Monday, March 10, 2025

Barbarians at the Gate

Ten days or so ago, at the end of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, I found myself at a party. I’ve been to these sorts of things before, and more often than not they have been insufferable affairs: sweaty frat basements reeking of stale beer, bright young men outnumbering bright young women whose attention they desire. Starry-eyed, badly-dressed, trying way too hard — the essence of DC.

(Incidentally, Democrats are no better — every bit the caricature as their opposite. But these CPAC afterparties usually nail the Washington striver stereotype in singular fashion.)

This party was very different, however. It wasn’t even a CPAC party. It was billed as a “DOGE appreciation party.” And while that may sound plenty dorky, it surfaced something else that’s novel in Trump’s DC. It surfaced a kind of gleeful barbarism that I’ve just not seen before.

Everything about the party was over the top. After you RSVP’d, you needed to get vetted. (For whatever reason, I was approved fairly quickly.) An email went out the day of the party saying that the whole thing was “strictly off the record” — presumably because journalists had breached the defenses. The note was intentionally edgy. “Security will be tight, so arrive prepared.” There were guard goons at the door. Word had spread on social media that the party was hard-right, so a handful of cops were called in to protect attendees from a dozen or so people out front chanting “Fuck off, fascists!” in that familiar protester cadence. I couldn’t help but wonder whether this resistance was being paid by the organizers to be there, for ambience. It all felt curated.

The space was rented, I was told; Meta had apparently held a party there earlier in the week. Walking up to the third floor, you were confronted by a massive stuffed bison by the entrance. The whole place was shabby chic — a penthouse loft, with a massive split-level living room that no one would ever live in, with dusty bookshelves and odd furniture scattered about. There was an industrial-sized kitchen that looked unused. A bar in the living room and a second one at the exit to the rooftop were further tip-offs that this is an event space and not a home. (That said, I did wander into a bedroom decorated Buddhist-style, so who knows?)

Respecting the “off the record” injunction, I’ll stick with the mood, as in truth it was more instructive than any conversation I had.

The mood was jubilant. But it wasn’t just that sense of liberating triumph that Trump’s victory has injected into many conservatives. It was a kind of agitated truculence. The DOGE theme had everyone drunk on destruction. There certainly was a lot of camaraderie, you could feel it in all the conversations. But there was no sense of restraint, and no sense of positive mission. The mission itself was to tear down, to punish.

The evening was not free of cliché: At one point, I overheard a group of young men eagerly talking about the Roman Empire. My mind turned to the sack of Rome, a point of no return. Edward Gibbon, describing the moment when the Visigoths entered the city in 410AD, retold the instructions of Alaric, their Christian king:
He encouraged his troops boldly to seize the rewards of valour, and to enrich themselves with the spoils of a wealthy and effeminate people; but he exhorted them at the same time to spare the lives of the unresisting citizens, and to respect the churches of the apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, as holy and inviolable sanctuaries.
Today, the barbarians have also entered the gates. But King Trump has no Christian virtues to speak of, and he has counseled no restraint. His taunting address last night to a joint session of Congress brooked no pity for the vanquished. There will certainly be much plunder and self-enrichment as the wealthy and effeminate stand by helplessly and watch. But unlike back then, it feels like no denizen, and no institution, will be spared.

I don’t want to pretend that I somehow stand above and apart from all of this. The giddy glee feels in part driven by the prospect of smashing decadence. And I feel it too. Moreover, I suspect that the feeling is shared much more broadly across the country — and that it’s what keeps Trump’s revolutionary radicalism still above-water in the polls. Only a slim majority voted for Trump, but the rejection of the progressive identity agenda — call it “wokeness” or “DEI” or whatever you want — feels broader. (...)

I saw a familiar face at the party at one point later in the evening. I drunkenly tried to communicate the above to him. “These people are having fun right now, but they don’t know what’s coming. This is not an organized army, these are bandits and vandals, and no one has full control. They’ll turn on each other eventually. Everyone is backslapping tonight, but they’ll all be swimming in each others’ blood in a year’s time!” Yes, drunkenly. But I still can’t shake the feeling.

by Damir Marusic, Wisdom of Crowds |  Read more:
Image: uncredited
[ed. Happily tearing the country apart and ruining people's lives over something as insignificant as political correctness. See also: 50 Thoughts on DOGE (Statecraft). And, There Is a Liberal Answer to the Trump-Musk Wrecking Ball (NYT).]

Sunday, March 9, 2025

How AI Takeover Might Happen in Two Years

How AI Takeover Might Happen in Two Years 
Image: uncredited

I’m not a natural “doomsayer.” But unfortunately, part of my job as an AI safety researcher is to think about the more troubling scenarios.

I’m like a mechanic scrambling last-minute checks before Apollo 13 takes off. If you ask for my take on the situation, I won’t comment on the quality of the in-flight entertainment, or describe how beautiful the stars will appear from space.

I will tell you what could go wrong. That is what I intend to do in this story.

Now I should clarify what this is exactly. It's not a prediction. I don’t expect AI progress to be this fast or as untamable as I portray. It’s not pure fantasy either.

It is my worst nightmare.

It’s a sampling from the futures that are among the most devastating, and I believe, disturbingly plausible – the ones that most keep me up at night.

I’m telling this tale because the future is not set yet. I hope, with a bit of foresight, we can keep this story a fictional one.

by joshc, LessWrong |  Read more:
Image: uncredited

Life Lessons From a Coastal Wolf Pack

Pleasant Island is two miles from the town of Gustavus, Alaska, and less than 30 miles from where we’d anchored. A wolf pack arrived there in 2013, after swimming across the narrow channel from the mainland. Initially, they did what wolves typically do: eat every ungulate they could clamp their jaws around. After they’d decimated the island’s limited deer population, their next act seemed obvious: The pack would move, or starve. Several decades earlier, an ill-fated and ethically dubious ecological experiment on Alaska’s far-flung Coronation Island demonstrated what happens when introduced wolves eat all the local deer and have nowhere else to go: In the absence of prey, the wolves starved, resorting to cannibalism before eventually dying out entirely.

But, as Juneau-based biologist Gretchen Roffler and her colleagues revealed in a pair of studies published in 2021 and 2023, the Pleasant Island wolves found another way. When deer disappeared from the menu, the pack shopped around, and did so with remarkable success.

Roffler’s first glimpse of a Pleasant Island wolf eating a sea otter seemed like an anomaly. But when she observed the same behavior again, she suspected a larger phenomenon might be at play. To test this, she and her colleagues began the unglamorous work of scooping poop from the island’s beaches and forested trails. By analyzing the scat using a technique called DNA metabarcoding — akin to a prey fingerprinting tool for feces — Roffler, Taal Levi and other partners at Oregon State University could determine whether the wolves were eating terrestrial herbivores, like deer, or marine predators, like seals or otters. Combining this research with on-the-ground field observations and GPS collars that tracked the wolves, they found that the pack was not merely sampling otters; they were devouring them en masse. Despite being fierce adversaries, with sharp teeth and claws, otters provided the wolves with a reliable alternative to venison.

The sea otters were relative newcomers themselves. After near-extirpation throughout much of the North Pacific, otters were reintroduced to the outer islands of Southeast Alaska in the 1960s, and their population rapidly expanded. Whether the first Pleasant Island otter meal was a lucky accident or the result of a strategically planned hunt, the pack wasted no time in capitalizing on this now-abundant resource. In 2015, wolf scats collected from the island consisted of approximately 98% deer; by 2018, deer had disappeared entirely and sea otters made up more than two-thirds of their diet.

