Author Archives: rdmyers75@hotmail.com

Kissinger – yes, still alive

Leave a reply

Kissinger. The Wall Street Journal had an article in which Henry Kissinger made some attention-getting statements about the insanity of current nuclear risk taking. Kissinger is apparently 99 so we may not have the arguable  benefits of his instincts much longer. (Although, I suspect he has whatever cyborg implants are keeping Dick Cheney alive.)

Basically, I see Kissinger as an immoral calculated risk taker. He has the blood of millions of human beings in Southeast Asia and South Asia on his hands because he believed the potential benefits to the United States was worth the risk and ultimately suffering and death that resulted. The immoral part was putting next to no value on those lives, in my view. There was a rational calculation involved, at least in his mind.

Assuming he has not become a more moral person with age, and assuming he is still rational, what he is saying is that the risks we are taking now are not worth it and are therefore not rational.

I don’t believe the ends justified the means even in Kissinger’s time, but one thing this highlights is the loss of any significant peace movement in our society and politics. It is rational to work towards peace and stability in the world. This has benefits to our country and to everyone else. Then add the moral layer for those who think morally and it seems like something we should all be able to agree on. Only the irrational AND immoral should support these policies. I consider myself a realist about human nature, but I still believe this is a relatively small minority. Everyone else is being manipulated, marginalized, or drowned out.

The rare earth rush

Leave a reply

Rare earths. They’re in all our electronics and mining them has been called the new “gold rush”. They’ve also been called the new conflict minerals, as in peasants are brutally massacred and driven off their land for them, and mining them irresponsibly is an environmental nightmare. Way too nightmarish for China, apparently, but not for Myanmar. And what is mined brutally and irresponsibly in Myanmar can be passed through companies in China and along to major household name electronics manufacturers who do not ask too many questions.

Ramping up recycling would seem to be an obvious answer. These minerals are valuable, and extracting them from existing products where they are already concentrated should be a no-brainer. There should be viable business models to get this done. And if that is not easy enough, recycling should be considered from the very beginning of the design and manufacturing process. If amoral companies aren’t interested, you can regulate them or tax them, at international borders and by international agreement. Easy peasy right?

July 2022 in Review

Leave a reply

I have been traveling and unable to overcome my own security features while outside the US. Ironically, during the first time in years I had some significant downtime for reading, thinking, and posting. Not to worry, I thumb-typed out a few posts and am cutting and pasting them now, so the posts should keep rolling in for awhile.

Most frightening and/or depressing story: One way global warming is suppressing crop yields is by damaging pollen.

Most hopeful story: Kernza is a perennial grain with some promise, although yields would have to increase a lot for it to be a viable alternative to annual grains like wheat, corn and rice.

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: You can see lightning as much as 100-200 miles away if it is high enough, but the sound from thunder only travels about 15 miles. So if you hear thunder, lightning is close enough to be dangerous and you should take shelter. If you only see lightning far away, you may be able to safely stay outside. Just keep listening.

Iran has “technical capacity” to build a bomb

Leave a reply

This article in Intercept says Iran has achieved its goal of being able to build a bomb. The U.S. has the “technical capacity” to invade and occupy Iran, but that is not going to happen. Prominent Israelis including Ehud Barak say that “Iran’s uranium enrichment program had now advanced to a point where it could be no longer be set back with military strikes or sabotage.”

The article blames Biden. I do think Biden should have tried harder to make a return to the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal happen, but the blame for pulling out of the deal falls squarely on Trump. For all the stupid things Trump said and did, taking the world backwards on nuclear proliferation and climate change are the two that I find unforgivable because these are the two biggest existential threats to our planetary civilization. But even going a step beyond Trump, if the U.S. Congress and executive branch both stood firmly behind international agreements on these issues, the world would be able to trust us more to keep our word instead of flip-flopping with each new administration.

So now Israel, Pakistan, and India are confirmed nuclear states, and Saudi Arabia and Iran can quickly become nuclear states if a conflict arises. Farther north, China and North Korea is a confirmed nuclear state, and Japan and Taiwan supposedly have the ability to quickly convert civilian nuclear plants to weapons production. I haven’t heard anything about a renewed nuclear weapons push in South Korea, but it seems quite plausible that they might if they do not think the U.S. “nuclear umbrella” is reliable. And then we have the thinly veiled proxy war between nuclear-armed-to-the-teeth NATO and Russia in eastern Europe. We live in a dangerous world.

Taiwan and nuclear weapons

Leave a reply

According to The Strategist, Taiwan had an overt nuclear weapons program until 1976 and a covert one into the 1980s. It has nuclear reactors similar to the ones in Japan that can be converted to produce weapons-grade plutonium in short order if that decision is made.

