Category Archives: Web Article Review

what Singapore does well

After reading this long article in the London Review of Books, I find myself reflecting on my own experience in Singapore from 2010-2013. Here’s my take on what they do well. First, they educate everybody. Everybody is not an international math champion, despite what you might think, but everybody gets a solid education through at least a two-year vocational degree. Second, they build their economy by attracting foreign investment and being a center of trade. Third, they have rational guest worker policies for both skilled and unskilled workers. I think all this keeps the economy humming along pretty well. Then, they have rational tax policies. They help the population build wealth through a subsidized housing program (often called “public housing” in the international press, but think of it more like a condo you own with the government as your condo association. If you meet certain requirements (which include race and fertility, policies that would not translate well everywhere), you essentially get to buy your condo at a discount and sell it at full price. Then there is essentially a forced saving scheme, which is invested in the well-managed sovereign wealth fund and given back to people in annuity form at retirement age.

That’s what I liked. I felt the focus on economics resulted in a society where a lot of people really are all about money, and people are somewhat cold to each other. The idea of technocratic government and leadership development works up to a point, but it results in a certain arrogance that does not always match ability. They have comprehensive and highly efficient public transportation, but they still separate residential and commercial land uses and this results in really long commutes for people. And if you are not from there, the place just feels a bit crowded, loud and claustrophobic after awhile.

I had the fortune of experiencing an election while I lived there, and I came away thinking that their one-party-dominated system is not all that different than our two-similar-party-dominated system, at least in terms of barriers to entry and resistance to change. But overall, I think their system is working better in the interest of their people than the U.S. system in recent years.

dolphins and extraterrestrials

No, dolphins are not communicating with extraterrestrials that we know of. This Aeon article is pretty interesting stuff though about how the study of dolphin intelligence and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence have been intertwined over time though. The consensus these days seems to be that dolphins are as about as smart as a human toddler, which is pretty smart if you think about it, but not smart enough to build a technological civilization. This article contains some musings about whether technological civilizations are the inevitable end state of the evolution of intelligent life, whether another one would arise on Earth if ours disappeared for some reason (but life itself did not), whether there are likely to be others out there, whether they are likely to have come and gone, and if so why.

Later, at the first Soviet-American conference on communication with extraterrestrial intelligence (CETI) in 1971, it was suggested by some attendees that we don’t see evidence of supercivilisations across the galaxy because the only ones that persist are the ones that give up the risky path of technology and instead pursue immersion in nature. Ageing civilisations either self-destruct or shift focus to something like Zen Buddhism, it was conjectured: pursuing spiritual and qualitative self-perfection at the cost of all interest in external reality or ‘“quantitative” expansion’. The Russian astrophysicist Vladimir M Lipunov speculated that, across the Universe, the scientific mindset recurrently evolves, discovers all there is to know and, having exhausted its compelling curiosity, proceeds to wither away. By 1978, the philosophers Arkadiy Ursul and Yuri Shkolenko wrote of such conjectures – concerning the ‘possible rejection in the future of the “technological way” of development’ – and reflected that this would be tantamount to humanity’s ‘transformation into something like dolphins’.

Aeon

It’s a bit of a puzzle why we haven’t discovered any signals out there despite looking for around half a century. I recently listed to this Science Vs. podcast where someone likened our search so far to dipping a cup in the ocean and not coming up with any fish. You wouldn’t conclude from that that fish do not exist, just that they do not exist where you dipped the cup. The expert interviewed went on to say that technology is improving and those cups are now turning into buckets.

some facts on special operations forces

This Intercept article has some facts and figures on the growth of U.S. special operations forces.

U.S. Special Operations Command has grown exponentially over the last 20 years. “Special operations-specific funding” topped out at $3.1 billion in 2001, compared with $13.1 billion now. Before 9/11, there were roughly 43,000 special operations forces. Today, there are 74,000 military personnel and civilians in the command. Two decades ago, an average of 2,900 commandos were deployed overseas in any given week. That number now stands at 4,500, according to SOCOM spokesperson Ken McGraw.

