Category Archives: Book Review – Nonfiction

gators and tigers and extinction, oh my!

The extinction rate is now 1000 times normal, says Duke University.

Not to worry, say Stanford, Berkeley, Princeton, and the University of Florida (and what would they know, those ‘gators with their beady dinosaur eyes), it’s only 114 times normal using “conservative assumptions”.

And according to a surprisingly edgy book review in my favorite special interest publication Civil Engineering (because what could be more special than my own interest), there is a new book out:

You probably don’t subscribe to Civil Engineering, so here is the Amazon description:

A growing number of scientists agree we are headed toward a mass extinction, perhaps in as little as 300 years. Already there have been five mass extinctions in the last 600 million years, including the Cretaceous Extinction, during which an asteroid knocked out the dinosaurs. Though these events were initially destructive, they were also prime movers of evolutionary change in nature. And we can see some of the warning signs of another extinction event coming, as our oceans lose both fish and oxygen. In The Next Species, Michael Tennesen questions what life might be like after it happens.

Tennesen discusses the future of nature and whether humans will make it through the bottleneck of extinction. Without man, could the seas regenerate to what they were before fishing vessels? Could life suddenly get very big as it did before the arrival of humans? And what if man survives the coming catastrophes, but in reduced populations? Would those groups be isolated enough to become distinct species? Could the conquest of Mars lead to another form of human? Could we upload our minds into a computer and live in a virtual reality? Or could genetic engineering create a more intelligent and long-lived creature that might shun the rest of us? And how would we recognize the next humans? Are they with us now?

The End Of Plenty: The Race To Feed A Crowded World

Here’s a new entry in the running-out-of-food genre.

I’ve embedded a Fresh Air interview about this book at the bottom of the post. You can find a transcript here. And here’s an excerpt:

And so suddenly, you had an instance where the world began consuming fairly consistently more of these major grains than it was producing, whittling down stockpiles to levels we haven’t seen since the 1970s. So, for example, in the 1970s, we consumed or utilized more grain than we ate only about four years out of the decade. In the drier ’80s, it was about five years. Since 2000, we’ve consumed or utilized more of these feed grains in eight of the first 12 years of the decade. So really, we’re starting to see the demand pressures outstrip our ability to produce food. All this while our yield gains, that have been spectacular since Norman Borlaug introduced the Green Revolution agriculture in the ’50s and ’60s, started to plateau.

So it – just as our demands are starting to rise, we’re starting to plateau in the amount of grain we’re getting per hectare, while things like climate change are really starting to hammer us. So we’re looking at, you know, these major disruptions of our food supply. Now, there was a heat wave in Europe in 2003 that killed, like, 73,000 people in Europe. And yet what – that one made headlines all over the world, but what people didn’t realize was that a third of the wheat and grain and fruit crops were decimated that year.

You know, Russia has had these enormous droughts events where they’ve lost up to a third to half of their crop. Here in the United States, we’ve had 2012-2013, you know, we had the worst drought since the Dust Bowl days – cost us $30 billion. So – and what we’re dealing with is sort of the new normal. You know, the researchers say that now we’re going to have to, because of the increased demand from population growth, increased meat consumption in developing parts of the world, that we’re going to have to double our grain production, our food production, by 2050 to make sure everyone’s reasonably fed. And yet, climate change is just starting to really hammer it down, so we’re in a bit of a pinch.

Robert Reich vs. Amanda Ripley

Interesting ideas. Free college, free child care, and universal health care are the kinds of bold ideas we need to be talking about to build a resilient 21st century economy.

I recently read The Smartest Kids in the World and How They Got That Way by Amanda Ripley. I liked the book because although it followed a plot of human interest and anecdote to keep the reader engaged, it had a hard core of data underneath. Data doesn’t always lead you down the path you expect, and sometimes it doesn’t tell you what you want to hear. For example, there is no clear evidence that better outcomes are linked to teacher pay, class size, or funding levels, three of the policies Robert Reich advocates above. What seems to make a difference is very high expectations of both teachers and students. Finland for example closed most of its teacher colleges, moved the few remaining into a few elite universities, and made them hard to get into and hard to successfully complete. Those who successfully complete them do get paid well, but there are other countries like Spain and Norway that also pay teachers well and don’t have nearly as good outcomes. High expectations can also come from parents, but they have to be academic expectations. Parental involvement is not that helpful if it is focused on sports and activities other than academics. Parental involvement outside of school, such as reading, is also very, very important. You come away from the book kind of scratching your head about how important school really is and whether any of it is really under your control as a parent, but at least you know the factors outside of school are important and under your control.

Unnatural Selection

Amazon description:

Gonorrhea. Bed bugs. Weeds. Salamanders. People. All are evolving, some surprisingly rapidly, in response to our chemical age. In Unnatural Selection, Emily Monosson shows how our drugs, pesticides, and pollution are exerting intense selection pressure on all manner of species. And we humans might not like the result.

