Category Archives: Book Review – Nonfiction

Project Syndicate 2024 book picks

Leave a reply

Usually Project Syndicate tells me my free articles are used up, but they are letting me look at their “best books” roundup, I suppose because they are trying to sell me something and I should thank them for the privilege. Anyway, there are a few interesting ones here in the realm of socioeconomic and/or geopolitical non-fiction books. I don’t read too many books in this genre because I am a busy working parent and many of these are TLDR that would have worked fine as longish magazine articles. In fact, sometimes they are magazine articles that got popular and the authors/publishers are trying to cash in. Other times I suspect they are written by humanities professors who are paid by the pound. Nonetheless, here are some that caught my eye. As usual, I am more or less just riffing on the titles and haven’t actually read the books, so don’t take my thoughts as book reviews per se.

  • Amir Lebdioui, Survival of the Greenest: Economic Transformation in a Climate-conscious World. Some ideas on how developing countries could maybe lead the way on various green new deals? Sure, I want to believe in this…
  • Atossa Araxia Abrahamian, The Hidden Globe: How Wealth Hacks the World. “a fascinating tour of ‘extralegal zones’ of suspended sovereignty – an interconnected network of autonomous, business-friendly enclaves where conventional tax, labor, and immigration laws do not apply.”
  • Yanis Varoufakis, Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism. “a classic case of feudal rent defeating capitalist profit, of wealth extraction by those who already have it triumphing over the creation of new wealth by entrepreneurs.” Well, I want to believe in the tech companies because when it comes to U.S. comparative advantage, it’s kind of all we have left? (well, maybe biotech, but a lot of that is tied up with the predatory health insurance/finance industry which has captured our elected officials and is financially raping its own citizens and customers all day every day rather than creating new value.) I want to believe in Schumpeter’s basic formula: capitalism=competition=innovation=”the greatest wealth creating engine the world has ever known”. But if the tech industry and other modern big businesses are not capitalism at all but rather disguised feudalism, that sort of solves my problem of needing to believe in them. The problem being, what is left to believe in?
  • Shannon Vallor, The AI Mirror: How to Reclaim Our Humanity in an Age of Machine Thinking. AI and (lack of?) ethics. In my own interactions with AI, I have noticed that it can sometimes show more empathy and patience than any human being could consistently be expected to show. You can shout or curse at it and it responds with “I understand your frustration…” and tries to help you. Does it matter whether there are any emotions there as we understand the term? What seems to matter is whether the AI’s interests are aligned with mine. So that is probably what we need to think about.
  • William Ury, Possible: How We Survive (and Thrive) in an Age of Conflict. From a “world-reknowned negotiation expert”. Well, negotiations are about figuring what the interests of the parties are, where they are aligned, and finding something that makes everybody a little better off even if nobody is fully satisfied?
  • Malcolm Gladwell, Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know about the People We Don’t Know. I don’t know if this is a good book, or just time for Malcolm Gladwell to write a book… but there seems to be a negotiation, competition, empathy, and cooperation theme developing here. Per Schumpeter, pure capitalist competition is supposed to be sort of a inadvertent cooperation that lifts all boats, right? Dear capitalists – don’t bite the invisible hand that feeds you.
  • Robert D. Blackwill and Richard Fontaine, Lost Decade: The US Pivot to Asia and the Rise of Chinese Power. I just don’t want to believe that China is a military threat to the United States. Maybe I am naive, but I just don’t see how it can be in their interests to threaten us. On the other hand, I am 100% certain they feel threatened by us. So how about a little strategic empathy? Can we be less threatening and still deter conflict?
  • Jonathan Haidt, The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness. When I was a kid, it was dumb TV and high-sugar cereal that was supposedly rotting our brains. But I do see the screen-addiction in my own kids, and I don’t deny the rise in mental illness (diagnoses, at least) among children. Still, the screens give my children access to the world’s information that I could only dream of at their age, and they will be interacting with screens some day in some capacity as part of the work force. So I don’t have the answers here certainly, but I don’t think turning the screens off entirely can be the answer. Talking about what is on the screens sounds like a better path.
  • Kevin A. Young, Abolishing Fossil Fuels: Lessons from Movements That Won. I am thinking about the sudden spike in energy use when the AI search engines were turned on. I am thinking about the Kardashev scale, where a civilization’s level of advancement is measured by its energy use (more=more advanced). I am thinking about the Fermi paradox – is it possible that civilizations throughout the universe invent AI but then can’t come up with a viable way to power it without fouling their own nest? This doesn’t really make sense though, when half a century of investment and research in safe nuclear power could have gotten us to a place where we could be fueling the AI awakening more sustainably. The sun’s energy is virtually limitless on our human space and time scales, and solar panels in space are viable with current technology – we would just have had to invest in this and make it happen. Fusion is more speculative but there are some promising developments. I’m just saying, our human performance here on Earth may be pathetic and it seems like we may not make it long term, but if there are a billion civilizations out there similar to ours there must be some that got it right.
  • Michael Lewis, The Fifth Risk: Undoing Democracy. “the glaring absence of leadership and preparation during the transition to Donald Trump’s first administration, revealing how the US president-elect appointed incompetent and uninformed individuals to oversee America’s vast bureaucracy.” But this time around, it seems like we are getting even less competent, less informed clowns and fools, and only clowns and fools. Maybe the answer to the Fermi Paradox is that in all the billions of advanced civilizations that arise in the galaxy, a Donald Trump always arises at some point and shits the bed.