Intercept

It seems to me they do the job of a much larger conventional military force, and the future of war (also known as “defense”) is probably some combination of special operations and high technology. My concern is when the military takes over functions more appropriate to civilian diplomats, which it seems to me has been happening.

productivity of working from home

In industries with billable hours, productivity is not particularly easy to measure and an hour billed from home looks just fine on paper. To managers, that is an hour on a spreadsheet with somebody else paying for the coffee, lights, heat, insurance, cleaning (or just not cleaning), etc. But there are some studies from industries where productivity is more measurable. Results are all over the place, but this particular study from Japan puts working from home at about a 30% productivity loss compared to the office. Something in the range of a 20-50% loss seems to be a common assumption from a range of studies.

the Antikythera mechanism

The Antikythera mechanism is a 2,000-year-old mechanical model of the solar system found in a sunken ship in the Mediterranean in 1901. It looks like a clock mechanism, but the strange thing is that there were no clocks yet at the time, so a puzzle is why, if the ancient Greeks or whoever built this had this technology, why didn’t they also have clocks? It is also a puzzle because scientists haven’t been able to recreate it using any known manufacturing technology available at the time. I’m not saying it was aliens, because the model shows the sun and other known planets (no telescopes until about 1600) revolving around the Earth, and spacefaring aliens would presumably know better, unless they were trying to trick us.

Biden’s “30 by 30”

According to Yale Climate Connections, “30 by 30” is an ambitious plan to protect 30% of the USA’s land in a natural state by 2030. There is also a less ambitious part of the plan to protect 30% of the USA’s ocean area. I say the ocean part is less ambitious because, according to this article, 26% is already protected. And all you really have to do to protect the ocean (on paper) is draw a box on a map and pass a law saying that box is now protected.

The article refers to E.O. Wilson’s book Half Earth, which argues for protecting…I forget how much of the Earth, I am not good at math. But you get the idea. The moral and rhetorical case here is biodiversity-based, but it’s pretty clear that the practical case is carbon sequestration. There must be a cost-benefit calculation somewhere in there that this is the cheap way to make some progress on blunting the droughts, fires, floods, famines and abandoned coastal cities that are headed our way if we do nothing, and maybe even if we do something but not enough.

Land is different. This article says about 12% is now protected. So how would we actually get to 30? There must be 30% of land out there that is just not legally protected yet.

Achieving 30 by 30 will require action on numerous fronts. “A national program to enact 30 by 30 won’t just be a series of new national parks declared by the President, but will include things like national wildlife refuges, national monuments, state-level protected areas, conservation easements on private land, and co-management with tribal leadership,” wrote marine conservation biologist David Shiffman in Scientific American last October. “Local consultation and support will have to be part of it from the beginning, but it won’t be successful without support and leadership from the federal government.”

And it won’t be enough just to protect any land; it will matter significantly which 30 percent is protected. “Conserving a giant, undeveloped stretch of land where little lives and that no one wanted to develop anyway is not especially helpful to biodiversity conservation or climate resilience,” Shiffman wrote. At least some part of every major ecosystem needs to be protected, he wrote…

More than half of the country’s forests – critical carbon sinks, places that absorb more carbon dioxide than they release – are privately owned. U.C. Berkeley environmental science professors Arthur Middleton and Justin Brashares in the New York Times in December 2020 wrote that “private lands also connect our public lands, providing seasonal habitat for wide-ranging wildlife and clean drinking water, crop pollination, and flood control.” With about 12 percent of the privately land now meeting the 30 by 30 goals, they wrote, protecting the remaining 18 percent “means protecting an area more than twice the size of Texas.”

