Technology – REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE

Orwell & A.I.

In the pre-A.I. age, democratic socialism is unachievable, but A.I. may resurrect its potential. However, as Orwell noted, the risk is a “Brave New World” rather than a hoped-for democratic socialism.

GEORGE ORWELL (Author, 1903-1950)

In Norm Chomsky’ ‘s and Nathan Schneider’s book, “On Anarchy”, George Orwell’s book “Homage to Catalonia” is called one of Chomsky’s favorite books. “On Anarchy” infers Orwell believed in anarchy because of his role in the war (1936-1939) against the Franco government. Though Orwell’s risk of life in Spain’s war is inconceivable to me, it seems prudent to listen to his story and point to the significant difference between what Chomsky and Schneider infer about Orwell’s belief in “…Anarchism” and what Orwell really wrote and believed. Though Orwell takes anarchism seriously as a political working-class movement, he believes it is impractical and that democratic socialism (with “1984” reservations) is what he believes could be the best form of government. The idea of abolishing all forms of coercive authority and hierarchy with a government anarchy is impractical because of the nature of human beings.

Francisco Franco with his soldiers in 1936.

Because of Orwell’s belief in democracy and equality he chooses to join the fight against Franco’s fascism. He joins the resistance at the age of 33 because of his belief in democratic socialism. He felt he needed to join the ideological struggle against Franco’s regime. It is a remarkable decision considering he is married, and relatively unknown. He is oddly driven by his moral belief in democracy and equality. Presumably, he entered the war to understand what it means to fight a war against a government he felt was immoral and totalitarian. Orwell served for approximately six months beginning in December 1936. He was shot in the throat and nearly died.

Anarchy and human nature.

It seems inconceivable that anarchism is a reasonable way of governing human nature. It is interesting to contrast what Orwell believes and what anarchists argue. This is particularly relevant in the 21st century because of the inevitable change in society that is occurring with artificial intelligence. A.I. has an immense potential for creating Orwell’s “Brave New World”. However, his writings reject the ideal of “Anarchy” espoused by Chomsky and Schneider because of its impracticality. Orwell shows that human nature contains both heroism and weakness tied to the material world. Even though human nature is basically decent, it is easily corrupted. That corruption makes humans hope and fear human decisions designed by consensus. It is not to say democratic socialism would be infallible, but it offers a structure for regulation of different governments at chosen intervals of time.

“The Laws of Human Nature” is a tour deforce of what one learns in life.

Human nature will not change. Human nature is a set of relatively stable psychological, biological, and social tendencies that are shared by all human beings. These tendencies shape how humans think, feel, and act even as culture and governance changes. Artificial intelligence will only intensify the strengths and weaknesses of human nature. The principles of anarchy in an A.I. world is frightening:

No centralized government, police, or standing armies.
Society organized through federations of communes, cooperatives, or councils.
Emphasis on direct democracy, mutual aid, and local autonomy.
Suspicion of any coercive authority — even democratic majorities.
Change often imagined as revolutionary, not incremental.

A more rational alternative to Anarchy is Democratic Socialism believed by Orwell and espoused by MLK.

The state remains, but becomes more egalitarian and accountable.
Markets may still exist, but are regulated or supplemented by public ownership.
Political parties and electoral competition are central.
Emphasis on universal programs: healthcare, education, housing, worker protections.
Change is gradual, through reforms, not revolution.

Differences of opinion.

There are obvious differences between Chomsky’s and Orwell’s beliefs. Both have social weaknesses. Human nature gets in the way of both forms of governance. Orwell seems to have recognized the weaknesses of his belief in democratic socialism in his writing of “Brave New World”. In contrast, Chomsky’s and Schneider’s pollyannish view of anarchy as “…a better form of government where power is decentralized and citizens can and should collectively manage their own affairs through direct democracy and cooperative organizations” is absurd. The difference is that Orwell foresees the dangers of his idea in “Brave New World” which anticipates something like A.I. that has the potential for society’s destruction. “On Anarchy” ignores the truth of human nature, “Brave New World” does not.