Monosson reveals that the very code of life is more fluid than once imagined. When our powerful chemicals put the pressure on to evolve or die, beneficial traits can sweep rapidly through a population. Species with explosive population growth—the bugs, bacteria, and weeds—tend to thrive, while bigger, slower-to-reproduce creatures, like ourselves, are more likely to succumb.

Monosson explores contemporary evolution in all its guises. She examines the species that we are actively trying to beat back, from agricultural pests to life-threatening bacteria, and those that are collateral damage—creatures struggling to adapt to a polluted world. Monosson also presents cutting-edge science on gene expression, showing how environmental stressors are leaving their mark on plants, animals, and possibly humans for generations to come.

risk and investing

This blog is about looking at possible futures, not necessarily profiting from them. But of course, who doesn’t want to do that if they can? It’s not just about short-term profit, it’s about building a nest egg which is your personal resilience against whatever events the future holds. A nest egg is also about your personal choice to defer some happiness now for the possibility of greater happiness later.

This book looks promising to me. The author breaks risks into “inflation, deflation, confiscation, and devastation”. I haven’t read the book, but presumably he offers portfolio suggestions to deal with these risks.

Since I’m on personal finance today, here is a grab bag of other related topics and links.

One thing everyone can and should do right away is minimize how much the financial industry steals from us in the form of fees. Index funds are one way to do this. The case to go all-index is incredibly strong, but in case you don’t want to take my word for it, Vanguard makes the case every year. If you are the type to dig into numbers yourself, S&P has a free online data set here. Finally, this Economist column mentions a number of smaller startup companies that are providing some competition to the big banks and their ridiculous fees. Among them is TransferWise which says it allows people to transfer money abroad much cheaper than they have been able to in the past. I haven’t tried it yet.

Secular Stagnation

The “secular stagnation hypothesis” has now been around long enough that it has a nickname – SecStag. The basic idea is that the world may have entered a period of low economic growth that is going to persist for a long time, and governments need to start responding to it. This long ebook has chapters from a number of famous economists, including Larry Summers, Barry Eichengreen, Robert Gordon, Paul Krugman, and Edward Glaeser.

It’s hard for the non-economist to summarize, but I’ll try. Some of the ideas are:

  • The real interest rate is essentially the price of borrowing money. When people want to save (loan it out) more than other people want to borrow (invest it in new capital, infrastructure, inventions, business activity), it suggests that the rate of innovation, or profitable new investment possibilities, might have slowed down.
  • One way the rate of new profitable investments would slow down is if the rate of technological progress has slowed down compared to what it was over the past 50 years or so. Some are suggesting that.
  • Another possibility is that the type of technological progress that is occurring is harder to turn into profits than in the past, meaning it is not showing up in the traditional tracking numbers.
  • Another way is if governments are investing too little in infrastructure, and companies are investing too little in research and development because they are uncertain whether it will pay off.
  • Another way is if people are saving more for a rainy day, because there are more people nearing retirement as a fraction of the population than there used to be, and/or people and firms are saving because they are uncertain about the future, for example because they fear losing their jobs or having to may large health care bills.
  • Another possibility is that innovation is occurring, but only benefiting a few rich people and corporations at the top of the income scale, so that the average person is not benefiting.
  • A final possibility is that workers’ skills became obsolete because they were idle for too long after the recession hit. The idea that education is inadequate is also similar to this.

I think the explanation for the recent low GDP growth could be some combination of all of these, although I have a lot of trouble buying the lack of innovation hypothesis. Corporate profits and stock markets seem to be up, suggesting to me that profitable innovation is occurring but benefiting only a chosen few.

The automation vs. employment debate isn’t mentioned very much here, and climate change is mentioned only once in the 179 page book.

kids and risk

I like the way Lenore Skenazy, author of Free Range Kids, talks about risk:

I think that we are thinking like lawyers a lot now because our society is so litigious, especially in America. For instance, one kid fell off a swing, maybe 20 years ago, broke her arm, sued the park district, and suddenly park districts across America started taking out high swings, they started taking out teeter-totters – see-saws – they started taking out merry-go-rounds. And so they started thinking like lawyers and then we started internalising the idea that, like, “Oh my God! It must be very dangerous for our children to do these things if they’re being removed from regular life.” And everything started seeming so dangerous that we sort of forgot, like, yes, some things are a little dangerous – you go on a merry-go-round, there’s a chance you’ll fall off, there’s a chance you might, your kid might break an arm. There’s also a chance they’ll have a fantastic time, they’ll lose weight, they’ll be fit, they’ll have something fun to do after school instead of just turning on the TV or going to the computer. But we always think in terms of the what if? worst case scenario, and that’s thinking like a lawyer. Because a lawyer could go to court and say, “We knew that these merry-go-rounds are dangerous! And why did they have one there? I’m asking you!” And we think ahead to that point and get rid of anything fun, even if the risk is tiny, because we think a tiny risk even is not worth it.