Though what wolves eat for lunch might not seem revolutionary, this demonstration of their flexibility is, particularly when it comes to shaping our scientific understanding of their lives. Wolves are known to be opportunistic, but this pack’s quick and dramatic prey shift sent shock waves through the wildlife world: in just three years, they’d upended classic predator-prey dynamics and bent the supposed “rules” of their lives.

Most wolves specialize on ungulates, including deer, moose and elk. Pleasant Island’s wolves seemed no different until they amended the core tenets of this long-standing exchange, and did so in a matter of just a few years. By crossing a dietary threshold, they had propelled themselves across ecotones and trophic levels — switching their primary food source from a bottom-up terrestrial herbivore (deer) to a top-down marine carnivore (otters). This isn’t just a matter of semantics; conserving the health of wildlife populations requires knowledge about what animals eat, where they live, and what they might do next. And these island-hopping wolves were full of surprises. (...)

The idea that carnivores’ dietary habits can influence their environments isn’t new. However, as our awareness of wolves’ ability to shift what they eat — quickly and sometimes dramatically — grows, so does the need for a more nuanced scientific approach. Traditionally, ecological theory has prioritized models that simplify relationships in the wild: Wolves dine on ungulates, predators need prey, and the lives of deer, beavers and otters have little in common. However, otter-eating wolves and other so-called exceptions may actually be teaching us just how capable some species are of responding rapidly when the need arises. Ecologists sometimes refer to this potential to pivot as “adaptive capacity;” i.e., how fast a species can change the rules of its own game.

by Caroline Van Hemert, High Country News |  Read more:
Image: Nature Picture Library/Alamy
[ed. Taking down a full grown otter would be quite a feat. They can grow up to nearly 5 ft. long and 100 lbs., with clam cracking jaws. Here's one (below) being cleaned of oil (took six people to hold him down, even moderately sedated):]

Image: markk

Saturday, March 8, 2025

Spruce Pine Powers the World's Electronics

We have already identified some key resources involved in AI development that could be restricted. The economic bottlenecks are mainly around high energy requirements and chip manufacturing.

Energy is probably too connected to the rest of the economy to be a good regulatory lever, but the U.S. power grid can't currently handle the scale of the data centers the AI labs want for model training. That might buy us a little time. Big tech is already talking about buying small modular nuclear reactors to power the next generation of data centers. Those probably won't be ready until the early 2030s. Unfortunately, that also creates pressures to move training to China or the Middle East where energy is cheaper, but where governments are less concerned about human rights.

A recent hurricane flooding high-purity quartz mines made headlines because chip producers require it for the crucibles used in making silicon wafers. Lower purity means accidental doping of the silicon crystal, which means lower chip yields per wafer, at best. Those mines aren't the only source, but they seem to be the best one. There might also be ways to utilize lower-purity materials, but that might take time to develop and would require a lot more energy, which is already a bottleneck.

The very cutting-edge chips required for AI training runs require some delicate and expensive extreme-ultraviolet lithography machines to manufacture. They literally have to plasmify tin droplets with a pulsed laser to reach those frequencies. ASML Holdings is currently the only company that sells these systems, and machines that advanced have their own supply chains. They have very few customers, and (last I checked) only TSMC was really using them successfully at scale. There are a lot of potential policy levers in this space, at least for now. LessWrong (...)
***
High-quality quartz is the cornerstone of the semiconductors operating nearly every tech gadget worldwide. Cellphones, solar panels and artificial intelligence all rely on this resource.

However, such pure quartz is rare—it can only be found at a handful of places on Earth. And a North Carolina town home to the world’s biggest deposit of the mineral was just hit by Hurricane Helene.

Sitting an hour northeast of Asheville, the small town of Spruce Pine, also known as Mineral City, is home to about 2,000 people. It also contains a crucial supply of the natural high-purity quartz required for the computers and devices that run our modern world.

When Hurricane Helene struck, Spruce Pine was doused in more than two feet of rain, flooding its downtown, knocking out power and forcing businesses to shutter. The quartz mines in Spruce Pine, owned by Belgian mining company Sibelco and the local Quartz Corp, supply 80 to 90 percent of all high-quality quartz in the world, per CNN’s Clare Duffy and Dianne Gallagher. But the two companies closed down operations a day before the storm crossed the region, with no word on when work would resume.

“I don’t think the nation really realizes how this little, small town is so critical,” Michael Vance, a local real estate developer who has been informally coordinating some relief efforts after the storm, tells the Washington Post’s Eva Dou. ~ Smithsonian
***
Ultra-high-purity quartz is an essential component to semiconductor chips, and the only places in the world that can meet this need are two mines in a small North Carolina town. The mines' owner, Sibelco, is investing $700 million to expand capacity, but is that enough to keep up with AI-fueled chip demand?

Spruce Pine is a small town about two hours drive northwest of Charlotte, NC. You can get to the general area via a number of ways, depending on your point of origin, but for the last stretch of the trip, you need to travel down Fish Hatchery Rd. It's a two-lane rural highway, as depicted in Google Maps, set amid a pleasant scenic backdrop.

It's on this road that the modern economy rests, according to Wharton associate professor Ethan Mollick, who teaches innovation and entrepreneurship and also examines the effects of artificial intelligence on work and education. That's because the road runs to the two mines that are the sole supplier of the quartz required to make the crucibles needed to refine silicon wafers.

This is not the first time these mines – owned by Sibelco, which mines, processes, and sells specialty industrial minerals – have been highlighted as integral not only to the global semiconductor industry but also to the solar photovoltaic markets.

It is an alarming prospect to contemplate, and it is fair to wonder whether Mollick is indulging in a bit of hyperbole. But there is no denying the fact that digital devices around the world contain a small piece of Spruce Pine's unique ultra-high-purity quartz. "It does boggle the mind a bit to consider that inside nearly every cell phone and computer chip you'll find quartz from Spruce Pine," Rolf Pippert, mine manager at Quartz Corp, a leading supplier of high-quality quartz, tells the BBC.~ TechSpot

by LessWrong, Smithsonian, TechSpot |  Read more: here, here and here.
Image: uncredited via
[ed. So of course, guess what: Trump calls for an end to the Chips Act, redirecting funds to national debt (TechSpot). And, for once, Republicans finally find a backbone and say NO.]

The Natural History of Vacant Lots (University of California Press, 1987)

Tobacco Field on the Philippines. American vintage postcard

The Empathy Struggle

“More federal layoffs at Eastern WA nuclear contamination site,” read the headlines this past week.

Prompted by the Elon Musk-led cost-cutting spree, the Department of Energy has in the past month slashed 16% of its administrators who oversee the cleanup of the old Hanford nuclear-bomb-making factories.

A Hanford site manager predicted more carnage is coming: “I don’t think we are at the end.”

This has upset locals. The newspaper, the Tri-City Herald, recently excoriated their congressman, U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse, R-Sunnyside, for not doing anything to stop it.

“Residents of Washington’s 4th Congressional District did not elect Newhouse to stand idly by as President Donald Trump dismantles the federal government,” an editorial fumed.