Franciso Franco (1936-1975, died in office.)

Orwell’s decision to join opposition to Franco’s dictatorship fails. Their right-wing beliefs in authoritarianism, anti-communism, and pro-Catholicism prevails. Spain’s 1930s opposition leaders (Manuel Azaña, Largo Caballero, and Juan Negrín) were pro-democracy with anti-fascist, socialists, communists, anarchists, trade unions, urban workers, and peasants who Orwell joined to support democratic socialism, not anarchy.

SUICIDE

“We Are the Nerds” is a story about “Nerdom” and the tragic loss of Aaron Swartz to his loving family and the world of coding.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

WE ARE THE NERDS (The Birth and Tumultuous Life of Reddit, the Internet’s Culture Laboratory)

Author: Christine Lagorio-Chafkin

Narration by: Chloe Cannon

Christine Lagorio-Chafkin (Author, reporter, podcaster based in New York.)

Relistening to “We are the Nerds” may be reviewed from a perspective of the future of newspapers but that diminishes the tragedy of Aaron Schwarz’s suicide.

The original founders of what became known as Reddit were Steve Huffman and Alexis Ohanian, graduates from the University of Virginia. A third partner, Aaron Swartz, is invited into the company because of his tech experience in creating a company called Infogami which merged with Reddit. With the addition of Infogami, the original founders of Reddit created a parent organization called “Not a Bug, Inc”. Schwartz insists on being called a co-founder because of his contribution to Reddit as a programmer. That insistence rankled Huffman and Ohanian which grew into a resentment that fills the pages of the author’s story.

Steve Huffman on the left with Alexis Ohanian and his wife, Serena Williams, and their daughter on the right.

The author seems to minimize Schwartz’s contribution to Reddit despite the framework he created that made Reddit scale more quickly because of its open access and community-driven cultural impact. Swartz’s contributed code appears to have been an important step in the useability of Reddit by the public. However, in fairness to the original founders, the author infers that contribution pales in respect to the extensive coding and work done by Huffman. The point is that this conflict becomes an irritant that leads to the departure of Swartz from Reddit in 2007, after it was acquired by Condé Nast in 2006. That acquisition made all three original coders millionaires.

Swartz’s life and premature death is a tragic encomium to the story of Reddit’s success as a public forum.

By some measure, Swartz is a brilliant human being, but his intelligence is accompanied by what might be characterized as a self-destructive personality. His ability as a computer nerd is evident in his High School days in Highland Park, Illinois. He goes on to Stanford, but its educational regimen leads him to leave after his first year. He preferred independent learning. Schwartz’s remarkable ability led him to become a research fellow at Harvard University in 2010. He became a self-taught intellectual with an activist belief in academic freedom that eventually led him to rebel against authority. He was arrested in 2011 for allegedly breaking into MIT’s computer network without authorization. He was charged for computer fraud and faced 34 years in prison and a million-dollar fine. At the age of 26, Swartz hung himself and died on January 11th, 2013.

An American mass media company founded in 1909.

Huffman and Ohanian believed Swartz’s contributions to Reddit were less than theirs in creating the company they sold to Condé Nast that made them millionaires. Swartz’s idealism and independence conflicted with the original founders of Reddit who seemed more interested in building a public platform that could make them rich. Though Ohanian believed they sold too soon, all three agreed to Condé Nast’s final offer that made them millionaires.

In retrospect, Ohanian may have been right about the future value of Reddit. Condé Nast spun Reddit out to an independent subsidiary under Advance Publications where it became a 42-billion-dollar success by 2025. Today, Huffman’s net worth is estimated at $1.2 billion as a result of his Reddit shares. Though Ohanian may not have held on to his shares, his net worth is estimated at $150-$170 million. Not bad for two University of Virginia graduates. However, as Plato observed, “The greatest wealth is to live content with little”. Swartz’s life seems to have had little to do with desire for wealth.