the other book recommendations from Bill Gates

Leave a reply

I already mentioned The Coming Wave, a book about AI. Here are the others – honestly, none really catches my eye. But for the sake of completeness:

The Coming Wave

Leave a reply

Bill Gates is starting to pump out some end-of-year book recommendations, and he identifies The Coming Wave by Mustafa Suleyman as his “favorite book about AI”. Here are a few quotes (from the Gates article):

…what sets his book apart from others is Mustafa’s insight that AI is only one part of an unprecedented convergence of scientific breakthroughs. Gene editing, DNA synthesis, and other advances in biotechnology are racing forward in parallel. As the title suggests, these changes are building like a wave far out at sea—invisible to many but gathering force. Each would be game-changing on its own; together, they’re poised to reshape every aspect of society…

In my conversations about AI, I often highlight three main risks we need to consider. First is the rapid pace of economic disruption. AI could fundamentally transform the nature of work itself and affect jobs across most industries, including white-collar roles that have traditionally been safe from automation. Second is the control problem, or the difficulty of ensuring that AI systems remain aligned with human values and interests as they become more advanced. The third risk is that when a bad actor has access to AI, they become more powerful—and more capable of conducting cyber-attacks, creating biological weapons, even compromising national security…

So how do we achieve containment in this new reality? …he lays out an agenda that’s appropriately ambitious for the scale of the challenge—ranging from technical solutions (like building an emergency off switch for AI systems) to sweeping institutional changes, including new global treaties, modernized regulatory frameworks, and historic cooperation among governments, companies, and scientists.

When it comes to AI, economic productivity, and job loss, it seems obvious that the answer is to take a portion of the economic value added by AI and reinvest it in services and benefits for the people adversely affected. Easy peasy right? And politically very difficult, at least in the U.S. “Value added tax” and “universal basic services and/or income” are words you could use to describe such programs, but we need to come up with better words and strategies if we are going to successfully describe these concepts to voters and neutralize the powerful interests who so far have been successful obstacles to these practical, somewhat obvious policies. The advantage of a VAT is the broadest possible tax base pays it in small increments over time rather than all at once, and therefore it is resented much less than filing an income tax return. If AI can truly increase economic productivity, then phasing in a VAT over time as productivity increases could be a way to increase quality of life for the greatest number of people possible. Throw in some automated counter-cyclical infrastructure spending along with the usual monetary policy adjustments, and you might have something. AI itself might be able to manage a system like this effectively in a way that is truly win-win for everyone.