Yale Climate Connections

For this to be viable, it almost has to be easier than it sounds. I know large private forests are owned by university endowments and other wealthy institutional investors. They can either log them, or they can leave the trees in the ground to get more valuable until they log them later. Or they can sell them, or for all I know buy and sell complicated derivatives based on them. These investors are probably open to the idea of conservation easements which give them an additional payoff in return for agreeing not to develop (i.e. pave or build buildings) the land, which they are probably not interested in doing anyway. This is all speculation on my part.

There’s a lot of farmland out there that farmers would probably be happy to sell for reforestation (or restoration of grassland or wetland habitats) if the government were willing to pay. But I assume we need most of our cropland for growing crops, and taking cropland out of production doesn’t seem like a politically likely solution. Soil conservation is always good, but counting farms engaging in soil conservation practices as “protected natural land” would seem a bit sneaky. If that is what they are thinking, the 30% wouldn’t sound ambitious at all, it would just be a practical common-sense soil conservation program. Again, all speculation on my part. It will be interesting to hear more about this, and interesting to see if the administration can communicate it in a way that avoids conspiracy theories about the government coming for our sacrosanct private property.

war and peace

I seem to have issues of war and peace on my mind this morning (I am writing on Saturday, February 27, 2021). USA Today has a nice piece of data journalism on U.S. troop deployments and war costs around the world. This seems to be based mostly on the Costs of War project at Brown University, but the USA Today maps and graphics are very clean and informative at a glance. As usual, I’m going to tell you not to read this post and go look at their graphics instead!

  • The U.S. military has engaged in ground combat in 8 countries since 2018 and conducted air strikes in 7 countries (some of these overlap, so it’s not 15 total). It has provided some form of training or assistance in 79 countries (again, overlapping). We have “up to” 800 military bases outside the U.S.
  • Over 800,000 people have died in U.S.-involved wars since 2001, and over 300,000 of these were civilians. U.S. military troops and contractors killed total about 15,000, with most of these in Iraq and Afghanistan (significantly more in Iraq). [We manage to get a lot of allies killed for every American killed, to get a lot of enemy fighters killed for every “friendly” soldier killed, and roughly speaking around one civilian killed for every soldier killed. Are these measures of efficiency? Not in any moral sense, in my view. The civilian death toll alone suggests to me that the idea of “humanitarian war” is an oxymoron, because the innocent people you are getting killed are supposedly the ones you are trying to help. If they were instead living under the iron heel of some mad government, the body count might be lower. This might be true of any war in history, in my view, which might be a somewhat controversial view. But I am not suggesting turning a blind eye, I am suggesting doing what we can to help people through non-violent means.]
  • The estimated cost of all this to the U.S. has been $6.4 trillion. About $130 billion of that was spent on diplomacy. The U.S. military budget (listed here as $731.8 billion dollars in 2019, but this must exclude a lot of intelligence, security, and nuclear spending outside the DOD), is equivalent to the military spending of the following countries in order of their spending: China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, UK, Japan, South Korea, and Brazil. [Even setting aside the moral travesties and death and destruction, are we getting good value for our tax money? Or is it more like our health care and “pandemic preparedness” systems, where we spend the most and get average to poor results? We certainly couldn’t beat the countries above if they ganged up on us in a straight-out fight, I don’t think.]

Speaking of countries ganging up, there is now a group of potential World War III allies called “the quad“: the United States, Japan, India, and Australia. On the other side would be China and…I’m not sure, maybe Pakistan? Japan is saying its military may start firing missiles at Chinese ships that enter disputed waters, which it has not done before.