“We Are the Nerds” is a story about “Nerdom” and the tragic loss of Aaron Swartz to his loving family and the world of coding.

A.I. TOMOROW

A.I.s’ contribution to society is similar to the history of nuclear power, it will be constructively or destructively used by human beings. On balance, “Burn-In” concludes A.I. will mirror societies values. As has been noted in earlier book reviews, A.I. is a tool, not a controller of humanity.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

BURN-IN (A Novel of the Real Robotic Revolution)

Author: P. W. Singer, August Cole

Narration by: Mia Barron

Peter Warren Singer (on the left) is an American political scientist who is described by the WSJ as “the premier futurist in the national security environment”. August Cole is a co-author who is also a futurist and regular speaker before US and allied government audiences.

As an interested person in Artificial Intelligence, I started, stopped, and started again to listen to “Burn-In”.

The subject of the book is about human adaptation to robotics and A.I. It shows how humans, institutions, and societies may be able to better serve society on the one hand and destroy it on the other. Some chapters were discouraging and boring to this listener because of tedious explanations of robot use in the future. The initial test is in the FBI, an interesting choice in view of the FBI’s history which has been rightfully criticized but also acclaimed by American society.

Starting, stopping, and restarting is a result of the author’s unnecessary diversion to a virtual reality game being played by inconsequential characters.

In an early chapter several gamers are engaged in VR that distracts listeners from the theme of the book. It is an unnecessary distraction from the subject of Artificial Intelligence. Later chapters suffer the same defect. However, there are some surprising revelations about A.I.’s future.

The danger in societies future remains in the power of knowledge. The authors note the truth is that A.I.’s lack of knowledge is what has really become power. Presumably, that means technology needs to be controlled by algorithms created by humans that limit knowledge of A.I.’ systems that may harm society.

“Burn-In” is meant to reveal how human-machine integration challenges human society, both ethically and pragmatically.

That integration has massive implications for military, industrial, economic, and societal roles of human beings. The principles of human work, social relations, capitalist/socialist economies and their governance are changed by the advance of machine learning based on Artificial Intelligence. Machine learning may cross thresholds between safety and freedom to become systems of control with potential for human societies destruction. At one extreme is China’s surveillance state; on the other is western societies belief in relative privacy.

Robot evolution.

Questions of accountability become blurred when self-learning machines gain understanding beyond human capabilities. Do humans choose to trust their instincts or a machines’ more comprehensive understanding of facts? Who adapts to whom in the age of Artificial Intelligence? These are the questions raised by the authors’ story.

F.B.I. Fallibility

The main character of Singer’s and Cole’s story is Lara Keegan, a female FBI agent. She is a seasoned investigator with an assigned “state of the art” police robot. The relationship between human beings and A.I. robots is explored. What trust can a human have of a robotic partner? What control is exercised by a human partner of an A.I.’ robot? What autonomy does the robot have that is assigned to a human partner? Human and robot partnership in policing society are explored in “Burn-In”. The judgement of the author’s story is nuanced.

In “Burn-In” a flood threatens Washington D.C., the city in which Keegan and the robot work.

The Robot’s aid to Keegan saves the life of a woman threatened by the flood as water fills an underground subway. Keegan hears the woman calling for help and asks the robot to rescue the frightened woman. The robot submerges itself in the subway’ flood waters, saves the woman and returns to receive direction from Keegan to begin building a barrier to protect other citizens near the capitol. The Robot moves heavy sacks filled with sand and dirt, with surrounding citizens help in loading more sacks. The robot tirelessly builds the barrier with strength and efficiency that could not have been accomplished by the people alone. The obvious point being the cooperation of robot and human benefits society.

The other side of that positive assessment is that a robot cannot be held responsible for work that may inadvertently harm humans.

