Category Archives: Book Review – Nonfiction

“Living Planet Report”

WWF has released a new edition of their “Living Planet Report”. I like this report, for one thing, because it has kept the idea of ecological footprint alive. Ecological footprint was originally developed, or at least widely publicized, in this book in the 90s:

Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth

Ecological footprint may be the most intuitive way of explaining the idea that humanity is overdrawing the Earth’s resources. The new report puts the ecological footprint at 1.5, meaning 1.5 Earth’s would be required to support our current level of natural resource consumption and waste production indefinitely. To understand how this is possible, imagine you are lucky enough that your parents put a massive trust fund in your name the day you are born. Being born on the Earth is like this. If you are smart, you can live your entire life on the interest, and so can your children and children’s children, as long as they are as smart as you. If you are dumb, you can live an extravagant lifestyle for some period of time, maybe a long time, but eventually it will catch up to you. An ecological footprint of 1.5 suggests that humanity is using up about 1.5 times the amount of natural capital each year that the Earth can support in the long term. Natural capital is the obvious things like fossil fuels and fish, but also less tangible things like fertile soils and the ability of the oceans and atmosphere to absorb our waste products.

The accuracy of Wackernagel’s methods can be endlessly debated, and have been, but the WWF report also has a reader-friendly summary of more recent academic work on “planetary boundaries”. These look at carbon emissions, loads of nitrogen pollution, crop land as a percent of ice-free land, and humanity’s appropriation of primary productivity, among other things. And generally, I think they converge on a pretty similar conclusion that we are living beyond our means and eventually we are going to pay. Normally I try not to shamelessly promote my book, but for my book I made what I think is a pretty cool and useful graphic, which I am sharing below.

planetary_boundaries

Summary of Ecological Footprint and Planetary Boundary Literature

And just in case you think I might be making this stuff up, here are my references:

Rockstrom, J. et al., 2009. Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecology and Society 14, 32.

Running, S.W., 2012. A Measurable Planetary Boundary for the Biosphere. Science 337, 1458–1459. doi:10.1126/science.1227620

Wackernagel, M. and W. Rees, 1996. Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth, New catalyst bioregional series. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC ; Philadelphia, PA.

 

the shifts and the shocks

The Shifts and the Shocks: What We’’ve Learned —and Have Still to Learn— from the Financial Crisis

Felix Salmon in the New York Times has this to say:

Martin Wolf is as grand and important as an economic journalist can ever become… His is the loudest and foremost voice saying that the global policy response to the crisis was far too timid; that it all but ensures we will have an even worse crisis down the road; and that unless we start implementing extreme measures today, we will be running headlong into catastrophe.

According to Salmon, his (Wolf’s) solution to the problem is the following:

  1. “central banks should target a much higher rate of inflation”
  2. “abolishing ­fractional-reserve banking, which would give governments the job of directly creating all the money in the economy”
  3. “attempts to prevent corporations from accumulating cash”
  4. “an end to the tax-deductibility of interest payments”
  5. “a scaling back of international banks”
  6. “a mass refinancing of European sovereign debt into eurobonds”
  7. “a radical change in debt contracts to make them much more equitylike”

Okay. I don’t know. I don’t really have the expertise to agree or disagree. All this seems aimed at giving the government and/or central bankers more direct control over the money supply. But do the experts really know exactly what the money supply should be? If we give the keys to the printing press over to the politicians, I think we know what will happen. If we give them to a handful of “experts”, I’m not sure we know what will happen, except that the world economy will be at the mercy of whatever theories they happen to believe in. That leaves the ebb and flow of individual banks setting interest rates based on supply, demand, and greed, with the government trying to nudge the system back toward balance if it starts to get out of balance.

It doesn’t seem like a great system, but if we experiment with something different and it causes the masses to lose our faith that money is a real thing (because it is only because we think it is), that would be hard to recover from. So I don’t know, maybe higher capital requirements but short of 100%, complete transparency in trading of derivatives and other weird forms of risk trading, and a constitutional amendment (in the U.S. anyway) to ban campaign contributions or political speech of any kind by financial corporations. The individual human persons who work for those corporations could still engage in political speech, of course, but only as private citizens using their own time and money.

The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth

The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth

There’s a free excerpt of this 2006 book posted here. Basically, Benjamin Friedman argues that there is a moral argument to strive for as much economic growth as possible. Not only does it increase material wellbeing, it improves health, adds years to people’s lives, and allows people to have more leisure time. He also believes that it tends to support development of peace, tolerance, and stable, democratic institutions over time.

The value of a rising standard of living lies not just in the concrete improvements it brings to how individuals live but in how it shapes the social, political and, ultimately, the moral character of a people.

