NYT on Saudi Arabia’s Nuclear Program

The New York Times has a disturbing article about Saudi Arabia’s nuclear program. It is somewhat of an open secret that their nuclear program has been to bankroll Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program over the years. The U.S. and most media outlets that I am aware of have turned a blind eye to that, even as we have been attacked by some of their citizens and fought against their extremist proxies for 17 years now. We also fought two wars in Iraq at least partly to protect their government against aggression. Apparently they are asking for nuclear energy technology that can be used for peaceful purposes, but it can also be weaponized, and they are resisting efforts to include unconditional UN weapons inspections in any deal. Putting more nuclear materials within potential reach of these extremists, whether in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia itself, seems like a bad idea.

renewables can supply a reliable electric baseload

According to this 2011 article in The Conversation (a blog that is new to me), the idea that solar and wind can’t provide reliable electricity is just wrong. This article doesn’t even focus on batteries and other storage technologies, which have certainly improved since 2011. Basically, as long as the grid is fed by a variety of sources spread over a fairly large and varied geography, it will not be all that common that the renewables are not providing the necessary baseload. And in that case, standby gas generators can make up the difference without too much trouble. All this suggests that the “reliable baseload” argument is mostly fossil fuel industry propaganda. Just put it out there, and it will be picked up and repeated by know-it-alls for a long time. And the beauty of propaganda in our current age where everyone has a voice and all voices are equal is that this repetition is free, and the more something is repeated the more people will believe it, even smart people who are not experts in the subject will believe it and repeat it themselves, until it drowns out any accurate information released too little, too late.

23 is not enough for me

This article in Wired explains how there is a lot more to sequencing the whole genome than just 23 genes. The cost of full sequencing has dropped to $1000, which is considered an enormous breakthrough, and it is expected to continue to fall. One company is even offering a $200 black Friday special even though they admit it is a loss leader.

Today, slightly more than a million people have had their whole genomes sequenced. Compare that to the 17 million estimated to have had their DNA analyzed with direct-to-consumer tests sold by 23andMe and Ancestry. They use a technology called genotyping, which takes about a million snapshots of a person’s genome. That might sound like a lot, but it’s really less than 1 percent of the full picture. Genotyping targets short strings of DNA that scientists already know have a strong association with a given trait. So say, for example, scientists discover a new gene that increases your risk of developing brain cancer. If that gene is not one that 23andMe looks at (because how would it know to look if the gene hasn’t been discovered yet), then you’d have to get tested all over again to learn more about your brain cancer risk. Whole genome data on the other hand, once you have it, can be queried with computer algorithms whenever a new genetic discovery gets made.

Here’s a good example of just how much more info is in a whole genome: Earlier this year, 23andMe got FDA approval to give consumers information about their BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. More than 1,000 mutations in these genes are known to increase women’s chances of breast and ovarian cancers by as much as 75 and 50 percent, respectively. 23andMe’s test picks up the three BRCA mutations most commonly found in individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, and geneticists have voiced concern that the results could leave people with a false sense of security. Veritas’ tests, on the other hand, scan for all of them and, according to the company, turn up five to seven variants of varying concern in those two genes for the average customer.

ISO standard for stand-alone toilets

ISO has put out a new standard for toilets that are not connected sewer systems, describing what they are supposed to do as opposed to what they are supposed to look like. This means inventors and entrepreneurs have something to shoot for, and if they meet the standard they will have a strong marketing tool. The entire plumbing and wastewater industrial complex (which I am part of) might want to take note. There is always the possibility of a “killer app” along the lines of the digital camera or cell phone coming along and making an entire centuries-old system of infrastructure suddenly obsolete.

There is one risk nobody is talking about – the possibility that aliens cruise by every few decades, note that we are still shitting in our own water supply, and decide we have not yet reached a level of technology that would make us worth invading.

disturbing numbers on U.S. suicides

The U.S. suicide rate is climbing alarmingly at a time when rates are falling in other modern democracies. What is going wrong with our society? Other than these three paragraphs, this long article is about some examples of practical steps psychologists can take to prevent suicide.

Over the last two decades, suicide has slowly and then very suddenly announced itself as a full-blown national emergency. Its victims accompany factory closings and the cutting of government assistance. They haunt post-9/11 military bases and hollow the promise of Silicon Valley high schools. Just about everywhere, psychiatric units and crisis hotlines are maxed out. According to the most recent figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are now more than twice as many suicides in the U.S. (45,000) as homicides; they are the 10th leading cause of death. You have to go all the way back to the dawn of the Great Depression to find a similar increase in the suicide rate. Meanwhile, in many other industrialized Western countries, suicides have been flat or steadily decreasing.

What makes these numbers so scary is that they can’t be explained away by any sort of demographic logic. Black women, white men, teenagers, 60-somethings, Hispanics, Native Americans, the rich, the poor—they are all struggling. Suicide rates have spiked in every state but one (Nevada) since 1999. Kate Spade’s and Anthony Bourdain’s deaths were shocking to everybody but the epidemiologists who track the data.