And finally, in what will be very old non-breaking news by the time this posts, the U.S. has apparently dropped some bombs in Syria, a sovereign country it is not clear whether we are at war with or not. This seems to have something to do with the U.S. relationship with Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and/or Israel. So our involvement in that unending regional proxy war grinds on at the same time we are rattling sabers at China and failing to tend to our significant problems at home.

sidewalk robots are legally pedestrians in some states

Including, surprisingly, my state of Pennsylvania, which is rarely at the forefront of anything new. I am cautiously optimistic about this. It sounds like some pedestrian and bicycle advocates (I include myself in these groups) are against this. But I think slow-moving, light, predictable vehicles should not be a big problem. Fast, unpredictable vehicles driven by humans on infrastructure that does not consider the existence of pedestrians and bicyclists are what usually kills people. Also, every package on a slow, light, predictable robot is one that is not on a truck, and that should reduce the number of trucks over time. Trucks disproportionately kill people – pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists alike. I realize that trucks also create some jobs, and job losses need to be dealt with through unemployment, education and training.

I see some problems looming, and these are infrastructure problems that need to be solved. Here in Philadelphia, sidewalks are often blocked by construction and parking because the law is either too lax or not enforced. Bike lanes often do not exist, and when they do they are often poorly designed, unprotected and unmaintained. Ramps for disabled people (which also help the rest of us, especially parents pushing strollers) often do not exist, are in a state of poor repair, collect water every time it rains, or are simply blocked by, again, construction or illegal parking. These are design and operational problems that have solutions, and the relevant public agencies (more than one, but one in particular) are either ignorant or incompetent or both. We need to fix the public agencies before we can design streets, bike lanes and sidewalks that are really going to work.

There’s another issue here. I don’t have the time, money, or expertise to sue individual contractors, landowners, or public agencies because they are blocking my walking path or bicycling lane. An Amazon or a UPS or a Google or an Uber will have these resources. This might be okay if it forces some change on big entities with deep pockets. This could be a problem for the individual homeowner or small business owner though. In my city, technically the sidewalk in front of my house is private property but public right-of-way. That means I can’t stop people from walking past, I can’t modify it significantly, but I can be sued or forced to repair it if it is not up to code. This might make sense on paper, but in practice cities are very lenient enforcing this on the small-time homeowner unless there is a serious incident. Sticking every homeowner in a city with a $10,000 repair bill (you might as well replace water and sewer lines while you are at it, which many people also don’t realize they own and are responsible for) would be a big burden on the middle class on down. Sidewalks are obviously public infrastructure and really part of the street, but this is one way cities push responsibilities and costs to the citizenry and try to keep taxes down a little bit. Taking over the sidewalks and raising enough tax revenue to keep them in a state of good repair would probably be the best answer from a technical and economic standpoint, but this would be a big legal and financial change for city government.

My utopian vision is for walking, bicycling, and slow, predictable, light, soft rounded vehicles to gradually displace most of the trucks, taxis and private cars that are out there. There would be less traffic at this point, almost no need for parking because the vehicles can just stack themselves somewhere out of the way when they are not in use. Maybe you only need one travel lane for big vehicles at this point (we’ll still want ambulances and fire trucks, although really I think these can be a bit smaller and quieter and still do the job), and robots, bicycles, and pedestrians can all have their own dedicated spaces and signals. You would have lots of room opened up for green infrastructure, sidewalk cafes, park benches, fountains, or whatever else you want to do. There is no technical or economic reason it couldn’t be done, and it would be cool. Cynicism, ignorance, and poor leadership are the reasons it won’t be done, at least not in most U.S. cities anytime soon.

more free time at home = more babies?

The answer is no. Early in the pandemic, I heard people suggesting that having healthy young couples home more with time on their hands would result in a baby boom. The data show that the opposite is true. On aggregate, people actually make somewhat rational economic decisions about having children. When times are uncertain, a fraction of people decide to postpone plans they might have had to have children, and a certain fraction of those people either miss their window or just change their minds. This shows up in the data.