To which I wondered: Didn’t they?

The 4th Congressional District runs from Canada to Oregon in a strip in Central Washington. It’s the reddest sector of the state, having just voted for Trump by a landslide 21-point margin.

Trump explicitly campaigned on taking a chain saw to federal programs and the civil service. Before the election, he said Musk would be his “Secretary of Cost-Cutting,” and the two pledged to hack “at least $2 trillion” out of federal spending — about 30% of the total budget.

Where did the good residents of the 4th think that money was going to come from?

The 4th is famously the most government-dependent part of the state. It’s basically a company town, where the company is Uncle Sam.

Partly this is due to the $3 billion-per-year Hanford project. Partly it’s the system of federal dams and reclamation projects that provide farms with subsidized irrigation water. But it’s also the place in the state where residents rely most heavily on government assistance programs.

Example: 38% of the people in the 4th are enrolled in Medicaid, the low-income health program. This is by far the highest percentage in the state. By contrast, in Seattle’s 7th District it’s just 14%, according to the Washington State Health Care Authority.

Yet Republicans, led by Trump and including the 4th’s Newhouse, are pushing a budget downsizing that if adopted will lead to major cuts in Medicaid.

Or take education. Trump campaigned on shuttering the federal Department of Education completely. Which Washington district is most reliant on spending from that department? The 4th.

The anti-government politics of the 4th has been a paradox for decades. Fifteen years ago, its congressman was a leading national critic of the 2009 federal “stimulus” program that aimed to jump start America out of the Great Recession. Except out of all 435 congressional districts, which one got the most financial bang from that stimulus — more than $3,700 per person? You guessed it.

Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat, has been doing what Newhouse has not — fighting like crazy against the worst of the above cuts that excessively target his district. But lately I’ve been thinking: Voters there keep asking for all this. So why not let them have it?

Same with Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell, who this past week pointed out, correctly, that Trump’s tariffs in his first term cost Eastern Washington farmers millions, and that the repeat will be worse. It’s “a nightmare for our farmers,” she said.

OK, but Trump pledged endlessly in the campaign to impose big tariffs, and farmers tended to back him anyway. So surely nothing is so predictable as this nightmare?

I keep reading these interviews of Trump voters who got fired, or whose family member got deported, or whose business is being whipsawed by tariffs. My knee-jerk reaction is the same as it is for the 4th District: What in the world did you expect?

by Danny Westneat, Seattle Times |  Read more:
Image: Ted S. Warren/The Associated Press, 2022
[ed. This seems to be the only plan Democrats have going forward - waiting for the realities of cuts to sink in (which should tell you something about their leadership as well). If you don't understand how a machine works, you won't know how to fix it when it's broke, or should expect it to run any better just by stripping out random parts.]

Geno Smith Trade Begs the Question: What are the Seahawks Doing?

It was hard to look at that Seahawks roster and see something beyond mediocrity. This was true last week and became even more so when receiver DK Metcalf requested a trade Wednesday.

It’s been a position Seattle has been stuck in for several years, missing the past two postseasons with winning records and sneaking into the playoffs three seasons ago at 9-8.
 
It’s about the most unexciting place you can be in sports — barely relevant but with no juice for the future. So it seems general manager John Schneider pressed reset, for better or for worse.

And it could very well be worse.

On Friday, reports surfaced that the Seahawks will trade starting quarterback Geno Smith to the Raiders for a third-round draft pick, which was confirmed by Seattle Times reporter Bob Condotta. Hey, there have been third-round picks that have changed franchises, but the odds of grabbing a true impact player that low are slim.

So the big question is: Are the Seahawks punting on the 2025 season? Or are they targeting another quarterback that they think can be an upgrade over Smith? (...)

It’s hard to find good quarterbacks in this league, and make no mistake — Smith was a good one. His iffy decision-making kept him shy of being a great one, but the man who passed for 4,320 yards (fourth in the NFL) last season while completing 70.4 percent of his passes (fifth) was more than productive behind center. Throw in that he had four game-winning drives and four fourth-quarter comebacks, all while playing behind one of the shoddiest lines in the league, and you have to wonder if they can find someone better anytime soon.

The Seahawks sit 18th in the draft order, staring at a draft class that isn’t particularly deep at QB. Might Shedeur Sanders be sporting green and blue?

If I had to pick one scenario, I would say the Seahawks go hard after Darnold in what just became an extremely intriguing offseason. They might even be thankful he played so poorly in his last two games so as to bring down his price. And if they don’t get him, my guess is Schneider is content with having a down year so that they can improve through the draft. That said, it’s fair to question the Seahawks’ draft acumen at this point.

Remember, they got back-to-back first- and second-round picks from the Broncos when they traded Russell Wilson. Yet they weren’t able to turn themselves into a contender despite having a surprisingly capable quarterback in Smith. If you’re a nervous 12 right now, it’s justified. It’s possible this team will struggle for a while.

As for Smith himself, he’ll always be welcomed in Seattle. He became an instant fan favorite after his 2022 debut against Denver, which started with “Ge-no!” chants and ended with his famous “they wrote me off, I ain’t write back, though” quote. And his incessant grace endeared him to the fan base even more. He might not have had the hardware, but he had the heart. That matters around here.

What matters more, however, are those W’s. And the best way to get them in the NFL is by having a productive quarterback. The Seahawks don’t have that right now, and might be without their most imposing receiver soon, too.

by Matt Calkins, Seattle Times |  Read more:
Image: Jennifer Buchanan
[ed. Well, crap. This really sucks. First Russell, then Bobby Wagner, Pete Caroll, Tyler Lockett, DK Metcalf, and now Geno. Some of the greatest, most endearing/loyal players/coaches in franchise history, all with some productive years left in their careers. Forget what the fans want. The NFL is as cutthroat and cold-hearted as any business in the world, focused solely on two bottom-line metrics: wins and money (as if we didn't already know this, but keep getting shocked anyway). So, they've finally depleted all my good will and interest. I don't root for corporations. See also: Seahawks trading quarterback Geno Smith to Raiders, source confirms (ST).]

Friday, March 7, 2025

Bill Evans


[ed. See also: Live '64 '75.]

From the Gut: A Literary History of Indigestion

Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

A decade ago, I would’ve been mortified to type those words. Recent years, however, have seen a surge in awareness of digestive disorders—IBS, celiac disease, lactose intolerance, ulcerative colitis—such that I find myself constantly trading war stories. A journalist friend doesn’t leave the house without his Lactaid. An art-historian pal goes days on white bread and rice, her stomach requiring the blandest fare possible. A musicologist colleague grimly claims he can’t eat “anything with a skin.”

Science and commerce have risen to meet the need: wide-ranging medical research into once arcane procedures like fecal-matter transplants, an over-the-counter digestive-remedy industry valued at more than $20 billion, and endless Instagram and #GutTok gurus hawking stomach cures like aloe-vera juice, ice-water baths, and left-side sleeping. A 2020 survey by the Rome Foundation, which promotes GI health, says that more than 40 percent of the globe suffers from a digestive disorder. Almost half the population, seemingly, feels something isn’t sitting right.

