypothetical reunification [which to me, would seem to discourage any full-out military onslaught on a major urban and industrial city]. This is similar to the situation with Hong Kong, where there is some degree of autonomy and the situation is short of full integration [but in my words – obviously much more limited in terms of political freedom than it was in the past].
  • “How can they ever forget that it was Japan’s aggression which separated Taiwan from the mainland in the first place?” [Interestingly, Taiwanese I know tend to have relatively warm feelings towards Japan. I had to refresh on the history again thanks to Wikipedia – Taiwan was occupied/colonized/ruled by Japan from 1895 to 1945. So it was not invaded and dominated in the 1930s and 40s like much of the rest of China and Southeast Asia, and people there were not mistreated as badly.]
  • On “rare earths” we may hear about the US and its allies developing other sources of rare earths, but there are certain “heavy rare earths” which only China produces, and which are critical to industries around the world. Yeo says China could have played this card at any time in the past, and did so only reluctantly as a bargaining chip in response to the recent round of trade disruptions initiated by the Orange Baboon-Ass God [my words, although he does go into a tangent about the Monkey King which is a Chinese/Buddhist legendary epic. Maybe this is actually a very subtle swipe at his dipshit highness.] Yeo sees this situation as a form of mutually assured destruction where it would be irrational for either side to escalate further.
  • The reality of the US government debt is that if there is a severe contraction or reduction in the growth rate, it would at some point have to print money to service its debt. Central banks around the world are buying gold and diversifying away from the US dollar because of this risk.
  • “He [His Orange-Ass Highness] recognises that the US cannot dominate the world the way it used to in the past. The US hasn’t got the financial power or the manufacturing capability. So it has to retreat some and consolidate around its own core and concentrate on healing itself.” The US knows it is overextended globally, and this is what the bluster over exerting itself in the Western Hemisphere is about. It won’t be able to continue exerting itself globally by sheer power and force, so it is retreating particularly from Asia while still trying to look tough. [Maybe, but aren’t there still the 800+ military bases around the world? And why would we antagonize allies if we are in a position of weakness? I am just saying this is irrational, but I admit that ideology can Trump rationality.]
  • He doesn’t see disputes between China and Vietnam or China and the Philippines in the South China Sea “boiling over”.

the best of the best of the best books of 2025

Leave a reply

thegreatestbooks.org aggregates 41 “best of” lists. Here are the first 5 that catch my eye:

  • #7: Death Of The Author by Nnedi Okorafor. “After losing her job and facing family pressure, Zelu writes an experimental science-fiction novel about androids and AI in a post‑human world. As her book takes on a life of its own, the boundaries between her fiction and her reality begin to blur, forcing her to reckon with love, loss, and the power of stories.”
  • #10: King Of Ashes by S. A. Cosby. “Roman Carruthers returns to his Virginia hometown after his father is badly injured and discovers his family is in deeper trouble than he expected: a brother owing dangerous money to criminals and a sister determined to uncover the mystery of their mother’s disappearance years earlier. Using his financial skills and ruthless determination, Roman must confront old secrets and new threats to protect his family before everything unravels.” [I suppose just because I have a Virginia hometown. One assumes we are not talking about suburban DC here.]
  • #11: Abundance by Ezra Klein. “Abundance argues that many modern shortages—from housing and workers to clean energy and chips—stem not from conspiracies but from a failure to build and adapt: past rules and fixes have become obstacles to new solutions. Klein and Thompson examine political, regulatory, and cultural barriers across sectors and call for a mindset and institutions that prioritize construction, scaling, and practical problem-solving over preservation and restraint.” Well, that is not really how I summarized the (reviews and summaries I have read of) the book. But looking back after some time, many of the themes ring true to me. As a political agenda, it does not. The Democrats’ recent harping on the word “affordability” seems much more likely to hit the political mark.
  • #13: The Dream Hotel by Laila Lalami. “In a near-future world where dreams are monitored, Sara is detained by a government agency after an algorithm predicts she will harm the person she loves. Held in a retention center with other women whose dreams are used as evidence, she faces shifting rules and prolonged confinement. A new arrival unsettles the facility’s order and sets Sara on a path that forces her to confront the surveillance systems controlling her life.” Some obvious similarities to The Minority Report by Phillip K. Dick. Which was a neat story so why shouldn’t talented sci-fi authors continue riffing on the general idea.
  • #15: Tilt by Emma Pattee. “Annie, nine months pregnant, is at IKEA when a major earthquake devastates Portland. Cut off from her husband and without phone or money, she must cross the chaotic city on foot. Along the way she encounters danger, compassion, and an unlikely ally, while confronting fears about her marriage, career, and impending motherhood as she tries to reach safety.” Sure, the author is using the disaster as a back drop for character development, I am sure. But a Pacific Northwest earthquake/volcano/tsunami disaster is a scenario we hope won’t happen anytime soon, but could happen anytime.