Weak security guarantees from the United States, coupled with escalating aggression from China, may soon present Biden [this article is from December 2020] with a Taiwan that believes its only option for survival is to take a page from the Israeli playbook and restart a covert nuclear weapons program. When Taiwan went down that path between 1967 and the late 1980s, the government in Taipei ultimately backed away from nuclear weapons because it appeared China was liberalising and heading toward democratisation…

According to China expert Michael Pillsbury, author of The hundred-year marathon, the Chinese Communist Party intends to integrate Hong Kong and Taiwan back into China in time to achieve ‘Middle Kingdom’ status by 2049—the centennial of the CCP’s victory over the Guomindang in the Chinese civil war…

Taiwan already has two operational nuclear power plants on opposite ends of the island that could produce plutonium. It could use a ‘Japan option’ of enriching its radioactive materials for weaponisation in a short timeframe.

The Strategist

I think we take it for granted that nuclear proliferation is driven by a few rogue states. But this does not appear to be the case. The world appears to be on the verge of getting much more dangerous. Every country with nuclear weapons increases the odds (depressingly, the certainty, given enough time) of a nuclear detonation somewhere, sometime.

The Cuban Missile Crisis would seem to offer a cautionary tale. Put some nuclear missiles on an island near an aggressive nuclear superpower, and bad things can happen. We give our (U.S.) democratically elected leader at the time for avoiding catastrophe by acting tough and making the authoritarian leader “blink”. How much of that was luck, and how long until our world’s luck runs out if we keep taking risks like that? Another cautionary tale would be China’s invasion of Korea in the 1950s. They did not have nuclear weapons at the time, the U.S. not only had them but had recently used them, and China did not “blink”.

raccoon dogs, and mouth watering donkey balls

Leave a reply

I was reading about raccoon dogs in the context of wildlife farming and zoonotic diseases in China. Heavy stuff. On the lighter side, they are cute little guys and popular in Japanese folklore such as Super Mario Brothers. Raccoon dogs are more like dogs than raccoons. (Raccoons are not rodents and not like anything else, they are just kind of their own thing.) Also, they are quite literally ballsy:

For centuries, Japanese people have associated tanukis with magical folklore and luck. Referred to as “bake-danuk,” these mythical tanukis are mischievous shapeshifters. One exaggerated feature is the tanuki’s giant scrotum, which represents good luck with money. In cartoons, paintings, and commercials, this part of the animal’s anatomy is often illustrated as a pair of “money bags.” The enlarged testes represent good luck with money, more so than anything sexual. Tanuki totems are placed inside businesses to bring money.

Mental Floss

Come to think of it, I guess I have heard of animal scrota being used as money purses before. I guess they can be tanned into leather, and are already sort of the right shape.

On a closely related note, here is a recipe for mouth watering donkey balls:

I love these little balls of meat heaven! Aside from the delicious taste, what also got me to try this dish, was the number of ingredients. I mean, with just 5 ingredients that I am sure you have at your home right now, you can make this perfect meal! I usually eat them as is but just the other day, I added them on my spaghetti. It was Spaghetti and meatballs! It was awesome! You also don’t need any type of sauce to enjoy these balls. The flavor will make your mouth water and the smell, the smell is perfect! Make sure to contain the smell for that meaty-heaven aroma! Enjoy!

Cook it Once

anti-climate science propaganda techniques

1 Reply

This article in BBC is about propaganda used by the fossil fuel industry in the 1990s to convince the public to doubt the emerging consensus among climate scientists. Basically, the technique was to find the tiny minority of legitimate scientists with dissenting views, and then heavily publicize those views. Reporters like dissenting views because they are interesting, and when they are being bombarded from all sides by an extremely well-funded campaign, they will tend to present those views as having equal weight to the overwhelming majority view. So the public is not exactly hearing pure lies (although there are certainly some of those, such as statements that there was “no evidence” of human contributions to global warming), but 50% of what they are hearing represents the consensus of 99% of scientists and 50% represents the views of the dissenting 1%.

This is difficult to counter, because scientists are trained to communicate the uncertainty of their work. Corporations behave amorally to maximize their profits, which is interesting because they are comprised of people who generally have some moral scruples. People will behave to maximize their own interests to some extent, but I don’t believe that is the only factor. They will also rationalize their behavior, or they will often lack information about the contribution of their individual role to the bigger picture, which may be an amoral or immoral result.