The article acknowledges that immigration is a potential answer to this. But it is difficult politically, and even if you can convince your population that it is a good idea, you need a good plan to make sure the immigrants can make a positive economic contribution, and you need a plan to ease them into your culture. This doesn’t mean erasing their culture, religion, or language, of course, but nor do you want your culture, religion, or language to change massively in a short time or your country may lose its sense of national identity. Having a sense of national identity while still being relatively trusting and tolerant is a balancing act, and my thought is that you want to allow change but try to make it slow and gradual. Maybe we need a Federal Reserve of Cultural Change to manage this rate.

As a working parent, I also recognize that spending more time at home does not mean more free time for everyone. Working from home full time and taking care of young children who are also home all the time, with no babysitters or minimal support from grandparents and extended family, has been very difficult for many people, including yours truly. If you are not in this situation, those of us who are may chafe a bit when you tell us how “bored” you are. But I also recognize there have been no happy mediums, with part of the population stressed out of their minds and half bored out of their minds, and some of the people who are bored (like grandparents) wishing they could help more but unable to.

diversity and resilience

Here is an example from economics and urban planning of how a diverse system can be a resilient system.

At its peak in 1950, the Coca-Cola bottling plant in Indianapolis employed 250 workers and turned out two million fizz-filled bottles of Coke a week. Now, it is home to the Bottleworks Hotel, the center of a mixed-use development that opened in late 2020 with the hopes of rejuvenating a neighborhood.

The developer of the site, Hendricks Commercial Properties, said the pandemic had shown the value of diversification as a bulwark against shorter building life spans. No one could have predicted that a havoc-wreaking pandemic would make gathering places so unappealing, at least in the short term. But by having a mix of offices, retail, hotel and other uses, the risk for Hendricks is spread out. The Bottleworks development has an eight-screen movie theater, for instance, but also a tech incubator.

New York Times

This is not really the main point of the article, but I think a useful lesson to learn from the pandemic is that mixed-use neighborhoods where people can live, work, shop, study, and recreate seem to have been more resilient. I don’t have data to back this up, and it should be studied, but it is pretty obvious that the central business district in my city has been hard hit. Very few people live there. The office towers normally fill up each morning with thousands (tens or hundreds of thousands?) of suburban train and car commuters. Restaurants and other services are full of these people on weekdays and often close early on weekday evenings and sometimes are closed on the weekend. Hotels and other businesses that are open in the evening serve business travelers, convention goers, and tourists. There is some shopping, but more luxury goods aimed at these tourists and convention goers rather than basic grocery and household goods. So take away the office workers, business travelers, convention goers, and tourists, and the place is empty. Businesses are devastated. Financially, the city depends on wage, sales, and business tax revenues from the central business district to fund its services throughout the rest of the city. So getting more people to live within walking distance of downtown, and having more “normal” businesses that serve normal people there, could make it more resilient.

The same principle applies to natural ecosystems and agricultural systems too. Diversity might make a system a bit less efficient in terms of production, but you have a variety of organisms waiting in the wings to step in and fill functions if a dominant species that used to fill those functions is lost due to disease, disaster or environmental change (or combinations of these.)

I am thinking about this as I read a book called What’s So Good About Biodiversity by Donald Maier. The author has some reasonable points about biologists using the term biodiversity as a sort of lazy shorthand for ecosystem function or specific benefits. But overall, I find the author to someone without an ounce of understanding of how systems function. He literally can’t see the forest for the trees. He also seems to be a person with zero emotional connection to nature, which I find sad and abnormal. I’m going to call him a biopath – like a psychopath, a person who does not have normal emotions toward other people and is not really aware of what those emotions would feel like. I think there is a normal range of strength of emotion people feel about nature, and I accept that for some people the feelings are not all that strong compared to their feelings about, say, constructed environments or manufactured goods. But to feel nothing is not normal, and the 500 pages of verbal diarrhea in Mr. Maier’s book do not make it any more normal. (I haven’t finished the book – perhaps it will get better towards the end, when Mr. Maier promises to explain what “better reasoning about nature’s value” would look like. If the book has a fantastic ending, I promise to come back and sing its praises in this blog.)