Category Archives: Book Review – Nonfiction

Thomas Friedman

Thomas Friedman has a new book, Thank You for Being Late: An Optimist’s Guide to Thriving in the Age of Accelerations. Here’s the description from Amazon:

A field guide to the twenty-first century, written by one of its most celebrated observers

We all sense it—something big is going on. You feel it in your workplace. You feel it when you talk to your kids. You can’t miss it when you read the newspapers or watch the news. Our lives are being transformed in so many realms all at once—and it is dizzying.
In Thank You for Being Late, a work unlike anything he has attempted before, Thomas L. Friedman exposes the tectonic movements that are reshaping the world today and explains how to get the most out of them and cushion their worst impacts. You will never look at the world the same way again after you read this book: how you understand the news, the work you do, the education your kids need, the investments your employer has to make, and the moral and geopolitical choices our country has to navigate will all be refashioned by Friedman’s original analysis.
Friedman begins by taking us into his own way of looking at the world—how he writes a column. After a quick tutorial, he proceeds to write what could only be called a giant column about the twenty-first century. His thesis: to understand the twenty-first century, you need to understand that the planet’s three largest forces—Moore’s law (technology), the Market (globalization), and Mother Nature (climate change and biodiversity loss)—are accelerating all at once. These accelerations are transforming five key realms: the workplace, politics, geopolitics, ethics, and community.
Why is this happening? As Friedman shows, the exponential increase in computing power defined by Moore’s law has a lot to do with it. The year 2007 was a major inflection point: the release of the iPhone, together with advances in silicon chips, software, storage, sensors, and networking, created a new technology platform. Friedman calls this platform “the supernova”—for it is an extraordinary release of energy that is reshaping everything from how we hail a taxi to the fate of nations to our most intimate relationships. It is creating vast new opportunities for individuals and small groups to save the world—or to destroy it.
Thank You for Being Late is a work of contemporary history that serves as a field manual for how to write and think about this era of accelerations. It’s also an argument for “being late”—for pausing to appreciate this amazing historical epoch we’re passing through and to reflect on its possibilities and dangers. To amplify this point, Friedman revisits his Minnesota hometown in his moving concluding chapters; there, he explores how communities can create a “topsoil of trust” to anchor their increasingly diverse and digital populations.
With his trademark vitality, wit, and optimism, Friedman shows that we can overcome the multiple stresses of an age of accelerations—if we slow down, if we dare to be late and use the time to reimagine work, politics, and community. Thank You for Being Late is Friedman’s most ambitious book—and an essential guide to the present and the future.

giants of Cold War era nuclear strategy

This New York Times Book Review article goes through some of the key architects of Cold War era nuclear strategy.

The theories of Cold War defense intellectuals now seem the stuff of a surreal madness that seized Washington during the last half of the 20th century. The core doctrine of nuclear deterrence was Mutual Assured Destruction, aptly known as MAD. It postulated that the best way to prevent a nuclear war with the Kremlin was to build an enormous atomic arsenal that would annihilate the Soviet Union if it dared attack the United States. Effective, yes, but a White House or Kremlin miscalculation would have left millions dead, nations destroyed and the planet reeling.

Albert Wohlstetter, an analyst at the RAND Corporation, was one of the most formidable of the nuclear policy savants. A combative champion of defense spending, he argued that the balance of terror inherent in MAD was unstable. Instead of assuming the MAD standoff would assure a durable cold peace, he feared a Pearl Harbor-like Soviet attack outside the imagined scenarios of defense planners, and he pressed for a nuclear war-winning policy. His ideas coursed through American defense strategy for decades, swaying presidents, attracting acolytes, infuriating opponents and igniting furious debates that ricochet through official circles to this day…

Robin, president of the University of Haifa in Israel, recalls many of the thinkers and baroque theories of the nuclear age. Some attracted national attention at midcentury, including Henry Kissinger, whose 1957 book, “Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy,” became an unexpected best seller, and Herman Kahn, whose chilling ruminations on winning and surviving a nuclear conflict made him an oracle of the unthinkable. Bernard Brodie, the intellectual father of nuclear deterrence theory, played a pivotal role in shaping Cold War nuclear policy.

will E.T. ever phone (our) home?