Economic growth—meaning a rising standard of living for the clear majority of citizens—more often than not fosters greater opportunity, tolerance of diversity,
social mobility, commitment to fairness, and dedication to democracy. Ever since the Enlightenment, Western thinking has regarded each of these tendencies positively, and in explicitly moral terms.

This is a different definition than just increasing GDP, which makes no implicit moral judgment about equity or fairness. If we define economic growth as growing a more equal (or at least, truly equal opportunity), just, sustainable society, then no rational person will have any objection to it. But I don’t think that is the most common definition in daily use today.

my favorite non-fiction books

Somebody asked me recently for a list of my favorite non-fiction books. It was tough to come up with a short list, but I came up with one based on two criteria – they had to have a significant effect on my mental model of the world, and more importantly they had to be a thoroughly enjoyable read. So, understanding that not everyone has the same taste in books and would love the books I love, here are some of my all-time favorites in no particular order:

How Much is Enough?: Money and the Good Life

The Song of the Dodo: Island Biogeography in an Age of Extinctions

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies

Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed

Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things

The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology

Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology (Anchor Library of Science)

 

more on Ebola

Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic

NPR has an interview with the author of this book. An excerpt:

How did we go from a virus that’s found largely in animals to a virus that can be deadly for humans — and spread across four countries?

Human behavior is causing this problem. More and more, we’re going into wild, diverse ecosystems around the world, especially tropical forests.

Some scientists believe that each individual species of animal, plant, bacterium and fungus in these places carries at least one unique virus, maybe even 10 of them.

We, humans, go into those wild ecosystems. We cut down trees. We build mines, roads and villages. We kill the animals and eat them. Or we capture them and transport them around the world.

In doing that, we expose ourselves to all these viruses living around the world. That gives the viruses the opportunity to spill over into humans. Then in some cases, once the virus makes that first spillover, it discovers that it might be highly transmissible in humans. Then you might have an epidemic or a pandemic…

The experts I talk to say the next big one will almost certainly be caused by a zoonotic virus, coming out of animals. And it’s likely to be one that is transmissible through the respiratory route — that is, through a sneeze or cough.

Ebola is not an easily transmissible virus. It requires direct contact with bodily fluids. It doesn’t travel on the respiratory route.

Viruses such as the and SARS are much more of a concern to scientists that study these things than Ebola because they are already transmissible through the respiratory route. They are also highly adaptable, and they mutate quickly.

In terms of the next big one, SARS and MERS stand higher on the watch list than Ebola.

Ronald Reagan, peacemaker

I didn’t know this about Ronald Reagan (from the New York Times review):

Reagan had already spooked Republican foreign policy hands with lofty talk of “the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth.” In Reykjavik, with Gorbachev, “he was pretty much on his own,” Adelman writes, “which suited Ronald Reagan just fine.” But much of what the president said on his own — that he wanted to share missile-defense technology, eliminate offensive nuclear weapons in 10 years and plan a “tremendous party” in 1996, to which he and Gorbachev would tote “the last nuclear missile” from their countries’ arsenals — “scared everyone,” one assistant said. Reagan’s own national security adviser was so dismayed that he restricted distribution of the meeting notes. “After Reykjavik,” a staff member told the journalist James Mann, “Reagan was watched by someone all during the rest of his term in office.”

I see – so it wasn’t nuclear weapons that “scared everyone”, but having a leader with a vision to get rid of them. We have reached a new height of cynicism today, when abolition of nuclear weapons is barely even being talked about. And if we can’t deal with nuclear weapons, which are in only a few hands, how will we deal with potentially even worse weapons, in potentially many more hands, in the future?

Subirdia

Welcome to Subirdia: Sharing Our Neighborhoods with Wrens, Robins, Woodpeckers, and Other Wildlife

NPR reviews an upcoming book called Subirdia, which says that in temperate areas, there are more bird species in the suburbs than in cities or even forests:

So what have suburbs got that forests don’t? Suburbs, he says, offer a wide range of artificially designed garden habitats, providing a smorgasbord of nuts, fruits, seeds, insects and ponds, in dense concentrations. Because they are rich with different kinds of bird food, suburbs are rich with different kinds of birds…

But let’s not get crazy about this: suburbs are not the birdiest zones on earth. Any patch of tropical forest, with its dazzling populations of plant and animal life, will trump a garden-rich suburb. But if you are comparing suburban bird diversity to temperate wild spaces — say the Cascades, the Smokies or the Adirondacks — the suburbs, shockingly, win.

So maybe our goal in denser cities should be to create a landscape with more of this variety of garden habitats. That is doable, and a much more attainable goal than trying to create forest-like habitat in cities. There are some shy species that won’t come to the city, but the city can be pleasant for a wide variety of species, even humans, if we work at it.