December 2025 in Review

Leave a reply

2025 is in the books! I covered a number of “best of” posts by others in December so I will highlight a few of those below. I still have some “best of” posts queued up so they will continue to roll out in January.

Most frightening and/or depressing story: Global progress on poverty reduction stalled around 2020. Gains in Asia are offset by losses in Africa. Meanwhile, gains in crop yields may have plateaued and are expected to decline as climate change drives increasingly extreme weather.

Most hopeful story: From Our World in Data, carbon dioxide emissions in the US and most developed countries peaked around 2006 and have been falling. Global internal combustion engine vehicles peaked around 2018, while electric vehicle sales are rising. Renewable electricity generation is growing exponentially as costs of existing technology fall, and there are some promising advances in materials science that could improve wind turbines and batteries. There is hope for fusion power, although it still seems to be the proverbial two decades away.

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: BBC lists 25 most important scientific ideas of the 21st century. Highlights include various genetic technologies (stem cells that don’t come from babies, mRNA vaccines, tissue engineering for human organ transplants), attribution analysis, and of course large language models. Science magazine echoes some of these and adds gene editing, new antibiotics, and progress on heat-resistant rice strains as 2025 breakthroughs.

The Novel Cure

Leave a reply

This is a unique way to share a reading list. Essentially, this book “prescribes” other books for a range of moods and perplexities. I haven’t read it but it would be fun to go through and see how many I have read, how many are on my list of too-many-books-to-read-before-I-die (I am middle aged but not yet terminal that I know of), and how many I do not think would be worth reading as I budget the hours of earthly reading time remaining to me.

The Novel Cure: From Abandonment to Zestlessness: 751 Books to Cure What Ails You

The Novel Cure is a reminder of that power. To create this apothecary, the authors have trawled two thousand years of literature for novels that effectively promote happiness, health, and sanity, written by brilliant minds who knew what it meant to be human and wrote their life lessons into their fiction. Structured like a reference book, readers simply look up their ailment, be it agoraphobia, boredom, or a midlife crisis, and are given a novel to read as the antidote. Bibliotherapy does not discriminate between pains of the body and pains of the head (or heart). Aware that you’ve been cowardly? Pick up To Kill a Mockingbird for an injection of courage. Experiencing a sudden, acute fear of death? Read One Hundred Years of Solitude for some perspective on the larger cycle of life. Nervous about throwing a dinner party? Ali Smith’s There but for The will convince you that yours could never go that wrong. Whatever your condition, the prescription is simple: a novel (or two), to be read at regular intervals and in nice long chunks until you finish. Some treatments will lead to a complete cure. Others will offer solace, showing that you’re not the first to experience these emotions. The Novel Cure is also peppered with useful lists and sidebars recommending the best novels to read when you’re stuck in traffic or can’t fall asleep, the most important novels to read during every decade of life, and many more.