Whatever human is assigned an A.I robot loses their privacy because of robot’ programing that knows the controller’s background, analyzes his/her behavior, and understands its assigned controller from that behavior and background knowledge. Once an assignment is made, the robot is directed by a human that may or may not perfectly respond in the best interest of society. Action is exclusively directed by the robot’s human companion. A robot is unlikely to have intuition, empathy, or moral judgement in carrying out the direction of its assigned human partner. There is also the economic effect of lost human employment as a result of automation and the creation of robot’ partners and laborers.

Nuclear annihilation.

U.S. WEALTH GAP

Capitalism should be designed to ameliorate the wealth gap, not exaggerate it to the point of people going hungry in one of the richest countries in the world. Capitalism is the greatest economic system in the world, but equality of opportunity remains a work in progress that is made worse by poor government policies and the inherent faults of human nature.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

This Time is Different (Eight Centuries of Financial Folly)

Author: Carmen Reinhart, Kenneth Rogoff

Narration by: Sean Pratt

Carmen Reinhart (on the left) is a Cuban American economist and Professor of the International Financial System at Harvard Kennedy School of Business. She has a Ph.D. from Columbia University. Kenneth Rogoff is an American economist and chess Grandmaster who received a B.A. and M.A. from Yale and a PhD in Economics from MIT.

Two well educated academics try to explain why world economies are not unique by arguing the patterns of financial crises are similar, if not identical.

They argue heavy borrowing, inflated optimism, bank collapses, high inflation and currency devaluations are common characteristics of nation-state financial crises. These nation-state government actions and reactions are a result of innate human behaviors. They argue recurrent financial crises feed off of each other to spread economic chaos that creates panic among economic movers and shakers of national economies.

Our American government.

The importance of Reinhart’s and Rogoff’s observation is particularly interesting in light of the economic disruptions of the current American government. History shows America is not exempt from economic crises. In 2008’s economic crises America carries a large responsibility for itself and other nations near collapse. The 2008 economic crisis shows how domestic debt can threaten the world, let alone one country.

Maybe American government is not above the law, but a President shows he is capable of bending it.

In light of Donald Trump’s directed tariff war and his “…Big Beautiful Bill Act” that eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security, tips, and overtime pay, America’s national debt is likely to balloon. He is gambling American citizens’ future on belief that tax reductions will be offset by economic gains from improved industrial development. This is at a time when industrial development is being impacted by arbitrary firing of government employees, AI innovations that reduce employment, and industry employees retiring or transitioning to a service economy that pays less livable wages.

Trump’s tax policy will continue its top tax rate at 37% despite the government’s earlier intent to have it revert to 39.6%.

The effect of these tax policy changes is expected to reduce tax revenues by 4 to 5 trillion dollars at a time when America’s debt has never been higher. It is estimated at $38 Trillion dollars today. America’s interest rate on that debt is 3.393%, more than double the rate of five years ago. The increasing rate is related to the believed risk of U.S. default which will most likely rise with Trump’s tax breaks. U.S. debt has never been higher. Interest at its present rate will consume 14% of the federal government’s outlay in 2028. That 14% could help pay for the Affordable Care Act that is opposed by the Republican majority. The Trump tax policy implies continued heavy borrowing, an inflated optimism that threatens bank collapses, high inflation, and currency devaluations. Though the authors are not writing that America is on the verge of economic collapse, their observations infer a crisis is nearing, if not inevitable.

The gap between rich and poor in America is unconscionable.

MEDIA PLATFORMS

Cory Doctorow shows how the American public is being taken advantage of by today’s major private media owners and manipulators.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Enshittification

Author: Cory Doctorow

Narrated By: Martin Sheen

Cory Doctorow (Author, Canadian-British blogger, journalist)

Despite the poor choice of titles for Cory Doctorow’s book, his theme of internet corruption is inevitable because of the nature of human beings. The corruption of which Doctorow writes is evident in most mega-corporations and governments. The only difference is in their motivation, i.e. whether it is money, power, or both in world organizations.