Lords of Finance

Lords of Finance: The Bankers Who Broke the World

This book was kind of a hard read, but I’m glad I read it. My favorite part of the book was the last five pages, particularly these quotes explaining just how bad the Depression really was.

Anyone who writes or thinks about the Great Depression cannot avoid the question: Could it happen again? First it is important to remember the scale of the economic meltdown that occurred in 1929 to 1933. During a three-year period, real GDP in the major economies fell by over 25 percent, a quarter of the adult male population was thrown out of work, commodity prices fell in half, consumer prices declined by 30 percent, wages were cut by a third. Bank credit in the United States shrank by 40 percent and in many countries the whole banking system collapsed. Almost every major sovereign debtor among developing countries and in Central and Eastern Europe defaulted, including Germany, the third largest economy in the world. The economic turmoil created hardships in every corner of the globe, from the prairies of Canada to the teeming cities of Asia, from the industrial heartland of America to the smallest village in India. No other period of peace time economic turmoil since has even come close to approaching the depth and breadth of that cataclysm…

[The Great Depression was] a crisis equivalent in scope to the combined effects and more of the 1994 Mexican peso crises, the 1997-98 Asian and Russian crises, the 2000 collapse in the stock market bubble, and the 2007/8 world financial crisis, all cascading upon one and other in a single concentrated two-year period. The world has been saved in part from anything approaching the Great Depression because the crises that have buffeted the world economy over the past decade [writing in 2009] have conveniently struck one by one, with decent intervals in between.

Bayes’ Theorem

The Theory That Would Not Die: How Bayes’ Rule Cracked the Enigma Code, Hunted Down Russian Submarines, and Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy

There aren’t that many popular books on hard-core statistical approaches to predicting the future. Here is the Amazon description of this book:

Drawing on primary source material and interviews with statisticians and other scientists, “The Theory That Would Not Die” is the riveting account of how a seemingly simple theorem ignited one of the greatest scientific controversies of all time. Bayes’ rule appears to be a straightforward, one-line theorem: by updating our initial beliefs with objective new information, we get a new and improved belief. To its adherents, it is an elegant statement about learning from experience. To its opponents, it is subjectivity run amok. In the first-ever account of Bayes’ rule for general readers, Sharon Bertsch McGrayne explores this controversial theorem and the human obsessions surrounding it. She traces its discovery by an amateur mathematician in the 1740s through its development into roughly its modern form by French scientist Pierre Simon Laplace. She reveals why respected statisticians rendered it professionally taboo for 150 years – at the same time that practitioners relied on it to solve crises involving great uncertainty and scanty information, even breaking Germany’s Enigma code during World War II, and explains how the advent of off-the-shelf computer technology in the 1980s proved to be a game-changer. Today, Bayes’ rule is used everywhere from DNA decoding to Homeland Security. “The Theory That Would Not Die” is a vivid account of the generations-long dispute over one of the greatest breakthroughs in the history of applied mathematics and statistics.

Dense as all this might seem, it matters as we enter a more data-driven future, and we need people with the knowledge and training to deal with it. We should no longer assume that steering our sons into math, statistics, and actuarial science majors means they will never get a date.

There’s a much more hard-core set of slides on Bayes’ Theorem available on R-bloggers.

 

 

1909 – Europe’s Optical Illusion

Europe’s Optical Illusion

I was just looking at this classic from 1909, in which Norman Angell argued that any major wars would be highly unlikely in the modern era of free trade and interlinked financial centers. (I’ve linked to a paperback version, but note that this is in the public domain and a free electronic version is available at archive.org.)

It’s interesting to think about all this as we approach the 100-year anniversary of the first shots being fired in World War I on July 28, 1914. There are two stories I’ve heard told about World War I – first, that Germany was itching for a fight and found its excuse in what could have been a contained confrontation between Austria-Hungary and Serbia – it was looking to grab some territory and thought it could do that quickly without provoking a major conflict; alternatively, that the whole thing was an accident, where Austria-Hungary made a bad decision that ended up sucking in Germany, Russia, France, England, and even the United States.

Today, I don’t think the rational leaders of any country would expect to enrich their country economically by provoking a major war. However, they might seek an advantage by blustering and bluffing just short of actual war. Then if a miscalculation causes one side or the other to cross that line, or some party exercises extremely poor judgment, or an accident simply happens and neither side has the good sense to back down, war can happen. The most obvious danger today is a naval confrontation between China on one side and any number of nations on the other – Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan or South Korea. Any of these would almost surely draw in the United States, and the situation could escalate from there. Let’s hope cooler heads prevail if something like this were to happen.