2025 Science (with a capital S!) breakthrough of the year

Leave a reply

Does Science with a capital S speak for science? I don’t know, science, or nature or Nature might have something to say about that. Small-s science, after all, is just a way of asking questions and trying to strengthen our confidence in what we think we know about nature. Despite all that, the magazine/publishing conglomerate known as Science nominates candidates for scientific breakthrough of the year and then chooses one. This year’s winner is renewable energy.

This year, renewables surpassed coal as a source of electricity worldwide, and solar and wind energy grew fast enough to cover the entire increase in global electricity use from January to June, according to energy think tank Ember. In September, Chinese President Xi Jinping declared at the United Nations that his country will cut its carbon emissions by as much as 10% in a decade, not by using less energy, but by doubling down on wind and solar. And solar panel imports in Africa and South Asia have soared, as people in those regions realized rooftop solar can cheaply power lights, cellphones, and fans. To many, the continued growth of renewables now seems unstoppable—a prospect that has led Science to name the renewable energy surge its 2025 Breakthrough of the Year…

China’s mighty industrial engine is the driver. After years of patiently nurturing the sector through subsidies, China now dominates global production of renewable energy technologies. It makes 80% of the world’s solar cells, 70% of its wind turbines, and 70% of its lithium batteries, at prices no competitor can match.

The article makes the point that this progress is not really a technological breakthrough, but rather a successful scaling up of technology invented during the space race half a century ago. Materials science does offer some possibilities for breakthroughs on the near horizon:

Solar cells today are made of crystalline silicon, but another kind of crystal, perovskites, can be layered in tandem with silicon to make cells that gain efficiency by capturing more colors of light. Material advances are enabling wind turbine blades to get longer and harvest more energy, while designs for floating turbines could vastly expand the offshore areas in which they could be deployed. And the giant lithium-ion batteries now used to store energy when sunshine and wind falter could one day give way to other chemistries. Vanadium flow batteries and sodium batteries could be cheaper; zinc-air batteries could hold far more energy.

And there you go – an agenda for research and development that the U.S. could get behind, or better yet, cooperate internationally on a win-win basis.

Meanwhile the nominees that were not chosen were:

  • Gene-editing to cure rare diseases in human babies and adults
  • New antibiotics effective against antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea, which continues to evolve
  • A breakthrough in understanding how cancer can spread through the nervous system
  • Advances in telescopes
  • DNA reconstruction of early humans
  • Large language models conducting math and scientific experiments on their own – In 2025 this was done with thorny math problems, chemical and drug development. The article notes that AI agents did not really live up to their hype overall in 2025.
  • Stuff involving subatomic particles. Honestly, this stuff is interesting but it’s hard for us normals to draw straight lines to how it might eventually affect our daily lives. Of course this doesn’t mean it won’t, it just means a lot of twists and turns as it works its way through the worlds of science and technology over time.
  • Genetically engineered organs grown in pigs and transplanted to people (successfully, at least for a period of months which seems to be much longer than these particular people were expected to live without the experimental transplants.). Are these pig organs or human organs grown in pigs? At some point it doesn’t matter.
  • Advances in heat-resistant rice

The article makes a parting shot at the U.S. government under Trump, for just intentionally shooting our entire scientific development pipeline in the foot. These were not the actions of a patriot, if I need to remind anyone.

Where does the global economy stand at the end of 2025?

Leave a reply

Well, I’m writing this on December 20 so there is always the chance things could change drastically in the next 11 days. And of course, I have no idea when you my dear reader might be reading this. I will just assume you are an alien archaeologist reading this in 3025 as you sift through the rubble of our vanished civilization.