Elon Musk (Businessman, billionaire, entrepreneur, leader of Tesla, SpaceX, Twitter, and xAI.)

The first part of Doctorow’s book is an evisceration of the famous Elon Musk. Not surprisingly, Doctorow is not a fan of Elon Musk. Musk is an example of the theme of Doctorow’s book. Musk’s acquisition and decimation of a widely used communication platform known as Twitter exemplifies “Enshittification”. Doctorow infers Musk’s desire to have a free speech forum is actually a betrayal of the principle of free speech. The reality is that Musk has only created a Megaphone for his personal biased beliefs. Musk’s first action in the Twitter acquisition is to fire essential employees to reduce costs of operation. One presumes from Doctorow’s theme that Musk’s first step results in “Enshittification” of Twitter. Twitter’s new name is “X”. “X”s value has plummeted just as the American government’s service to the poor has fallen. With Musk’s singular focus on reducing cost, without consideration of effectiveness, enshittification is virtually guaranteed by Musk’s actions.

(Though not mentioned by Doctorow, it seems to this critic, that Musk’s firing of government employees under Trump, is similar to the dismantling of Twitter. The firing of government employees results in citizen-service’ losses equivalent to Twitter’s loss of advertisers.)

Traditional media is a one-way broadcast of information whereas the Internet is two-way interactive communication. Anyone can publish on the internet while singular corporations or institutions that own traditional media have only a one-way form of communication. The internet is global, instant, and decentralized while traditional media is scheduled for delivery and centralized. Access with on-demand, 24/7 internet are not time-bound like traditional media. The cost of using the internet is low and often free while traditional media entails infrastructure costs.

Trouble arises with the internet because of its ubiquitous availability while traditional media is singularly targeted.

The internet is immediate while publications are period based. It is possible to precisely and instantaneously measure internet responses based on clicks, views, and engagement while traditional media relies on third party analysis by publishers or by hired companies like Nielsen. Doctorow shows how differences between internet and traditional media exacerbate loss of privacy and increase potential for massive societal disruption. The internet can immediately influence and potentially control social beliefs. In less capitalist and more authoritarian governments the danger of the internet is direct influence and control of its citizens.

In American capitalism, the danger lies more in the drive for profitability than the control of social and political belief.

Doctorow argues America’s social norms are being corrupted by disparate industries that are creating tech platforms to monopolize product consumption only for economic gain, not service to its users. The consequence erodes trust of the public, distorts accountability, and thwarts free choice. The ruling classes of American society can evade traditional checks and balances. The utility of the internet can be used to distort the truth. Corporate objective is to make more money, not to benefit public discourse, improve product, reduce product cost, or improve service, but to monopolize consumption.

On the one hand, Doctorow acknowledges social media platforms optimize engagement. However, these platforms become forums for outrage, and misinformation that tribalizes society.

Rather than improving connections between people, algorithms are created by users of a media platform to exacerbate outrage, foster conspiracy theories, stir up and ultimately exhaust the public. The objective is increase clicks to make buyers of advertising to purchase time on their platform. As a free society, Doctorow suggests Democracy can mitigate the “Enshittification” by regulating the internet. He argues that one’s use of a platform should not monopolize personal information by restricting one’s right to take their information with them if they become unhappy. Platforms should not be prisons that restrict users legal right to their personal information if they choose to change platform providers. He argues for a breakup of major providers like Amazon, Facebook, Google, X, and Adobe.

Doctorow argues for more transparency in the algorithms being used by media platforms.

The public should be informed about how a platform’s algorithms are being used to steer the public. Individuals should be given the opportunity to opt out of algorithmic categories if they wish. Regulatory agencies should be created with the right to enforce consumer protections. He notes the EU’s move to require platform accountability. In general, Doctorow argues that the internet should return to its roots as a space for mutual aid, free expression, and innovation.