E.T. was one of the first movies I remember seeing in a theater (I was terrified.) 34 years later, if I am counting correctly, we are still waiting for extraterrestrials to return our calls. The New York Times has a review of four new books on the subject, including one (partially) by Neil deGrasse Tyson.

The astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, in WELCOME TO THE UNIVERSE: An Astrophysical Tour (Princeton University, $39.95), revisits the Drake equation using contemporary data. The equation holds that the number of communicating alien civilizations is a function of seven variables, starting with the rate at which new stars are born in our galaxy, the fraction of these stars that host planets and the number of planets per star that are habitable. In 1961, scientists could fill in only one variable; the other six were sheer guesswork. With our advanced understanding of the cosmos, Tyson — whose book is written with the astrophysicists Michael A. Strauss and J. Richard Gott — is able to work out, in some technical detail, a more sophisticated estimate. The verdict? According to his calculations, we might expect to find as many as 100 alien civilizations in our galaxy communicating with radio waves right now. “So,” he concludes, “we have a chance.”

The unambiguous discovery of an alien signal, if it ever happens, would instantly be the biggest event in human history. It could happen tomorrow, or decades from now, or never. Then again, since we’ve had a few false alarms, we might not recognize or believe a real signal at first, only confirming it after some period of time has passed. I wonder, would we just shrug it off and continue with our lives, or would it really change the way we think about ourselves and our place in the universe.

financial technology

Here is an article about new “financial technology” by the author of a book called Money Changes Everything: How Finance Made Civilization Possible.

For example, even as we debate the relevance and usefulness of traditional financial institutions such as banks, another revolution is underway in the world of money. A mere decade after we thought we had mastered the intricacies of asset securitization, shadow banking and credit default swaps, an entirely new financial phenomenon has emerged. It is called FinTech – short for financial technology. FinTech involves the plumbing and wiring of the financial system. It is changing how we borrow, how we save, how we raise money for companies even how we assess our future; its possibilities, risks and relationships.

Some of these innovations you may already know: PayPal, Bitcoin, Financial Engines, Kickstarter, Prosper.com and Venmo. They are apps, payment systems, crowdfunding vehicles and peer to peer lending sites. Their use has spread rapidly along with other technological improvements in how we get things done. However these companies are the tip of a very large iceberg.

Many of the innovations in finance are buried in the complex, business to business infrastructure of the economy. These include new ways of detecting fraud, recording transactions, routing orders, valuing assets and even discovering hidden patterns in big data; massaging the fast, continuous flow of news, trades, tweets, satellite images, and Facebook posts. Financial companies – from the big players like Goldman Sachs and Blackrock down to your local bank and financial advisor believe FinTech will fundamentally alter their businesses — and they are rushing to get out ahead of competitors. This is because FinTech innovation tends to disrupt the existing structure. It disintermediates customers and providers of financial services, replacing them with peer-to-peer lending, instant money transfers, loans without loan officers, and investment without investment banks. These innovations are transformative, empowering and create a new infrastructure for exploring even greater opportunities but they threaten the status quo in ways that the securitization wave of the 2000’s never approached. Securitization mostly involved the same big players that ruled the markets in prior decades. FinTech brings a different cast of characters who are defining new communities of investors, new sources of knowledge and unfortunately new kinds of scams and risks. The top FinTech companies today include a lot of new names. How many of us have been following the likes of Credit Karma, Market Axcess, Square, Stripe and SoFi?

I’m all for cutting out the middlemen trying to rip us off. And I’m still looking for the perfect app for splitting a restaurant bill among a large party.

Joseph Stiglitz on the Euro

Joseph Stiglitz has written a new book about the Euro. Here’s an interview in the New York Times.

It is difficult to overstate the economic trauma Europe has suffered in recent years — veritable depressions in Greece and Spain, alarming levels of unemployment across much of the continent. You place much of the blame on the euro. What happened?

The euro was an attempt to advance the economic integration of Europe by having the countries of the eurozone share a common currency. They looked across the Atlantic and they said: “The United States, big economy, very successful, single currency. We should imitate.”

