Was Vertical Farming a Bubble?

 That seems to be the argument of this piece.

While I've been skeptical of it, I think it's premature.  Lots of innovations have had their ups and downs before becoming stabilized.  Humans react with enthusiasm to new ideas and overpromise.  I've seen that in the 1950's with atomic energy, off and on with computers, with the internet, self-driving cars.

I suspect when the technology winnows out the impractical and too costly ideas to arrive at an industry standard it will reduce the capital costs.  Experience will also teach the best locations for vertical farming operations--how cheap the land must be, how close to population centers.  Genetics may tweak the plants for best production under lights.  And the switch away from fossel fuels may reduce energy prices.

All that said, based on an impulse to be fair, I'm still feeling some Schadenfreude.

I Love Armies

 The first two paragraphs of a NYTimes article on getting Leopard tanks for Ukraine:

" Nearly a month after Berlin gave European allies permission to send German-made tanks to Ukraine, the flow of tanks so many leaders vowed would follow seems more like a trickle.

Some nations have discovered that the tanks in their armory don’t actually work or lack spare parts. Political leaders have encountered unanticipated resistance within their own coalitions, and even from their defense ministries. And some armies had to pull trainers out of retirement to teach Ukrainian soldiers how to use old-model tanks."

I particularly laughed at the second sentence: maintenance is always problematic, particularly in armies which haven't fought wars.  

Slippery Slope/Tit for Tat

 One of the arguments of "Hive" is that research shows that in a prisoner's dilemna game which extends over multiple sessions, the best strategy is "tit for tat" but not always.  Straight "tit for tat" can lock the players into a vicious cycle of retaliation, often familiar from Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine, etc., while the occasional deviation can transform the game into one of cooperation, which is win-win for both parties.  The book arguments that people with higher IQ's take a longer perspective, so are thus more likely to initiate cooperation, leading to group evolution.

It strikes me that "slippery slope" arguments are related to "tit for tat".  Consider SCOTUS nominations--the Republicans start with Bork, the Democrats with Thomas but either way we've evolved away from the Senate confirmations of the Eisenhower/JFK/LBJ era (though from an old Democrat's viewpoint the real starting point was Gerald Ford's crusade against Abe Fortas.  😉

Myrh America II

 Akhil Reed Amar writes in Myth America about the founding fathers.  He emphasizes Washington's importance to the Constitutional Convention and downplays Madison's contribution, sees little difference between "republican" and "democratic", emphasizes the "union" side of the founding, doesn't accept Charles Beard's interpretation, and accepts the Constitution as helping slavery. 

All in all it seems well-argued.  I was surprised by his singling out Beard; by 1960 he seemed no longer prominent.

Myth America

 Started reading this collection of essays, subtitled: "Historians Take on the Biggest Legends and Lies About Our Past" David Bell leads off with "exceptionalism".  He mentions the Winthrop sermon, but not the Biblical verse to which he referred. (Mathew 5:14 "You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden.") 

I didn't know of the connection to Marxism, though Seymour Martin Lipsetl's use of the concept to explain why the US didn't have socialism was big in the early 60's when I was studying history.

Bell notes Reagan's use of "shining city on a hill" and Gingrich's pushing of the concept as a political weapon against the left, and Obama's formulation that all nations are exceptional. And he notes Daniel Bell's 1975 essay "End of Exceptionalism".

Personally I'm not ready to concede the term to the right.  America is exceptionally  important; on that all sides can agree. Whether we point to a glorious ascension or a past stained by misdeeds, America can't be ignored. The vehemence of the arguments over our past and future testify to exceptional importance.

Ukraine

 Lots of media coverage of the 1-year anniversary of the Russia invasion into Ukraine.

In general I've been in favor of the Biden policy, supporting Ukraine against Russia but avoiding committing US troops. I still am.  But I remember in the early days after 9/11, I had some doubts,never expressed, about the Bush policy. He seemed to have called it right for some time, but now the conventional wisdom says it was a mistake.

In the case of the Ukraine, we forget Russia invaded in 2014, took Crimea and a good portion of eastern Ukraine. Why the new invasion--was it because EU/NATO/US didn't support Ukraine that much in 2014?

My bottom line--it's complicated and I don't see an easy ending.  Biden's making his calls; they seem reasonable today, they may or may not be the right ones when looking back at it from 20 years on.

A Shepherd Is Angry

 

This ELMs scheme is SO POOR… where are the options for regenerative grazing, for long recovery periods, for trampling carbon, for hyper diverse permanent pasture, for agro-ecological transition, and for actually earning the real cost of public benefits? https://t.co/G0rawZT5xA

— James Rebanks (@herdyshepherd1) January 31, 2023

Good Old Days of Democratic Dominance

 James Fallows had a tribute to Jimmy Carter today, mentioning in passing that the Democratic margin in the House was 150!! I checked, it actually was 149 in 1977 and 122 in 1979.

As Fallows noted, the big fights were intra-party.

Fear the Future--Bot and Sock Puppets

 A comment the other day about communications from fake social media sites--sock puppets.  The writer observed it was sometimes hard to identify messages from bots.

My fear--you ain't seen nothing yet.  Someone is already linking Chatgpt to their fake media sites, so they can push out messages which seem very real with little effort. 

HIve Mind and the Mathew Effect

 Reading Hive Mind by Garret Jones. Finding it good through the first chapters, until he got to the "Ingredients for Good Politics" and the Coase Theorem.  A fast summary: if a state has people focused on the long term, and willing to accept the results of elections, there can be effective bipartisan deals to handle externalities (like pollution) using Coase.  Coase says that if you have good negotiators they can find a win-win solution without the need for regulation. 

Then I started thinking about the Matthew Effect.

An assumption in the discussion is that high IQ people are more future-oriented and more able to do tit for tat bargaining, without holding grudges which lead to mutual destruction. The problem when you apply the idea to politics is that those with the gold/assets are able to hire those with IQ (lobbyists and lawyers) to rig the bargain.