Internet Moguls: CEO Google Pichai, CEO Meta Zuckerberg, CEO Apple Cook, Executive Chairman of Amazon Bezos

Doctorow is not the first to propose reform of the internet.

Some time back, Tim Wu, a Columbia law professor, notes that Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google had shifted from serving users to extracting value from them. He argued for antitrust enforcement, regulation, and restrictions on content and infrastructure. American Democracy is a safer environment for public media than what is being experienced in countries like China and Russia where all media is tightly controlled by the government. However, Doctorow shows how the American public is being taken advantage of by today’s major private media owners and manipulators.

Doctorow argues for the breakup of internet companies that have become too big. He believes returning the internet to the service of society requires a more level playing field to equitably serve the public.

RISK/REWARD

“IF ANYONE BUILDS IT, EVERYONE DIES” is an alarmist, and unnecessarily pessimistic view of the underlying value of Artificial Intelligence. This is not to suggest there are no risks in A.I. but its potential outweighs its risks.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

IF ANYONE BUILDS IT, EVERYONE DIES

Author: Eliezer Yudkowsky, and Nate Soares

Narrated By: Rae Beckley

Eliezer Yudkowsky is a self-taught A.I. researcher without a formal education. As an A.I. researcher, Yudkowsky founded the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI). Nate Soares received an undergraduate degree from George Washington University and became President of MIRI. Soares had worked as an engineer for Google and Microsoft. Soares also worked for the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Dept. of Defense.

Dangers of A.I. to humanity

“IF ANYONE BUILDS IT, EVERYONE DIES” is difficult to follow because it’s convoluted examples and arguments are unclear. The fundamental concern the writers have is that A.I. will self-improve to the point of being a threat to humanity. They argue that A.I. will grow to be more interested in self-preservation than an aid to human thought and existence. The irony of their position is that humanity is already a threat to itself from environmental degradation, let alone nuclear annihilation. The truth is humanity needs the potential of A.I. to better understand life and what can be done to preserve it.

To this listener/reader environmental degradation is a greater risk than the author’s purported threats of A.I.

Pessimism is justified in the same way one can criticize capitalism.

The authors have a point of view that is too pessimistic about A.I. and its negative potential without recognizing how poorly society is structured for war and killing itself without Artificial Intelligence. The advance of A.I. unquestionably has risks just as today’s threat of mutual nuclear annihilation but A.I.s’ potential for changing the course of civilization for the better exceeds the agricultural and industrial revolutions of the past.

The nature and intelligence of human beings is underestimated by Yudkowsky and Soares.

There have been a number of amazing human discoveries that have accelerated since the beginning of civilization in Mesopotamia. Humans like Einstein and their insight to the universe will be aided, not controlled, by the potential of A.I. Artificial Intelligence is no more a danger to humanity than the loss of craftsman during the industrial revolution. Civilization will either adapt to revelations coming from A.I. or environmental degradation or human stupidity will overtake humanity.

Don’t succumb to panic. Life is life. A.I. advances require human courage.

THE WEST

Though Mahbubani’s book is quite provocative, it is short and interesting. “How the West Lost It” is certainly worth reading/listening to, but few Presidents of the United States have reversed the admittedly slow improvement of “equality of opportunity” in America.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

How the West Lost It (A Provocation)

Author: Kishore Mahbubani

Narrated By: Jonathan Keeble

Kishore Mahbubani (Author, Singaporean diplomat and geopolitical consultant, former Fellow at Harvard University’s Center for International Relations, formally served as the United Nations Security Council President.)