Some months ago, I began to wonder, Where has this crisis come from? And why, given all of this alimentary advocacy, and all of my own dietary austerity, is my stomach, at forty-five, still rioting? Doctors and the internet provided only partial answers, so I went looking in books, where I found a sprawling body of medical history and, surprisingly, literary history on these indelicate matters. The gastrointestinal agonies of writers, it turns out, forms practically its own canon, one that dates back almost to the beginning of Western science’s attempts to understand the digestive tract. For more than two hundred years, countless bizarre theories and treatments were adopted and feverishly promoted by men of letters, including such esteemed figures as Voltaire, Coleridge, Twain, Henry James, Kafka, and Beckett.

While the root causes of our collective dyspepsia eluded me, never mind a cure, I did find strange comfort in such company. And I got some context and understanding. The literary history of indigestion, I came to see, has much to tell us about why we seem to be living, once again, in an age of the stomach.
***
In 1700, Bernardino Ramazzini, a professor of medicine in Modena, Italy, published his seminal Diseases of Workers. His study of laborers—porters, bakers, blacksmiths, mirror makers—first identified what we now call repetitive-stress injuries: bowed legs, rounded shoulders, humped backs. Ramazzini also considered the travails of “the learned.” By hunching over books for hours on end, he argued, scholars and philosophers brought on arthritis, weak eyesight, and, through compression of their pancreatic juices, dire ventral infirmities. Ramazzini held that the stomach couldn’t properly mulch its food while the brain was busy digesting its own sustenance. Indeed, so deleterious was a life of contemplation, he contended, that it was even possible to “die of wisdom.”

Early Enlightenment anatomists saw the gut as the seat of the imagination; it processed emotions and perception and was so spiritually attuned it perhaps even contained the soul. Any disruption below was of grave import. Following Ramazzini’s study of the learned, physicians theorized and investigated a set of conditions known as les maladies des gens de lettres, wherein mental exertion and overeating led to “engorgement of the viscera of the lower abdomen,” as well as “hypochondria, melancholy, and hysteria.”

Naturally, the patriarchal nexus of medicine and letters produced further absurdities. Women, due to supposed softness in their “cerebral pulp,” were thought incapable of the intellectual endeavor necessary to truly injure the bowels. Even as hysteria came to be seen as a feminine complaint, doctors remained stubbornly fascinated by the straining of men. Or, as Anne Vila, a scholar of French literature, puts it, science found a way for les gens de lettres to be “nervous in a manly way.”  (...)

It wasn’t just food that became productively unsettling in the nineteenth century. Writers were similarly agitated by the expulsive and inspirational effects of coffee and tea. Balzac wrote that coffee “acts like a food and demands digestive juices…it brutalizes these beautiful stomach linings as a wagon master abuses ponies; the plexus becomes inflamed; sparks shoot all the way up to the brain.” Across Europe, gut trouble became a mark of the consummate artist.

Literary men in America, however, were less sure. In 1858, an advice column, “Manly Health and Training,” appeared in the New York Atlas newspaper. One Mose Velsor stumped for early-rising, fresh air, and bare-knuckle boxing, and warned of “The Great American Evil—Indigestion.” Velsor advised against fried potatoes, prostitutes, condiments, and “too much brain action and fretting”—all of which might result in a sickly male specimen whose “bowels are clogged with accumulations of fearful impurity.”

Mose Velsor was one of Walt Whitman’s many pseudonyms and used for the hackwork he undertook after the first printing of Leaves of Grass received little notice. The Atlas columns can read less like advice than a wounded man’s self-exhortation. “To you, clerk, literary man, sedentary person, man of fortune.… Up!” And “Eat enough, and when you eat that, stop!”

Mark Twain also took up the cause. Motivated by either his notoriously bad business sense or his own frequent stomach pain (or, more likely, both), he peddled a digestive powder, licensed from the English Plasmon company, as both treatment for dyspepsia and a superfood: “One teaspoon is equivalent to an ordinary beefsteak.” George Bernard Shaw was convinced and “generally dined off a Plasmon biscuit and a bean.” To the novelist William Dean Howells, Twain instructed, “stir it into your soup…use any method you like, so’s you get it down.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, given such appeals, the Plasmon Company of America, like many of Twain’s other commercial ventures, quickly went bust.

Others fared far better. Particularly in America, new ideas about purity, diet, and hygiene proliferated in the second half of the century. A Connecticut minister, Sylvester Graham, introduced his Graham Bread (later, Graham Cracker), which was bland enough to stomach easily while also aiding in the avoidance of drink and masturbation. (Graham believed that sugar fueled intemperate feelings like lust and greed.) At his Battle Creek, Michigan, sanitarium, John Harvey Kellogg (of Corn Flakes fame) treated his digestively ailing patients by prescribing them abstinence, hydrotherapy, electrotherapy, phototherapy, and yogurt enemas. At one point, Kellogg claimed his sanitarium hosted more than seven thousand patients a year, many of them wealthy and willing to pay the rapidly increasing fees. A gastric boom was well underway and about to take another curious turn. (...)

By the late nineteenth century, constipation was dreaded as the “disease of diseases.”  In 1895, an entrepreneur named Horace Fletcher set out to cure it. Fletcher had been a gifted athlete in his youth but at forty found his energies sapped by stoppages below. His solution: Produce as little bodily waste as possible. His system: digesting “in the head” by chewing his food at least two hundred times,  into a slurry that slid down unaided.

Newly energized by his method, Fletcher set about promoting it, performing somersaults and high-dives in his underwear before crowds, mailing his own ash-like turds—no more odor than “a hot biscuit”—to scientists. He eventually converted Kellogg to his regimen; every meal at Battle Creek began with a “chewing song.” Other celebrity chewers included John D. Rockefeller, King Edward VII, and writers like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Twain (again), both William  and Henry James, and Upton Sinclair, who called Fletcherism “one of the great discoveries of my life.” Its benefits, apparently, weren’t only physical. In 1903, Fletcher observed a “literary test subject” who subsisted off a glass of milk and four exhaustively chewed corn muffins per day. After eight days, the subject had made just one hot biscuit but had written sixty-four thousand words.

Legitimate medicine would soon discredit Fletcher, but the literary world’s infatuation with mastication lingered in the imagination of an insurance lawyer from Prague. In Franz Kafka’s “A Hunger Artist,” an anonymous professional faster starves himself in view of the public, at first to great curiosity and acclaim, then absolute indifference, until finally he dies unnoticed and un-mourned. The story has been interpreted as religious parable, self-portrait, and as representing modern man’s alienation from family and nation. But perhaps we might read it more directly.

Kafka struggled with constipation. He visited sanitariums, tried laxatives made from powdered seaweed, and obsessively notated his meals and bowel movements, or lack of them. No surprise, then, that he was drawn to Fletcherism. Kafka’s father was so disgusted by his son’s incessant chewing he would hide behind his newspaper at dinner. The hunger artist is likewise unimpressed by his own feats of starvation. “I have to fast,” he says, “I can’t help it.… I couldn’t find the food I liked. If I had found it, believe me, I should have made no fuss and stuffed myself like you or anyone else.”

I read this line with a shudder of recognition. In the worst nights of my sleepless stomach, I ate nothing for days at a time. Sometimes wasting away seemed preferable to enduring yet more intestinal agony. I’m struck, too, by how much the family-dinner scene early in The Metamorphosis resembles Fletcherism. “It seemed remarkable to Gregor that among the various noises coming from the table he could always distinguish the sound of their masticating teeth.” Fletcher’s method seems insane now, but in the grip of dyspepsia, you’ll try anything. The internal turbulence doesn’t just “mar the soul’s serenest hour,” as Twain once wrote; it seems to choke the very life and joy out of you. (...)