Anyway, a few themes right now:

  • The possible “AI bubble”. This can refer to the stock market index gains being dominated by AI-related companies. In rational econ world, this should mean that investors collectively think the future earnings of these companies are most likely to be very large.
  • The companies certainly think their future earnings are likely to be very large, and this justifies borrowing large amounts of money to invest in the technology and infrastructure. This might be okay, but there are a couple concerns. First, loans are being made to these companies under a framework of “speculative private credit“, which some say resembles the sub-prime mortgages leading up to the 2008 crash. You would like to think the banks might know what they are doing, but of course they didn’t leading up to the 2008 crash and the world is still paying the price today.
  • Second, there are some suggestions that all the borrowing and investing in AI is driven by a fear of not being a “first mover” in some sort of winner-take-all, zero-sum race to artificial general intelligence. And if that is the case, it might come crashing down if the market at some point collectively decides that particular milestone is not in fact on the near term horizon. In other words there is a risk of a hype bubble popping even though the underlying trend of slow, steady, technological progress is bumping along just fine. This is analogous to the dot-com bubble. Technological progress tends to be exponential, but we don’t know if we are on the early, slow and steady part of the curve or close to the knee where it will take off. But collective opinion can be wrong on this either one way or the other.
  • My head spins when I try to understand the relationships between bond yields, prices, economic growth, and investment returns across countries. But Reuters says real bond yields are negative in many countries and “Five of the Group of Seven major economies have experienced growth contraction this year, with Japan and the euro zone already half way into recession — defined as two quarters of negative growth.” [Um, so if my calculations are correct they had a quarter of negative growth?] There is also a clear real estate bubble deflation going on in China, which looks something like the one in 1980s Japan, but whether it will usher in several “lost decades” like it did there I am not able to say. The quality of life for many citizens of Japan seems to be just fine, I note. And China just really seems to have a winning approach to the intertwined manufacturing, education and research, infrastructure, and export issues.
  • Climate change is manifesting itself in extreme weather. There is some evidence that recent extreme weather, and not just the steady creeping advance of average temperature and sea levels, has caused gains in crop yields to plateau globally. Then, there are projections showing these yields falling steadily in the future, with the rate of decline of course dependent on the climate scenario chosen. The rate of population growth has slowed and seems likely to eventually plateau itself, but that will take awhile and the world is still projected to add around 2 billion more people (these forecasts themselves subject to scenarios, of course.) Less food and more mouths to feed translates in economic terms to inflation in more developed economies and potentially malnutrition/starvation in less developed ones, and in the segments of society left behind in the more developed ones.

So what did we just learn about the global economy at the end of 2025? Nothing really, except that things are objectively not that bad for many of us humans here on Earth, and yet we are nervous and have some good reasons to be nervous. At a policy level, we can be cautiously optimistic but clearly need contingency plans if things don’t go well. At an individual level, it seems like a good idea to scrape together some well-diversified savings. Maybe owning a bit of land and learning how to grow a bit of one’s own food would not be a terrible contingency plan, and besides this can be fun and rewarding.

construction productivity

Leave a reply

Construction Physics has a deep dive on construction productivity around the world. We hear about the overall slowdown in productivity growth worldwide since the 1970s or so, but in the construction industry the trend is essentially stagnation even compared to other industries. The U.S. is a historical leader in absolute productivity but has actually managed a productivity decline compared to modest growth in most other countries studied. That said, there are no countries where the growth is particularly spectacular. Developing countries have managed to grow productivity faster, but that is essentially catching up. It talks a lot about the challenges of measuring productivity, suggesting that just focusing on cost might be the better way to go.

This article doesn’t go deep into potential solutions. Prefabrication of components in factories is talked about a lot, because manufacturing productivity gains have been much more dramatic than construction, which on its face is manufacturing in a much less controlled environment. But prefabrication and modularity have been worked on for a long time and delivered only modest gains. More competition and less corruption in procurement are certainly good things, but these too seem to deliver only modest improvement. Many developed countries in Asia and the Middle East use labor from developing countries, and this seems to work for them but doesn’t deliver large gains I suppose because the lower-wage workers are less skilled and less productive. Streamlining permitting and regulation is always talked about, and tends to fit certain political agendas, but there don’t seem to be enormous gains there. So governments and project teams seem to just pursue an all-of-the-above salad approach and the result is incremental gains or no gains at all. I’ve probably said this multiple times, but I think AI should be very good at construction scheduling. Add in real time inspection and comparison to the original plans using cameras and drones, and it should be possible to really reduce down time and waste in construction. I think there might be substantial potential gains on the horizon here. If I were in government, I might focus R&D funding, targeted procurement, and regulatory/financial incentives on this particular aspect.