Mr. Mahbubani’s short book suggests the highly provocative belief that the West’s dominance of the world is giving way to Asia, particularly China and India. To mitigate the West’s decline, Mahbubani argues–the West needs to develop a more “coherent and competitive global strategy”. Paul Kennedy of Yale University praises Mahbubani’s assessment. The public commentator Fareed Zakaria endorses Mahbubani’s belief, and Hilton Root of “The Independent Review” acknowledges Mahbubani’s inference that “the West’s overperformance was a historical aberration and the East’s rise reflects a rebalancing of history”. Despite Root’s measured support of Mahbubani’s book, his analysis is nuanced. Root argues the decline of the West is oversimplified and that Mahbubani underestimates the resilience of Western economies.

Mahbubani argues Great Britain’s Brexit and Trump’s re-election are reactions to the West’s economic decline.

Edwad Luce argues Western liberalism needs to be reinvented by investment in a technological revolution for all Americans, not just those who have benefited from the industrial revolution. However, China seems to have read the future better than the West by building up their reserves of rare metals needed for advanced computer chips. In contrast, President Trump chooses to antagonize allies as well as competitors with a foolish trade war.

Root believes the innovative capacity and adaptability of the West will make adjustments to remain competitive, if not the dominant economic power of the world. Trump’s trade war suggests otherwise. Trump’s attitude is to ignore the years of built-up trust with Western allies and attack the world with destructive economic tariffs meant to right wrongs that are figments of real-politic’ imagination. However, some believe Mahbubani discounts political freedom and the drive of both the West and East to improve citizens’ living standards. That seems somewhat plausible, but Trump is attacking Americas most highly regarded universities with specious concerns with what he considers overactive recruitment of immigrants and minorities. The truth is American education for immigrants aids the strength and influence of Democracy in the world.

Yale University (American education for immigrants aids the strength and influence of Democracy in the world.)

The long cultural, educational, and technological influence of the West may be diminished by some of today’s political leaders but the trend over the last 200 years is unlikely to be reversed by Trump’s misguided authoritarianism. Trump’s significant risks are partially mitigated by publicly ingrained western democratic values. Though democracy is messy, it has demonstrated long-term stability and innovation that equals or exceeds the worst of what Trump’s authoritarianism is doing to the American economy and its institutions. Three more years of Trump’s presidency will not erase America’s legacy or destroy its future.

Though Mahbubani’s book is quite provocative, it is short, impactful, and interesting. “How the West Lost It” is certainly worth reading/listening to, but few Presidents of the United States have reversed the admittedly slow improvement of “equality of opportunity” in America. Mahbubani argues for a more diplomatic American policy with rising nations in the East because he believes China will ultimately replace America as the leading economy in the world.

The interpretation of the Constitution has changed over the last 200 years, but it stands for continuity for America’s present and future.

The direction of American society remains true to the fundamental beliefs of liberty, equality, sovereignty, rule of law, separation of powers, federalism, checks and balances, and individual rights. Trump is challenging some of those rights, but balance of power and term limits will ultimately rescue America from his misbegotten domestic and international blunders. These rights have been challenged at different times in America’s history but never permanently reversed.

SCIENCE & ART

Science is unquestionably dependent on precise measurement while art or literature may have little to do with it.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Perfectionists

Author: Simon Winchester (How Precision Engineers Created the Modern World)

Narrated By: Simon Winchester

Simon Winchester (British-American author and journalist)

The beginning of “The Perfectionist” has an interesting vignette about Simon Winchester’s father that sets the table for his book. Simon’s father is characterized as an engineer that was asked to investigate why ammunition being used during WWII was misfiring. Bernard Winchester went to the production’ plant and precisely measured the ammunition that was being manufactured. Its quality was found to be well within specifications required to fire properly when used. Simon’s father followed a shipload of the ammunition to its destination to re-measure the specifications after delivery. The on-board jostling of cargo boxes caused miniscule damage to ammunition resulting in misfires in the field. Simon’s father’s discovery led to better packaging of the ammunition. Simon notes his father is highly praised by the military for his diligent investigation which made corrections in the way ammunition was packaged for transport to the front.