Of course, indigestion hasn’t been the torment solely of the literati. Other artists suffered, too, some famously. There has been a surprising amount of scientific investigation into whether Beethoven had IBS. Kurt Cobain harbored for years an undiagnosed stomach pain. His love of Kraft mac & cheese and strawberry milk probably didn’t help, but lactose intolerance wasn’t much discussed, or not so publicly, in the 1990s. “Thank you all,” Cobain wrote in his suicide note in 1994, “from the pit of my burning, nauseous stomach.”

by Will Boast, VQR | Read more:
Image: Margeaux Walter
[ed. See also: Flushed Away: The crappy lie Americans still believe about their toilets (Slate).]

You Should Start Worrying About the Raid on Social Security. Now.


Perhaps the most frequently cited quote from President Donald Trump relevant to his purported efforts to root out government waste has been “we’re not touching Social Security,” or variations thereof.

I expressed skepticism about this pledge shortly after the election by listing all the oblique ways the Trump administration could hack away at the program.

It gives me no pleasure to update my observation with the words, “I told you so.”

Among the weapons Trump could wield, I wrote, was starving the program of administrative resources — think money and staff. Sure enough, on Feb. 28 the program, which is currently led by acting Commissioner Leland Dudek, announced plans to reduce the program’s employee base to 50,000 from 57,000.

Its news release about the reduction referred to the program’s “bloated workforce.”

To anyone who knows anything about the Social Security Administration, calling its workforce “bloated” sounds like a sick joke. The truth is that the agency is hopelessly understaffed, and has been for years.

In November, then-Commissioner Martin O’Malley told a House committee that the agency was serving a record number of beneficiaries with staffing that had reached a 50-year low. (...)

Nearly 69 million Americans were receiving benefits as of Dec. 31, according to the agency. That figure encompassed 54.3 million retired workers, their spouses and their children, nearly 6 million survivors of deceased workers and more than 8.3 million disabled workers and their dependents. Agency employment peaked in 2009 at about 67,000, when it served about 55 million people. (...)

Not only beneficiaries could be affected by Trump’s raid on Social Security. About 183 million people pay Social Security taxes on their earnings. Their right to collect what they’re entitled to based on their contributions is dependent on the system recording those payments and calculating their benefits accurately, to the last penny. Any incursion by DOGE into the program’s systems or the scattershot firings that Dudek forecasts puts all that at risk.

In his testimony, O’Malley talked about how the agency had struggled to establish an acceptable level of customer service. In 2023, he said, wait times on the program’s 800 number had ballooned to nearly an hour. Of the average 7 million clients who called the number each month for advice or assistance, 4 million “hung up in frustration after waiting far too long.” The agency had worked the wait down to an average of less than 13 minutes, in part by encouraging customers to wait off the line for a call back.

Disability applicants faced the worst frustrations, O’Malley said. The backlog of disability determinations, which often require multiple rounds of inquiries, hearings and appeals, had reached a near-record 1.2 million. The program estimated that about 30,000 applicants had died in 2023 while awaiting decisions.

O’Malley had asked for a budget increase in fiscal 2025 to add at least 3,000 workers to the customer-service ranks, but it wasn’t approved.

Make no mistake: The starving of Social Security’s administrative resources, which is currently taking place under the guise of ferreting out fraud and waste, is no accident. It’s part of a decades-long Republican project aimed at undermining public confidence in the program.

Back in 1983, for example, the libertarian Cato Institute published an article by Stuart Butler and Peter Germanis calling for a “Leninist” strategy to “prepare the political ground” for privatizing Social Security on behalf of “the banks, insurance companies, and other institutions that will gain from providing such plans to the public.” Political opposition, as it happens, resulted in the death of George W. Bush’s push to privatize Social Security in 2005.

Germanis has since become a fierce critic of conservative economics and politics. Butler, who had spent 35 years at the right-wing Heritage Foundation before joining the Brookings Institution in 2014, told me by email he now advocates a private retirement system as an “add-on” private option rather than an alternative to Social Security. He also said he thinks “cutting staff and the claim that Social Security is rife with fraud and abuse are both ridiculous.” (...)

By the way, the search for waste, fraud and abuse — call it WFA — has a long and discreditable history. Ronald Reagan pledged to ferret out enough WFA to cut the federal budget by more than 6% (sometimes he said 10%). One of his first steps, however, was to fire 15 departmental inspectors general, whose jobs involved finding WFA. Sound familiar? One of Trump’s first orders upon taking office was to fire inspectors-general at 17 federal agencies. (...)

The truth is that Social Security is one of the most efficient agencies in the federal government. Its administrative costs are one-half of one-percent of its total costs, which include benefit payments.

by Michael Hiltzik, LA Times/Seattle Times | Read more:
Image: Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank via
[ed. Like everything else they're doing to hobble government and make it seem inefficient (which it definitely will be once they're done with it, ripe for privatization). Reposting this image in case anyone missed it. The ultimate wet dream of Republicans and Wall Street.]

On Cousins

And  the great cousin decline

Perhaps you’ve heard: Americans are having fewer children, on average, than they used to, and that has some people concerned. In the future, the elderly could outnumber the young, leaving not enough workers to pay taxes and fill jobs. Kids already have fewer siblings to grow up with, and parents have fewer kids to care for them as they age.

Oh, and people also have fewer cousins. But who’s talking about that?

Within many families—and I’m sorry to have to say this—cousins occupy a weird place. Some people are deeply close to theirs, but others see them as strangers. Some cousins live on the same block; some live on opposite sides of the world. That can all be true about any family relationship, but when it comes to this one, the spectrum stretches especially far. Despite being related by blood and commonly in the same generation, cousins can end up with completely different upbringings, class backgrounds, values, and interests. And yet, they share something rare and invaluable: They know what it’s like to be part of the same particular family. 

... cousin connections can be lovely because they exist in that strange gray area between closeness and distance—because they don’t follow a strict playbook. That tenuousness means you often need to opt in to cousin relationships, especially as an adult. And the bond that forms when you do might not be easy to replace. (...)

Your “vertical,” intergenerational bonds can be tight and tremendously meaningful, but they also tend to come with care duties, and a clear hierarchy: Think of a grandparent babysitting their child’s toddler, or an adult tending to their aging parent. At the same time, siblings can easily develop fraught dynamics because of their intense familiarity: Perhaps in childhood you fight over toys, and in adulthood, you argue over an inheritance or your parents’ eldercare.

The classic cousin relationship, relative to that, is amazingly uncomplicated. ... Pop culture is full of sibling antics: bickering, pranking, sticking up for one another in school. Fewer models demonstrate how cousins are supposed to interact.

Without a clear answer, some cousins just … don’t interact often. Only about 6 percent of adult cousins live in the same census tract (typically about the size of a neighborhood); the rest live an average of 237 miles apart. Jonathan Daw, a Penn State sociologist, told me that the rate at which adults donate a kidney to a cousin is quite low: While siblings make up 25 percent of living kidney-donor relationships, cousins constitute less than 4 percent. That’s likely not because they’d decline to give up a kidney, but because many people wouldn’t ask a cousin for something that significant in the first place. Organ donations, he told me, raise the question “What do we owe to each other?” For cousins, the answer might be “Not much.”