But they didn’t have the political integration. They didn’t have the conditions that would make a single currency work. The creation of the euro is the single most important explanation for the extraordinarily poor performance of the eurozone economies since the crisis of 2008…

You conclude that the best-case scenario from here is to reform and save the euro. But absent that, you contend that it is better to just scrap it as a failed experiment. What needs to happen to make the euro viable?

A banking union with deposit insurance. Something like a euro bond. An E.C.B. that doesn’t just focus on inflation — you want it to focus on employment. A tax policy that deals with the inequalities. And you have to get rid of limits on government deficits.

If I understand this correctly, he is suggesting that the problem is that the Euro is not issued by a true central bank, but instead by individual countries with varying levels of wealth and power.

I was debating with a friend the other day about whether the average citizen is capable of understanding current events and issues well enough to support good policies. I think the average human being certainly has the raw intelligence to do so, but even the well educated mostly have not been provided with the mental tools they would need to understand the complexity of the world around us. Central banking is a good example of something an intelligent human being is capable of understanding, but almost none do. I never learned anything about it in elementary or high school. I learned some basic concepts about the money supply and interest rates in college economics courses, but I didn’t really get it the first time around. Part of it is that algebraic equations are just not the right way to introduce big picture concepts to most people including me (and I was doing just fine in engineering school at the time). Simulations or even physical models would work better to gain an intuitive understanding, backed up by symbolic algebra and calculus later.

I’m not really suggesting that the answer is to turn over public policy to the economists. They understand the theory behind the central banking system, sure, but they may neglect the larger social and environmental context it is embedded in, may neglect to consider complex, dynamic, nonlinear behavior that does not fit neatly into their elegant steady-state algebraic theories, and are often terrible at communication with decision makers and the public. We need experts and respect for experts, but we also need a broad base of intuitive understanding of systems among politicians, bureaucrats, and the public. It could be done.

Shrinking the Earth: The Rise and Decline of American Abundance

Here is the Amazon description of a new(ish) book by Donald Worster called Shrinking the Earth: The Rise and Decline of American Abundance.

The discovery of the Americas around 1500 AD was an extraordinary watershed in human experience. It gave rise to the modern period of human ecology, a phenomenon global in scope that set in motion profound changes in almost every society on earth. This new period, which saw the depletion of the lands of the New World, proved tragic for some, triumphant for others, and powerfully affecting for all.

In this work, acclaimed environmental historian Donald Worster takes a global view in his examination of the ways in which complex issues of worldwide abundance and scarcity have shaped American society and behavior over three centuries. Looking at the limits nature imposes on human ambitions, he questions whether America today is in the midst of a shift from a culture of abundance to a culture of limits-and whether American consumption has become reliant on the global South. Worster engages with key political, economic, and environmental thinkers while presenting his own interpretation of the role of capitalism and government in issues of wealth, abundance, and scarcity. Acknowledging the earth’s agency throughout human history, Shrinking the Earth offers a compelling explanation of how we have arrived where we are and a hopeful way forward on a planet that is no longer as large as it once was.

It’s interesting to think that humanity took a few thousand years to “deplete” Europe and Asia, and now we have depleted North and South America in just a few hundred years. If there were another sizable continent out there, we could probably deplete it in a few decades, and the one after that in a few years, then months, etc.

But there aren’t any more out there, unless and until we are talking about going into space. This reminds me of a couple plausible near-future science fiction series on exactly this theme: Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson and Coyote by Allen Steele. Both worth reading, although I found the latter a bit more entertaining.

Bill Perry on today’s nuclear threat

Bill Perry, who was secretary of defense under Bill Clinton, has released a new book called My Journey at the Nuclear Brink – here’s an article at New York Review of Books. He was present at the front lines through a number of historic events, from Hiroshima to the Cuban missile crisis to development of submarine-launched missiles to efforts to secure weapons following the Soviet collapse. I’ll pick a short excerpt below but this whole article is really worth a read.

…Perry concluded that there could be no acceptable defense against a mass nuclear attack, an opinion from which he has never deviated. Many political leaders, including several presidents, have disagreed with Perry and have sponsored various types of anti-missile defense systems, the latest being the ballistic missile defense system now being installed in Eastern Europe.