And these are just the reported cases. None of the numbers above account for the thousands of drug overdose deaths that are just suicides by another name. If you widen the lens a bit to include those contemplating suicide, the problem starts to take on the contours of an epidemic. In 2014, the federal government estimated that 9.4 million American adults had seriously considered the idea.

the death toll in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan

According to this article from Brown University, around a half million people have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan since the U.S. invasions, around half of them civilians. For me, this continues to bring doubt on the idea that here is any such thing as a humanitarian war that helps more people than it hurts.

This total is only people killed by violence – it does not include “indirect deaths” due to “loss of access to food, water, health facilities, electricity or other infrastructure.”

Obviously, it doesn’t include horrible conflicts the U.S. is less directly involved in (but still involved in) such as Syria and Yemen.

I also read this depressing article in Foreign Policy in Focus saying the ongoing civil war in South Sudan is much nastier than I realized, with a death toll around 400,000 and counting.

in praise of Richard Nixon

This post on History News Network makes a case that Richard Nixon looks great if you compare him to Donald Trump.

Richard Nixon did not set out to destroy our foreign policy, and in fact, improved it dramatically with the promotion of détente with the Soviet Union, the overture to the People’s Republic of China, and the nurturing of close ties with America’s allies in NATO. He had a mastery of foreign policy based on great experience from his Vice Presidential years onward for which he is often remembered aside from Watergate. This does not excuse the lengthening of the Vietnam War, or the terrible decisions on foreign policy regarding Chile, Greece, and the issue of the Indo-Pakistan War (which is associated with the creation of the nation of Bangladesh). But Donald Trump has been totally destructive in foreign affairs, alienating our allies in NATO, antagonizing all nations with his protectionist tariff policies, and consorting with authoritarian dictators including Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, and the leaders of such other nations, as the Philippines, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Trump has also worsened relations with Iran and Cuba, based upon extremist right wing influences of John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. The Middle East has become much more unstable. The US Foreign Service itself has been badly damaged by the inconsistencies and instability of Donald Trump.

Richard Nixon had many battles and conflicts with the Democratic-controlled Congress during his years in the Presidency, and yet managed to sign into law many signature measures that built upon the accomplishments of the Great Society of his predecessor, Lyndon B. Johnson. These included the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the enactment of Affirmative Action in employment and education. Donald Trump, in contrast, has been backtracking, destroying environmental protections, undermining consumer agencies, rolling back labor rights, ignoring scientific advancements, and curtailing civil rights. The Republican Party itself has become a willing participant in the destruction of these major domestic accomplishments of Richard Nixon.

Richard Nixon also promoted the concept of welfare reform, including the expansion of the Food Stamp Program, and attempted, though he failed, to advance health care reform. Donald Trump, on the other hand, has wished to destroy the health care plan represented by ObamaCare, stranding millions of people without health care, and offering no alternative, in collusion with a Republican Party far to the Right of what it was in Nixon’s time in the Oval Office. Additionally, Richard Nixon expanded Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and initiated Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for the elderly and disabled, all programs now in danger from Trump and the GOP.

Trump has added to the long-term existential risks to our civilization posed by climate change and nuclear weapons. But so far, we’re incredibly lucky he has not been faced with a major global economic or geopolitical crisis. My apologies to people in Puerto Rico and Yemen, among other places, when I say that. These are horrible crises for limited geographic areas and limited numbers of people (millions, in the case of Yemen) and the U.S. administration has blood on its hands. But think about the world-wide suffering caused by the financial crisis of 2008 or the world at the brink of nuclear war in 1962, and now imagine Trump in charge at those moments. Two years down, two to go.

could Marxism make a comeback?

Maybe, according to this Marxist professor writing on Truthout.org.

Within the broad Marxian tradition, some strands offer both analyses and policies that differ sharply from anything offered by either neoclassical or Keynesian economics. To take perhaps the clearest example, many Marxists focus on the undemocratic position of capitalists within enterprises (individual owners and corporate boards of directors). Their decisions on whether and how to invest net revenues determine the shape of the macroeconomy for all. A minority focused on enterprise profits as “the bottom line” makes decisions impacting the jobs, incomes, debts, etc. of a majority to which it is not democratically accountable. This minority’s expectations, desires and “animal spirits” (as Keynes put it) causes instability, in the Marxian view. The policy suggestion emerging from that view focuses on a program to “democratize the enterprise” as a solution to instability. Replacing hierarchical undemocratic capitalist enterprises with democratically organized worker cooperatives – where each enterprise member has one vote in deciding key matters, such as investment decisions – is a way forward that neither neoclassical nor Keynesian economists have yet allowed to be debated in public and academic forums. We will all be better off when the current narrowness of economics is opened up to include more basic proposals for change adequate to the depth and scope of capitalism’s current problems.

I’m not sure where I “stand”, except I’d like to see more empirical testing of economic theories and less ideology. Even if we figured out which of the major economics religions is actually “the right one”, we still couldn’t expect it to pick solutions for us. It could identify a range of reasonably economically efficient solutions to a problem (and reject a lot of clearly dumb ones), but we would still have to pick one to try moving ahead with that best represented our values. But maybe with all those dumb solutions tossed out and better information at our fingertips about the range of good solutions, our messy political system would have a better chance of making good choices.