Still, a bond that’s light on responsibility doesn’t need to be weak. Researchers told me that cousins can be deeply important—perhaps because of the potential distance in the relationship, not in spite of it. (...)

They might also play a specific role in your larger support network (even if you wouldn’t ask them for a kidney). In one study, Reed and her colleagues found that in the fall of 2020, in the midst of pandemic isolation, about 14 percent of participants reported increasing communication with at least one cousin. The relationship, she said, seemed to be “activated in this time of crisis.” She thinks the fact that cousins are less likely to depend on one another for material help might actually make them well suited to give emotional solace. That can be especially relevant when family difficulties come up; a cousin might be one of the few people who understand your relatives’ eccentricities, virtues, and role within the clan. When a parent dies, Verdery told me, many people bond with their cousins, who just get it in a way others don’t.

That’s the funny thing about cousins: In all other areas of your life, you might not be alike at all. But knowing the nuances of your family ties through decades of exposure—however sporadic—is a form of closeness in itself. The low stakes of your own relationship can make you perfect allies—but the potential for detachment also means you have to work for it. You can intentionally insert yourselves into each other’s lives, or you can slowly fade out of them.

The latter scenario can be understandable. A lot of people, when they’re kids, might run around with their cousins on special occasions—and then go months without seeing them. Perhaps they start to realize that their bonds are somewhat arbitrary; they grow less and less relevant, and ever more awkward. Consider this, though: In middle age and older, the cohesion of a whole family can begin to depend on the bonds between cousins. Along with siblings, cousins become the ones organizing the reunions and the Thanksgiving meals. The slightly random houseguests in your younger years become the stewards of the family in your older ones—as do you.

by Faith Hill, The Atlantic |  Read more:
Image: Stella Blackmon
[ed. Repost. Just got back from a family reunion last week that included tons of cousins that I haven't seen since we were kids (60+ years ago). So much fun, especially since many had memories I'd forgotten or never known.] 

Thursday, March 6, 2025

Luciano Caggianello, SAX

The Government Deficits Land in the Deepest Pockets

With our most reliable valuation measures more extreme than both the 1929 and 2000 market peaks, we continue to believe that the stock market is tracing out the extended peak of the third great speculative bubble in U.S. history. Since the initial January 2022 market peak, the equal-weighted S&P 500 has clocked a cumulative total return less than 2.4% ahead of Treasury bills, while the small-cap Russell 2000 has lagged T-bills by more than -10.6% since then. The capitalization-weighted S&P 500 Index has performed better during this period only by driving the price/revenue multiple of the information technology sector to levels that easily exceed the 2000 extreme.

While record valuations, unfavorable market internals, and recurring warning flags have held us to a bearish outlook since the June comment, You Can Ring My Bell, our investment discipline has benefited despite a further market advance since then, partly as a result of the hedging implementation we introduced in the fourth quarter (see the section titled “Good News and Good News” in the October comment, Subsets and Sensibility).

What appears to be an endless bull market advance is actually a classic two-tiered blowoff in speculative glamour stocks. If you missed Bill Hester’s excellent analysis of large-cap market concentration, Slimming Down a Top-Heavy Market, now may be a worthwhile opportunity to recognize how extreme the current situation has become. (...)

From 2016 through 2020, $8.4 trillion in new 10-year deficit spending was approved – a combination of tax cuts and net spending increases, with about $3.6 trillion of that related to pandemic response. From 2020 through 2024, another $4.3 trillion in 10-year deficit spending was approved, about $2.1 trillion of that being pandemic response (Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget). Government deficits, again, are always matched by surpluses in other sectors. In recent years, the primary beneficiaries have been business profits and household savings, though the household savings have gradually been spent down, largely becoming business profits as well.

With regard to the record ratio of financial market capitalization to GDP, the government deficits of the past eight years have bloated the corporate profits on which investors are placing extreme price/earnings multiples while calling it “stock market capitalization.” Meanwhile, the highest income earners have also accumulated the cash and securities that the government issued to finance the deficits. As a result, the massive deficits of recent years are a significant portion of what the deepest pockets presently call “wealth.”

While both the federal debt and federal deficits have declined since 2021, as a share of GDP, even deficits of the present size are unsustainable. Still, it matters enormously how the shortfalls are created. What matters isn’t only whether one borrows, but how revenue is obtained, and how the funds are spent. Long-time readers may recall that I advised members of Congress during the pandemic, and suggested that recovery of subsidies should be largely based on actual economic damage sustained during that crisis. Instead, many businesses received PPP subsidies even though they continued to operate without any shortfall in business, while profit margins soared. As I’ve detailed previously, much of the government support acted as a pure subsidy to corporate profits.

I’m sorry, but there’s a certain irony in the ruse of billionaires consolidating their power under the pretense of “reducing deficits” when it’s exactly the massive deficits of recent years that have boosted their income, profits, and financial market “wealth.” There’s a certain irony to see foxes with mouths full of feathers claiming that they’re defending the henhouse; minding the store while their fingers are deep in the cookie jar of government contracts and foreign quid pro quo. They’re selling a house of cards, and everybody’s merrily picking out furniture.

It adds insult to injury to propose that corporate taxes should be reduced even further, despite the fact that higher corporate profit margins in recent decades have been associated with decidedly lower net business investment as a percentage of revenues. I’ll leave it to conscience to justify it as reasonable to cut meager support for humanitarian aid, social services, medical research, students with disabilities, and other vulnerable populations in order to finance further tax reductions, disproportionately for the wealthy, when 67% of U.S. net worth is already held by the top 10% of Americans and only 2.5% is held by the bottom 50%. Meanwhile, 50% of U.S. equities are held by the top 1% of income earners, with 87% held by the top 10%. Only 1% of U.S. equities are held by the bottom 50%.

Among the pseudo-analyses making the rounds is that a report last year from the General Accounting Office “found” government fraud amounting to $233-521 billion a year. The fascinating aspect, if one actually reads the report, is that this figure isn’t actually a finding at all. It’s a model simulation, based on arbitrary assumptions that explicitly rejected informed input, statistically valid sampling, or data analytics.

That’s not to say that there isn’t fraud in government spending. Indeed, confirmed fraud, as reported by the Office of Management and Budget, amounts to several billion a year: $7.3 billion in the pandemic year of 2020, $4.5 billion in 2021, and $4.4 billion in 2022. Given federal outlays on the order of $7 trillion, much more likely goes undetected. That’s certainly a reason for careful accounting and auditing. It’s not a justification for slash-and-burn by a brigade of drunk guys from the end of the bar ranting about the guvmint. I’ll say this – if one is looking for waste in government, the place to start would be billion-dollar government contracts with corporations, not experienced, career federal workers that comprise less than 1% of the population and less than 2% of the civilian labor force – half the 1950 level and close to the smallest share in U.S. history. The point of the firing isn’t to save money, it’s to install loyalists.