It’s hard to be optimistic at this point in history about “historic cooperation among governments, companies, and scientists”. Still, maybe we have hit rock bottom on this and the coming trend will be up at some point.

The discussion of biological weapons and bad actors is chilling. Think of the ideologies that lead people to rationalize mass suicide and mass murder of civilians in events like 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing. The people who perpetrated those acts would certainly have used nuclear weapons if they had them handy. They will use biological weapons in the future if they can get their hands on them, and as the article points out it will be easier to get their hands on them and much harder to detect who has their hands on what. I don’t have an answer on this other than surveillance. Surveillance of AI, by AI perhaps? It sounds dystopian, but maybe that is what is needed – AI designed to be pro-human and pro-social looking for that needle in a haystack which is bad humans using bad AI to try to do something really terrible.

Turchin’s End Times

1 Reply

I got through Peter Turchin’s book End Times. It is definitely an interesting book. To summarize, organized human societies tend to develop a “wealth pump” whereby the wealthy and powerful influence the rules of the game to appropriate an ever larger share of a society’s wealth and power for themselves, at the expense of ordinary people. “Ordinary people” is not just the median or what we think of as the “middle class”, it is the bottom 90% of the wealth and income distribution. He shows hard evidence that the policies enacted in the U.S. represent the preferences of the top 10%. Not only are the preferences of the median citizen under-represented, they have NO statistical bearing on what is actually enacted. This situation tends to eventually reach a point of instability unless intentional and effective steps are taken to “shut down the wealth pump”, which happens occasionally. Instability can sometimes look like outright collapse into chaos, but it can also look like fracturing or breakup of a society into smaller entities, as happened with the “fall” of the Roman empire.

What makes the book a little different than other “cyclical theories of history” is first that he backs it up with statistical evidence gathered from many societies over a long period of time. Second, it is not the “immiseration” of the common people that leads to instability, but actually the growth of the “elites” due to the wealth pump. At some point, there are more elites that want to be in power than available positions of power. They fight amongst themselves, and their rhetoric may allow them to gain a following among the masses, but their preferences and interests still represent the rich and powerful class of which they are a part, and switching from one elite faction to another will not shut down the wealth pump.

Top Urban Planning Books of 2022

Leave a reply

Planetizen has a list of top urban planning (and related fields) books from 2022, or to be more accurate, fall 2021 through fall 2022. Lots of fields are related to urban planning, like engineering, architecture, parks and recreation, housing, transportation, infrastructure, utilities, ecology, economics, and public health to name just a handful.

First, they have an interesting list that they call “The Canon”:

  • To-morrow: a Peaceful Path to Reform by Ebenezer Howard
  • The Death and the [sic] Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs [yes, they got the title wrong – ouch!]
  • Design With Nature by Ian McHarg
  • The High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup
  • The Urban General Plan, by T.J. Kent, Jr.
  • Local Planning: Contemporary Principles and Practices, edited by Gary Hack et al.

Anyway, here are a few from the new list that caught my eye:

I have reached middle age as defined by having a reading list of more books than I can read in my remaining lifespan (a long list for what I hope will still be a long life). So I am not sure how many of these I will get too. But knowing they are out there is useful in case I need to brush up on a particular topic at some point.