…in the same day that I’m saying children should go to the park, 769 children will be diagnosed with diabetes,” – that’s in the United States. That’s twice as many as 10 years ago. Nobody says, “How dare you let your child stay inside! What if they get diabetes?” Nobody says that. “How dare you let your kids stay at home just watching TV – they’re gonna get depressed, they’re gonna get fat, they’re not gonna have any friends, they’re not gonna have memories of their childhood.” Nobody thinks about the trade-off. Everything is straight to: you let your child have one iota of freedom, what if something terrible happens. They see the iota[?], they see the rape, murder and dismemberment and they try to put them together and of course it doesn’t work. What I’m suggesting is let your kids have the kind of well-thought-out freedom with you training them. Train them to cross the street, train them, “Don’t go off with strangers”, train them to swim. You know, I do think our job is to keep our children safe, but I don’t think that the outside is so unsafe that we have to regard it as Predators’ Ball every time you open the door.

I agree with most of this, except that the outside really is unsafe, not because of predatory humans but because of motor vehicles – you really can’t “train them to cross the street” safely because the streets are not designed safely. In reasonably developed countries that are not at war, I am positive that cars are the biggest source of violence against children. Of course at the present time we need to train our children to cross our unsafe streets as safely as possible. We also have to accept the risk that they can cross the street exactly the way we train them and still never come home. If we don’t want to accept this risk, then we can’t continue to accept unsafe street designs. Politicians and planners and engineers who perpetuate unsafe street designs, and all the rest of us who complacently accept them, are the real murderers and dismemberers of children. The solutions are known. This is a risk to children we really can do something about. Let’s do it!

What Should We Be Worried About?

Need new stuff to worry about? They have a book for that!

What Should We Be Worried About: Real Scenarios That Keep Scientists Up at Night
by John Brockman

Steven Pinker uncovers the real risk factors for war * Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi peers into the coming virtual abyss * Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek laments our squandered opportunities to prevent global catastrophe * Seth Lloyd calculates the threat of a financial black hole * Alison Gopnik on the loss of childhood * Nassim Nicholas Taleb explains why firefighters understand risk far better than economic “experts” * Matt Ridley on the alarming re-emergence of superstition * Daniel C. Dennett and george dyson ponder the impact of a major breakdown of the Internet * Jennifer Jacquet fears human-induced damage to the planet due to “the Anthropocebo Effect” * Douglas Rushkoff fears humanity is losing its soul * Nicholas Carr on the “patience deficit” * Tim O’Reilly foresees a coming new Dark Age * Scott Atran on the homogenization of human experience * Sherry Turkle explores what’s lost when kids are constantly connected * Kevin Kelly outlines the looming “underpopulation bomb” * Helen Fisher on the fate of men * Lawrence Krauss dreads what we don’t know about the universe * Susan Blackmore on the loss of manual skills * Kate Jeffery on the death of death * plus J. Craig Venter, Daniel Goleman, Virginia Heffernan, Sam Harris, Brian Eno, Martin Rees, and more

“Right of Boom” and “7 Deadly Scenarios”

The New York Times recently had a review of this book:

Here is the Amazon description:

A nuclear weapon explodes in a major American city and no one can prove who is responsible. The devastation is horrifying, but even more alarming is the limited options available for the United States government to respond. What happens next?
In Right of Boom, national security specialist Benjamin Schwartz looks at what could happen after a nuclear explosion takes place in the United States, the event that Presidents Obama and Bush, as well as would-be Presidents Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton, have acknowledged as the greatest single national security threat we face. Hypothesizing an explosion in downtown Washington, D.C., Schwartz maps out the likely ramifications while going deep into history to explore the limited range of options available to a Commander in Chief. Drawing from his experience as an analyst at the Departments of Defense, State, and Energy, Schwartz offers a fully panoramic view of a terrifying reality.

However, the review said not to read that one and to read this one instead:

A global pandemic finds millions swarming across the U.S. border. Major American cities are leveled by black-market nukes. China’s growing civil unrest ignites a global showdown. Pakistan’s collapse leads to a hunt for its nuclear weapons. What if the worst that could happen actually happens? How will we respond? Are we prepared?

These are the questions that Andrew F. Krepinevich asks—and answers—in this timely and often chilling book. As a military expert and consultant, Krepinevich must think the unthinkable based on the latest intelligence and geopolitical trends—and devise a response in the event our worst nightmares become reality.

As riveting as a thriller, 7 Deadly Scenarios reveals the forces—both overt and covert—that are in play; the real ambitions of world powers, terrorist groups, and rogue states; and the actions and counteractions both our enemies and our allies can be expected to take—and what we must do to prepare before it’s too late.

I think it’s important to think about not just the military implications, but the implications for the global economy and overall confidence of the public. Considering that the 9/11/2001 attacks killed 3,000 people, caused a sharp recession, and led the United States to launch two wars and spend at least a trillion dollars, the effects of a much worse attack or a series of them are very concerning.