This isn’t who we are

Some people prefer me to “stay in my lane,” but here’s the thing – I went into finance over 40 years ago for two reasons: to serve long-term investors, and to fund efforts to reduce the suffering of vulnerable populations, much of it toward disease eradication, disability, poverty, basic education, homelessness, hospice care, and communities uprooted by conflict. Most of what I’ve earned across decades of market cycles – becoming a leveraged bull after the 1990 plunge, anticipating the tech bubble collapse, navigating the mortgage bubble and its collapse – has gone to those efforts. We’ve been able to do less during the bubble of recent years, though we’ve adapted enough that I expect our work to thrive over the completion of this cycle. In the meantime, as long as I have a voice, I would consider silence in this moment to be a betrayal of the vulnerable communities that we call partners.

Call me naïve, but I still believe that Americans are more alike than different. I think we’re getting played, misdirected by wildly-amplified divisions that have made many of us willing to surrender rule of law, balance of power, human rights, and the defense of democratic allies, while allowing and even encouraging billionaires to enrich themselves at the expense of the vulnerable. We’re fed a constant slideshow of extremes, curated by algorithms, bots, and outrage theatre masquerading as news, that convince us that the worst extremes are representative of the other “side.” Our world is stretched, bent, and distorted by fun house mirrors, and we tell ourselves that we’re only believing our own eyes.

By now, some of us are so angry at the other “side” that we’re perfectly willing to dehumanize others if we can be sold on the idea that cruelty is justice. Retribution. Somehow our divisions have allowed us to buy into the idea that greatness means tolerating an America that abandons its allies, embraces authoritarianism, contemplates the potential benefits of ethnic cleansing and territorial expansionism, elevates parasitic extraction to a core value in foreign relations, and approaches change as a matter of torches, pitchforks, and chainsaws, wielded against the enemy du jour.

This isn’t who we are.

Last week, Theunis Bates, the Editor-in-Chief of The Week observed, “it has become apparent that America is not simply moving past the excesses of progressivism – the compulsory stating of pronouns, the hawking of anti-racism books for babies, the pretending that Emilia Perez is a good movie – but beyond the idea that it’s good to care for others at all. On social media, people have rejoiced at the slashing of U.S. food aid and medicine for people suffering genocide and famine. Musk once told his biographer how his favorite video game had taught him the ‘life lesson’ that ‘empathy is not an asset.’ We’re now seeing what happens when that mantra becomes a governing philosophy.”

This isn’t who we are.

As imperfectly as we’ve pursued our ideals, America has fundamentally stood up for the idea that we share a common humanity, that all of us are connected by common thread that asks for little but decency toward each other, and to promote the general welfare, realizing that “us” could easily have been “them” if the circumstances, wealth, race, or simple realities of our of birth had been different. The world has admired America, and we’ve had pride in ourselves, not because of race, religion, party, wealth, or even common roots, but because we stood for the idea that government by the people – not a despotic, throne-obsessed monarch – and respect for the equal rights of other human beings were self-evident. We’ve failed at that vision a thousand ways, but we’ve never abandoned it. We can’t abandon it now if we hope for America to endure as anything approaching “great.”

“Long live the King.” Sure, and I’m Batman. This isn’t who we are.

My friend Ben Hunt recently described the situation this way: “For the better part of two centuries (I put the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 as my starting point) the United States has tried – sincerely tried as a common goal and as a prominent semantic signature existing through and across political lines – to be both a Great Power and a Good Power. Trumpism is an embrace of America as a Great Power and a rejection of America as a Good Power, in all its forms, both domestic and internationally. More than that, it is an ideological embrace of America as a Great Power, that this is everything America should be, and an ideological rejection of America as a Good Power, that this is something America should never be… I absolutely think this is a tragedy, because the pursuit of great power for great power’s sake transforms every American policy, both foreign and domestic, into a protection racket of one form or another.”

This isn’t who we are.

Only by saying that, out loud, and standing up for it again and again, can we avoid becoming something else entirely.

by John P. Hussman Ph.D., Hussman Funds |  Read more: 
Image: uncredited
[ed. I'm as guilty as anyone for railing against the stupidity, avarice and profiteering we see prevalent in politics and human relations today. And while I rail against MAGA true believers, I once was as idealist and true believing as they are now, convinced everything was as binary as I imagined. Age and a careful study of history cured that mistake. But now I'm convinced this infighting is more dangerous (and distractive) than we realize. We might be sliding into authoritarianism, but if so it'll be a short-lived version of what we've historically experienced. Instead, I fear it'll be more like a blow off top for humanity. While we're fighting each other over scraps, billionaires are building bunkers and tech bros are building AI overlords. Guess who survives and rules in the end? Hint: it ain't us. See also: Democrats Must Become the Workers’ Party Again (TNR) excellent advice from former Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown (recently defeated).]

Etel Adnan, Unshudat al-Matar, (leporello (detail), watercolour and Indian ink on Japanese paper, 20 pages), 2001 [poetry by Badr Shakir al-Sayyab, drawing and handwriting by Etel Adnan]

Paul Celan, Memory Rose into Threshold Speech. The Collected Earlier Poetry: A Bilingual Edition, Mohn und Gedächtnis (1952)

Yes, Shrimp Matter

I left private equity to work on shrimp welfare. When I tell anyone this, they usually think I've lost my mind. I know the feeling — I’ve been there. When I first read Charity Entrepreneurship's proposal for a shrimp welfare charity, I thought: “Effective altruists have gone mad — who cares about shrimp?”

The transition from analyzing real estate deals to advocating for some of the smallest animals in our food system feels counterintuitive, to say the least. But it was the same muscle I used converting derelict office buildings into luxury hotels that allowed me to appreciate an enormous opportunity overlooked by almost everyone, including those in the animal welfare space. I still spend my days analyzing returns (though they’re now measured in suffering averted). I still work to identify mutual opportunities with industry partners. Perhaps most importantly, I still view it as paramount to build trust with people who — initially — sit on opposite sides of the table.

After years of practicing my response to the inevitable raised eyebrows, I now sum it up simply: ignoring shrimp welfare would have been both negligent and reckless.

This may seem like an extreme stance. Shrimp aren't high on the list of animals most people think about when they consider the harms of industrial agriculture. For a long time — up until the last few years — most researchers assumed shrimp couldn't even feel pain. Yet as philosopher Jonathan Birch explains in The Edge of Sentience, whenever a creature is a sentience candidate and we cannot rule out its capacity for conscious experience, we have a responsibility to take its potential for suffering seriously.

We don’t know what it is like to be a shrimp. We do know that if shrimp can suffer, they are doing so in the hundreds of billions.

Counting billions

Why worry about shrimp in a world where so many mammals and birds live in torturous conditions due to industrial agriculture? The answer is that shrimp farming dwarfs other forms of animal agriculture by sheer numbers. An estimated 230 billion shrimp of various species are alive in farms at any given moment — compared to the 779 million pigs, 1.55 billion cattle, 33 billion chickens, and 125 billion farmed fish.

Shrimp are harvested at around 6 months of age, which puts the estimated number slaughtered annually for human consumption at 440 billion. For perspective: that’s more than four times the number of humans who have ever walked the earth. At sea, the numbers are even more staggeringly shrimpy. Globally, 27 trillion shrimp are caught in the wild every year, compared to 1.5 trillion fish.

Despite their size, shrimp are the proverbial “elephant in the room” when discussing animal welfare in food systems. (...)

Shrimp’s nervous system, behavior, and estimated welfare capacity all point toward meaningful sentience. The fact that they haven't been studied as extensively as some other animals should not blind us to the evidence we do have, nor to their evident similarities with better-studied relatives. (...)