5 of Bill Gates’s Favorite Books

Leave a reply

I guess this qualifies as my first “best of” post for 2022. It’s a bit weak though. Bill Gates, instead of picking his five favorite books that came out during the year, picked five books that he recommended to somebody during the year. He picked Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land as the “best introduction to grownup sci-fi”, which I take to mean sci-fi books for people who don’t have enough imagine to consider reading sci-fi, but might enjoy it if they try. This is not one of my favorite sci-fi books. About all I remember is a swimming pool supposedly somewhere in the Poconos, and the audiobook reader inexplicably giving a key character supposedly from the Poconos and southern accent. Don’t get me wrong, it’s an okay book, but even if I were restricting myself to Heinlein I might pick something else, like Starship Troopers, which some “serious” people have at least heard of (and to be fair, Billy G. mentions in his post). How about Vernor Vinge’s Rainbow’s End, which depicts a plausible near-future and is extremely entertaining and mind-blowing.

The only other book I’ll mention is a biography of Abraham Lincoln, which might be interesting. Still, this list don’t impress me much. I’m thinking old Billy Gates just didn’t do a lot of reading this year. Can’t he pay people to give him the Cliff’s Notes? (Considering he has more money than any particular gods, couldn’t he track down Cliff himself? Well, I looked this up and Cliff was Clifton K. Hillegass, and he died in 2001.)

Fully Automated Luxury Communism

Leave a reply

I think I made a post on this based on a review of the book awhile ago, but now I have read the actual book. My verdict: It was okay, but did not live up to the promise of its fantastic title. It stitches together a lot of disparate ideas and headlines to try to come up with a coherent big picture, and doesn’t quite succeed in my opinion.

Basically, the book forecasts a coming era of extreme supply made possible by a number of technologies. First, solar energy making energy abundant and cheap. Second, asteroid mining making materials abundant and cheap. Third, biotechnology making health care and food abundant and cheap.

“Fully automated” means there won’t be a ton a work to go around for humans. And this won’t matter if the abundant energy, materials, health care and food are spread around because there will be plenty for everyone.

“Luxury” means the supply will be so high that prices will be low or even tend toward zero.

Where “communism” comes in is that with supply so high and prices tending toward zero, the rich and powerful will try to ration and control the supply of goods and services to the rest of us so they can charge for them and get rich. So join me, comrades, as we the people must own the means of production in order to keep this from happening. Also, something about local business and worker cooperatives but I didn’t find this convincing.

A few things bother me. The first is the idea of “layers of limits”. Let’s say technology allows us to solve a lot of our current problems. Bringing in, say, ten times more materials from off planet may create a waste problem unless we can get the idea of a truly circular economy (i.e., 100% recycling of materials) going.

Second, this argument seems to foresee a sort of end of technological history. The government may fund a lot of basic research, but market discipline is what drives a lot of applied science and technological research from there. The government many things but it is not disciplined. If all our needs and wants are met, there will be no markets driving further progress. But history suggests that capitalism will always convince us to want more, and to consider yesterday’s wants to be tomorrow’s needs. This seems to be human nature, so unless artificial intelligence is taking over technological progress and pursuing it for the sheer joy of puzzle solving, it seems to me there will still be a role for a private sector.

Bloodlands

Leave a reply

Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin by Timothy Snyder was on my list for awhile, and I suppose I finally decided to read it because of the war in Ukraine. This is a good book and a horrible book, in the sense that it is a well-researched, well-written account of probably the worst series of events in world history. It is first and foremost a book about the Holocaust. It is also a delightful romp through the famine Stalin intentionally imposed on Ukraine in the early 1930s, Stalin’s internal terror unleased on his own citizens in the late 1930s, Nazi mass murder of Soviet prisoners of war, the siege of Leningrad, and the forced relocation of people (including Germans remaining in newly Soviet-occupied areas) at the end of the war that resulted in additional deaths.