Another thought though, is that low construction productivity is not a reason not to do construction. Both housing and infrastructure construction have long-lasting economic and quality of life benefits that go beyond just the immediate economic activity they generate in the construction sector itself. So maybe we should just pony up what they cost now, keep plugging away to try to make the modest gains, and stop worry so much about this.

what’s new with fusion?

Leave a reply

One thing that’s new, according to the New York Times, is massive investment in R&D by the government of China. Meanwhile in the U.S., it’s more about startups and public-private partnerships. In at least one anecdotal case mentioned in the article, top scientists from China who have been based at top U.S. universities for decades are choosing to go home. The article suggests that American firms are often the first to achieve breakthroughs, but the Chinese system is better at scaling and commercializing them.

It seems like there is an opportunity to cooperate for the greater good here, no? That is not the way the political winds are blowing at the moment, of course. At least in this case, if our countries aren’t actually cooperating, they are not competing to weaponize the technology first. This technology was weaponized more than half a century ago, of course, and the quest ever since has been to learn how to control it for peaceful purposes. Of course, the joke is always that commercial fusion is two decades away, no matter what decade we are currently in. This article declines to give a clear time table for widespread commercialization, but it talks about a “pilot plant in the 2030s and 2040s”, so yep the rolling two decade projection seems to be holding.

AI investment compared to railway boom

Leave a reply

The blog Urbanomics has a comparison of the current AI investment concentration to the 19th century railroad investment boom in England and the United States. In this particular case, the blogger neglected to provide the original source, which he or she normally does. Financial Times and Economist are typical sources. Anyway, here are some stats mentioned:

  • Peak “railway mania” in the UK was around the 1840s, and railroad investment accounted for around half of all investment at that time.
  • Between about 1830 and 1870 in the UK, railroad investment accounted for about 20% of all investment.
  • In the US, episodic railroad investment booms occurred in the 1840s and 1870s. Railroad investment at these times was around 40% of all investment. This accounted for GDP growth of about 6-10%.
  • The brief clip actually doesn’t tell us how much of total US investment in 2025 is directed to AI. But it accounts for GDP growth of around 2%.

These are interesting numbers, but I don’t think comparing 19th century and 21st century US GDP growth is a very good comparison. That is essentially comparing a fast-growing developing country to a slow-growing advanced economy. If I had to pick one or the other to live in, I would probably go with the one that has safe drinking water, antibiotics, vaccinations, relatively painless dentistry, and air conditioning.

Prospera, Trump, Thiel and the Honduras drug trafficking pardon

Leave a reply

The former president of Honduras, Juan Hernandez, who was convicted of drug trafficking and then pardoned by Trump, has ties to Peter Thiel and the “charter city” Prospera. I keep tabs on Prospera, as I was initially interested in the charter city idea after hearing a lecture by Paul Romer (a Nobel prize winning economist). The original concept, which was about economic opportunity, efficiency, and clarity of mission, has morphed into something far more corrupt and ugly.

This governing arrangement was organized in part by Hernández, who served two terms as president of Honduras from 2014 until January 2022. Prospera was permitted to launch the charter city after Hernández allowed for the creation of semiautonomous Zones for Employment and Economic Development, or ZEDEs. The ZEDEs were then overseen by a committee that included three of Hernández’s underlings and several American libertarian activists.

So there you have it. I am not saying this is proof that Prospera is the reason for the pardon. But what we see in the press is a lot of puzzlement that the U.S. government can be simultaneously fighting an anti-drug war on the Venezuelan government and supporting a pro-drug former Honduran government. This is logically inconsistent. On the other hand, simultaneously supporting right-wing big business interests in Venezuela (think oil contracts if not outright ownership for US corporations) and right-wing big business interests in Honduras is logically consistent (not to mention corrupt and cynical).