Beyond the water

In modern shrimp farming, life begins in a hatchery born to a mother who has endured one of the industry's most severe practices: eyestalk ablation. This procedure involves physically cutting off the appendage from which her eyes protrude — imagine having your optic nerve severed and your entire eye removed, all without anaesthesia. This mutilation, designed to induce spawning, sets the tone for a life marked by intensive farming practices.

At just a few days old, the young shrimp is transferred to a grow-out pond where it will spend the next three to six months of its life. In super-intensive systems, which represent a non-negligible portion of the industry in some regions, 500 to 1,000 shrimp are packed into each square meter. For a creature that grows to 13 centimeters in length, this density makes it impossible to perform natural behaviors like burrowing or resting on the bottom. Instead, the shrimp must swim continuously in the crowded space.

Poor water quality poses a persistent threat, regardless of stocking density. Just as humans need clean air to breathe, shrimp require clean water to survive. Their environment is often impacted by fluctuating oxygen levels and the presence of toxic gases — ammonia and hydrogen sulfide from accumulated waste, to name two. In densely packed systems, these challenges become especially dangerous as a single water quality mishap can rapidly cascade into a mass mortality event. These conditions weaken their immune systems, leading to widespread disease. In what is considered a successful harvest, 20 to 30% of the population may die before reaching market size.

Those who survive face an ending that recent research suggests may be more cruel than previously thought. In the best-case scenario, they're immersed in ice slurry, a practice long considered humane. However, emerging evidence from EEG studies indicates this method merely paralyses the shrimp while still leaving them conscious and capable of feeling pain for an extended period. In many cases, the reality is even harsher — some are left on crates for several minutes to drain excess water weight, while others are forced to endure long-distance transport in severely under-oxygenated barrels for up to eight hours, journeys that can stretch hundreds of kilometers from farm to market.

To be clear, not all shrimp experience every welfare concern listed here, nor do most shrimp suffer from all of them simultaneously. However, these issues arise so frequently that nearly all shrimp will likely experience at least two or more of these welfare violations during their lives.

by Andrés Jiménez Zorrilla, Asterisk |  Read more:
Image: uncredited
[ed. See also: Shrimp: The animals most commonly used and killed for food production (RP).]

The Dragon in My Garage

"The Dragon in My Garage" is a chapter in Carl Sagan's 1995 book The Demon-Haunted World, which presents an analogy where the existence of God is equated with a hypothetical insistence that there is a dragon living in someone's garage. This is similar to Russell's Teapot in the way it forms an apt analogy for the concepts of the burden of proof and falsifiability. The main thrust of how Sagan develops the garage-dwelling dragon example is that the proponent employs increasingly ad hoc reasoning to describe their belief in the face of further questions. Eventually, the goalposts are moved in such a way as to render the initial assertion practically unfalsifiable. In a more general sense, this part may be done during the initial definition of the belief, or as when replying to critical examination of the belief in question.

Dragon-style arguments originate in what Daniel Dennett terms "belief in belief": rather than actually holding a belief, you think you should hold the belief — or "fake it till you make it". The post hoc justifications come from cognitive dissonance between what the believers think they should believe and how these beliefs would actually manifest in practical terms. While such justifications need to be made quickly on an ad hoc basis, someone declining all these tests must, somewhere in their head, have a model that makes them not expect to see this sort of evidence at all. This is tantamount to not really holding the belief (since you'd expect to see something if you really did believe), but just thinking that they do, hence "belief in belief". This is often rationalised away in much the same manner that the metaphorical dragon is, by changing the rules to say that the dragon doesn't really need to have a real effect on our lives to have a real effect on our lives. What? Exactly.

In the case of the dragon, we expect footprints and flames, in the case of miracles and prayer we expect the ability to test them — and proponents subsequently attempt to hide these things from experimental scrutiny.

Sagan described the discussion as follows:

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle — but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

How do I do this?

It's easy to create your own unfalsifiable belief. Just follow these steps:
  1. Express a belief
  2. Someone proposes a way in which the belief can be tested
  3. Add or change an attribute of the belief to render the proposed test invalid, and simply reiterate step 1
by RationalWiki |  Read more:
Image: YouTube via
[ed. Applicable to a variety of situations and professions (lawyers and politicians in particular) but especially prevalent among MAGA supporters (lawyers and politicians know they're purposely being evasive). Facts are useless. They've already drunk deeply from the religion of Trump, and like any religion, their support and commitment is grounded in faith. Facts don't and won't matter until they're the ones getting shafted (which'll happen soon enough), and even then they'll dragonize them away. For fun, just ask them to define "Make", "Great" and "Again" and watch the froth fly. See also: Elon Musk and the Useless Spending-Cut Theater of DOGE (NYT):]
***
Riedl: I think Donald Trump is a big government populist who reflects where the Republican Party is today. Today’s Republican Party is older, lower income, more dependent on not just Social Security and Medicare, but programs like Medicaid and SNAP. It also includes a lot of veterans who want veteran spending and a lot of people concerned about defense.

So, overall, you have a big government populist party. But what’s interesting in this populism is, while they’re definitely more comfortable with government spending than past Republicans, they’re also accelerating the tax cut rhetoric. And as an economist, I look at that and say something’s got to give. (...)

French: So, what is your best estimate about the DOGE savings right now?

Riedl: Perhaps $2 billion, which they claim is $55 billion. Even that $2 billion may not ultimately happen because technically speaking, DOGE cannot impound and unilaterally reduce federal spending. Any spending cuts legally have to be reprogrammed elsewhere unless Congress goes in and reduces the spending levels. So right now I would say DOGE has saved $2 billion, which, to put it in context, is one-thirty-fifth of 1 percent of the federal budget, otherwise known as budget dust. [ed. emphasis added]

Riedl: The budget resolution mostly consists of $4.5 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years.

They’re also indicating they’ll offset this with cuts to Medicaid, SNAP and other nutrition spending, and likely student loans. I’m skeptical that Congress can actually pass this. If they don’t, it will be a $4.5 trillion cost over 10 years.

The budget also promises discretionary savings far into the future, but there’s nothing enforcing that and there’s no reason to take it seriously. The budget also assumes a huge growth in tax revenues from economic growth. That is more of a gimmick. It’s not going to happen.

French: It’s been a while since I’ve had a math class, but it sounds like what you’re saying is they’re cutting $2 billion for savings but they’re adding $4,500 billion in deficit. It’s $2 billion versus $4,500 billion. Those are very, very different numbers.

Trump and DOGE have been focused on reducing the number of federal employees. What would the impact be on the federal deficit of, say, cutting 300,000 or 400,000 federal employees?

Riedl: Here’s one way to look at it: There are 2.3 million civilian employees. If we eliminated one quarter of them — which would be remarkable, that would be laying off nearly 600,000 workers and not replacing them — you would save 1 percent of federal spending. (...)

French: Suppose you wanted to be serious about cutting the deficit. Where does federal money go? And as a corollary to that, what has to be cut or what kind of revenue has to be raised to meet these obligations?

Riedl: When I explain where the money goes, it’ll be clear why we’re not cutting it.

Seventy-five percent of all federal spending goes to six items: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, veterans and interest. That is 75 cents of every dollar. Everything the government does besides that — education, health research, housing, justice, homeland security — that’s all the other 25 percent. But Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are the big drivers. That’s really the ballgame.