I certainly don’t have much to add to scholarly discourse on the Holocaust. I have read more than one account and feel that I have a grasp of the facts, which is a very different thing than wrapping my head around the events, which I am not sure anyone can do. I think everyone needs to have a grasp of the facts, grapple with them, and then not think about them all the time. One thing that surprised me is Snyder’s explanation of how the complete picture really became available only after the end of the Cold War. This is because many of the worst atrocities happened in areas that came under Soviet control at the end of the war, and western (i.e. outside the Communist countries) scholars after the war tended to focus on the evidence and accounts available to them of Jews and others in Western Europe. These people suffered horrible atrocities, but the atrocities further east were of another magnitude in terms of both body count and utter depravity. The Soviets did not exactly deny the Holocaust, but for propaganda reasons they tended to downplay the mass murder of Jews and portray events as atrocities committed by Germans against Soviet civilians, sometimes glossing over the fact that people in these areas came under Soviet control only late in the war, and in some cases were also subjected to Soviet atrocities.

Something I was not aware of was Stalin’s antisemitism in the early 1950s. This fit into his general pattern of paranoia that groups within the Soviet Union, whether Jews, Poles, Ukrainians, Japanese, etc. might be under foreign influence and therefore be a threat to the Soviet state. In his paranoid mind, the ties between West Germany, the United States, and the newly formed Israel were a threat. There is some evidence he was planning a purge of Soviet Jews at this time. Luckily, he was not taken as seriously by underlings at this point as he had been in the 1930s, and he died before he could set any of these events in motion. Echoes of his paranoid rantings linking Nazis and Jews surfaced in Poland as late as the 1960s and 1970s, and I think we hear some echoes of this in the bizarre and seemingly illogical Russian rantings about “denazification” of Ukraine today.

Another theme that struck me was the underlying tension of food insecurity in Europe and the Soviet Union in the pre-war era. This was a motivating factor both in Hitler’s plan to colonize Eastern Europe and exterminate whoever was in the way, clearing the way for German farmers, and in Stalin’s depraved grain quotas imposed on Ukraine in the 1930s, in which peasant farmers were forced to grow grain for export but executed if they were found eating it themselves. Neither of these was a rational response to food insecurity, of course, but I think it holds lessons for us today. In the United States and much of the world, we have taken food security for granted for many decades now. As climate change takes hold, other environmental problems mount (soil erosion? ocean acidification? groundwater mining?), and population continues to grow (though slowly decelerating), the future of global food supply is not secure. On top of the technical and environmental challenges, food insecurity can trigger mass migration, civil unrest, geopolitical instability and even war, which in turn can exacerbate environmental and food supply problems in a vicious feedback loop. These are tough, tough problems, but one thing we can try to do is keep a focus on global peace and stability so we at least have a chance to focus our technological and economic prowess on solving the food security issue.

fairy tales

Leave a reply

The Spectator has a review of a new book on the origin of fairy tales. I tended to think “fairies” were Celtic in origin, but this article talks about Middle East, French, and Nordic origins among others. And some were just invented by Hans Christian Andersen, who apparently stayed in Charles Dickens’s house at some point and severely outstayed his welcome.

supply, demand, and prices do not really exist

Leave a reply

This statement by James Galbraith makes my head spin a bit.

Just as Einstein had erased Euclid’s axiom of parallels, Keynes’s General Theory had long since obliterated the supply curves for labor and saving, thereby eliminating the supposed markets for labor and capital.

It followed that the prices of production were set by costs (mostly labor costs and interest rates), while quantities were determined by effective demand. Markets were not treated as if they were magical. It was obvious that most resources and components did not move under the influence of an invisible hand. Rather, they moved according to contracts between companies on terms set by negotiation, as had been the case for more than a hundred years. Technology was managed by organizations – mostly by large corporations – in what was sometimes called “the new industrial state.”

Project Syndicate

This is in a review of a book arguing that prices are really important. It’s a bit disturbing to me to think that there might not be a consensus among economists about how the economy actually works. We ordinary people can grasp theories like prices equilibrating supply and demand, and even how interest rates are related to the money supply and inflation, if we try really hard. But we assume the experts understand this stuff on a much deeper level, and that it is fundamentally science. If our understanding of civilization turns out to be based on pseudoscience, we might be in trouble.