Then as now, Perry writes, he believed that America would possess all the deterrence it needs with just one leg of the so-called triad: the Trident submarine. It is very difficult for armies to track and destroy it, and it contains more than enough firepower to act as a deterrent. The bombers provide only an insurance policy for the unlikely contingency of a temporary problem with the Trident force, and also have a dual role in strengthening our conventional forces. Our ICBM force is in his mind redundant. Indeed the danger of starting an accidental nuclear war as a result of a false alarm outweighs its deterrent value.

…nuclear weapons can’t actually be used—the risk of uncontrollable and catastrophic escalation is too high. They are only good for threatening the enemy with nuclear retaliation. Our submarine force, equipped with nuclear weapons, is virtually invulnerable and can perform that deterrent function well. (It should be noted that the doctrine of deterrence is severely criticized by those who worry about the implications of threatening mass slaughter.)

He talks about how there was a brief period of good will and cooperation between the U.S. and Russia after the dissolution of the Soviet empire, when the former adversaries cooperated on weapons reductions, securing of loose weapons, and the conflict in the Balkans. That all ended when the U.S. insisted on expanding NATO “right up to the Russian border”, which Perry considers a huge mistake. He also talks about the catastrophic fallout from an India-Pakistan nuclear exchange, and the risk of nuclear terrorism in a U.S. city like Washington D.C.

This article suggests a couple clear policies. One is that the U.S. could unilaterally eliminate all its nuclear weapons right away except for the submarine force. This would actually reduce risk for our country and the entire world. If our leaders don’t have the courage to do this tomorrow, they could at least cancel “modernization” plans for all but the submarine force, and phase weapons out as they become obsolete. This would give us the moral high ground when we insist somewhat hypocritically on nuclear nonproliferation for everyone else. The final step would be to negotiate with other nuclear powers to eliminate their weapons in exchange for elimination of the U.S. submarine weapons, with a robust worldwide inspection and verification program.

This would save tens of billions of dollars every year, some of which could be invested in homeland security and intelligence to counter the terrorist threat, and some of which could be invested in infrastructure or education or tax cuts. I see no logical argument against any of this.

Time Magazine’s 100 Best Non-Fiction Books

Yes, Time Magazine has a list of what it thinks are the 100 best all-time nonfiction books. There is a fair amount here that documents the history of the 20th century as it was unfolding, which would be interesting to read. It is a fairly politically left-leaning (e.g., Howard Zinn), pro-science (E.O. Wilson) list, although they do throw in Milton Friedman and Barry Goldwater for good measure. It appeals to that small part of me that wants to retire, abandon my family, and just read from now on.

weather forecasting history

I recently wrote about earthquake forecasting and how many scientists think it is essentially impossible. But it is interesting to compare that with the state of weather forecasting in the 1800s:

Before the Royal Charter storm, FitzRoy had been agitating in London for government funding for collection of weather data. He and other Victorian men of meteorology knew that the more they could parse what the weather had done in the past, the better they could warn what it might do in the future. FitzRoy called the concept “forecasting.” To show just how ludicrous that idea seemed at the time, Moore unearths a telling 1854 Commons debate. When a scientifically enthusiastic member of Parliament suggested that amassing weather observations from sea and land could someday mean “we might know in this metropolis the condition of the weather 24 hours beforehand,” laughter broke out raucously enough to stop the proceeding.

intelligence?

According to TheWeek.com, the “Turkey coup attempt was a surprise in diplomatic and intelligence circles, says House Homeland Security Committee member“.

Is this a rare lapse by the CIA and the rest of the U.S. intelligence establishment? No, if you believe Tim Weiner’s book Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA. Using mostly primary sources and declassified government documents, he makes a surprising but very strong case that the CIA was never very good at spying. This is why major historical events like the collapse of the Soviet Union and 9/11 have caught our government completely by surprise, and why we have had trouble competently prosecuting wars from Korea to Vietnam to Iraq. The government and military just don’t have an accurate picture of what is going on or an understanding of the complex cultures and conflicts they are dealing with, and it leads to disaster. The CIA is pretty good at buying intelligence from allies that are good at spying on their neighbors, like Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, South Korea, etc., which explains our strong ties to many of these countries. So it is not too surprising that if something is going on inside one these countries itself, we would not be the first to know.