There are a couple good quotes from Al Gore in the article, including saying climate science propaganda is a crime on the level of World War II war crimes. I would agree with this – the companies that did (and are certainly doing) things like this chose to put the lives and livelihoods of billions of future humans at risk for the sake of maximizing their own wealth in the short term.

the numbers on shark attacks

Leave a reply

This article in Grid says there are about 70 shark attacks on humans per year, worldwide. That’s attacks, not deaths. This article doesn’t have the death numbers, but I recall seeing elsewhere that it is typically single digits. And it’s not because sharks are not around where people are swimming – they are.

Humans are pathetic in the water. If sharks wanted to eat them, it would be so easy for them. If they tasted good and a shark were like, “Oh, my goodness, there is a human, let me have a bite,” there would be between 10,000 and 50,000 bites a day. There’s a lot of sharks in the ocean and a lot of people that are recreating there.

We don’t see that. We see very few, about 70 a year. And although there are 70, more than half of them are in poor visibility water where the shark makes a mistake. So the fact that the bites that we do see are where conditions are turbid and where people happen to be intersecting with where there are sharks sort of underscores the notion that sharks do not eat people — we aren’t on the menu.

Grid

So if we are trying to be rational, we shouldn’t even worry about sharks, even compared to other things that can and do go wrong in the water, most obviously drowning.

common vaccines provide some protection against Covid-19

Leave a reply

This makes some sense to me. By getting jabbed with needles as much as possible, we train our bodies to deal with a wide range of diseases, including ones it hasn’t seen yet.

How can a vaccine designed to protect against one disease be effective against a different disease?

Researchers think the vaccine trains the body to respond more quickly and more effectively to any pathogen it sees, Bruxvoort said…

One hypothesis is that different viruses have common characteristics that apply to all, said Dr. Lara Jehi, the Clinic’s chief research information officer and co-author of the Clinic-Brigham and Women’s study.

Cleveland.com

I remember reading about the BCG vaccine, which is a vaccine given to babies in tropical countries where tuberculosis is common. It leaves a scar, unfortunately, but I wonder if it could be part of the reason tropical countries in general seem to have been more resistant to the disease. Although I think another possible factor could be that people in tropical countries and poorer countries (which often go together) are just more used to and accepting of disease and their experience with Covid was not as thoroughly reported.

transactional analysis

Leave a reply

My high school actually had a mandatory class on transactional analysis, a model of human interactions developed by Eric Berne in the 1950s. I didn’t find it particularly helpful at the time, and haven’t heard much about it since then. But it is interesting:

At the heart of Berne’s model are three ego states that live in each of us: the Child (the most natural, vulnerable, and spontaneous part of our personality, keeper of our creative vitality and our most unalloyed capacity for pleasure); the Parent (the part of us that unconsciously mimics the psychological responses of our parents as we observed them in childhood); and the Adult (the competent and self-possessed part of us capable of making sound decisions in our best interest). All three coexist within us, and all three play into our social interactions…

But beyond the simplest and most complementary exchange — one Adult issuing the stimulus, another Adult giving the response — most of social transactions are a chaos of mismatched and ever-switching ego states. The confusion — the wounding — happens when the lines of communication cross and the interaction becomes not between two people in parallel and consistent ego states, but between one part of one person and a different part of the other: Child-Adult, Adult-Parent, Parent-Child, and all the other possible non-equivalences. This basic pattern, a diagram of which became the book’s cover, is what defines a game — “an ongoing series of complementary ulterior transactions progressing to a well-defined, predictable outcome” — a patterned, self-defeating psychological interchange, in which one ego state issues a stimulus concealing the emotional need of another ego-state, then receives a response to the hidden message and reacts negatively to it, frustrating both parties and garbling communication in a way that injures intimacy.

The Marginalian

If I were going to give my younger self advice, I would say don’t assume you know what other people are thinking. Even when you are interacting with others, your thoughts and emotions usually have to do a lot more with what is going on in your own mind and body than theirs. So don’t assume you know what they are thinking or what their intentions are, or what type of reaction they are trying to elicit from you. That’s sounds like funny advice – don’t ascribe intentions to people. People certainly have intentions, but when you try to guess what they are you will often be wrong. See listen and observe, think, and then make up your own mind. Even if they do have malign intentions, which happens more rarely than my younger self would have thought, you still have some control over your emotional reaction and near total control over your own behavior. If you are a person who can be quick to anger, like my younger self, it is better to walk away from the offending person and take some time to reflect than to react in the moment. Some people will take this as a sign of weakness or “nonassertiveness”, but I have learned that reacting in anger is usually unpleasant for everyone, including me, and I tend to regret it later. I will confront that person later in a more rational frame of mind, if I feel the confrontation is worth it, but often I decide it is not. So pick your battles carefully, younger self, and there are not too many battles worth picking.