Simon’s father followed a shipload of ammunition to its destination to re-measure the specifications after delivery.

Simon Winchester’s story of his father is the subject of “The Perfectionist”. There are many ways of categorizing the advance of civilization. Manufacturing precision is Simon Winchester’s category of choice. Simon explains how improvements in precision, reaching as far back as the 18th century, led to technological advancement in the modern world. To Winchester, much of that advancement came from the needs of the military.

Winchester notes that John Wilkinson standardized and precisely measured cannon barrel rifling in the 1770s to improve accuracy.

The inaccuracy of weapons like cannons, mass production of reliable weaponry, and strategic advantage for military commands were founded on improvements in precision. Winchester notes that John Wilkinson standardized and precisely measured cannon borings in the 1770s to improve accuracy and reliability in battle. In the 1800s, the French began standardizing gun parts to allow interchangeability when field weapons were damaged or just quit working. In visiting France, Thomas Jefferson recognized the value of that interchangeability during America’s civil war when weapons often broke down and could only be repaired by craftsman who understood how a uniquely designed gun could be repaired.

Eli Whitney chose to hoodwink the American government during the War of Independence when he falsely claims to have a manufacturing plant that could produce standard gun parts.

Around 1801, Whitney contracts with the government and is paid but never produces any standardized parts. Whitney puts on a false show of interchangeability with parts that were manufactured by craftsman rather than a standardized process of production. (Whitney is neither penalized or required to repay the government.) The consequence of mass production of precise gun parts and ammunition is to kill more people in war which started an arms race that continues through to today. Progress in weapon design and manufacture is a harbinger of good and ill. Moving away from weapon production to the rise of industrialization, precise measurement remains a critical component of societies’ modernization.

Though there are precursors to the steam engine that reach back before the 18th century, James Watt (pictured here) revolutionizes its design with the help of Matthew Boulton.

Winchester explains how refinement of the steam engine enables the Industrial Revolution. Watt is obsessed with refining the containment of steam from an operating engine. Watt knows leakage of steam is correlated with loss of steam engine power and potential. The key to achieving better efficiency comes from John Wilkinson who develops a machine that could bore a precise hole through solid iron. With that level of precision, Watt recognized he could produce an engine with perfectly cylindrical, leak-proof chambers that could more efficiently power pistons to produce energy. Watt, Boulton, and Wilkinson open the world to the industrial revolution. Winchester suggests precision is the pursuit of perfection, i.e., a preeminent turning point in history. One may take issue with that conclusion because invention and innovation seem more important than precision, which is a tool rather than a cause for modernity.

The remarkable story of the jet engine is told by Winchester.

It is surprising that the jet engine became a reality as early as the beginning of WWII. Like nuclear bomb invention, Germany’s Hitler initially fails to grasp the importance of jet engine propulsion. However, Germany becoming the first to create a jet plane, the Heinkel He 178, to fly with jet propulsion. Hitler is more focused on refinement of the V-2 rocket as a revenge weapon against England than on jet propulsion for airplanes.

Frank Whittle (1907-1996, English aviation engineer and pilot who invented the jet engine.)

The original idea for the jet engine came from Frank Whittle, a British engineer in the early 1930s. Whittle realized Newton’s laws of energy could propel an airplane without propellers. Newton’s third law says for every action in one direction there is an equal but opposite energy reaction. Whittle acquired a patent on the idea of a jet engine but because of the five-pound cost of patent renewal and lack of any financial support for his brilliant idea, his patent expired. As a result, no single entity holds a patent on jet propulsion. It is not until May of 1941, that Frank Whittle’s turbojet engine first flies a plane.

1945 Gloster Meteor British jet.

There are many issues to be resolved for the idea of a jet engine to propel an airplane. There is the extreme pressure and heat generated by fuel being ignited within a turbine that must be designed with precise measurements, i.e., measurements within millionths of an inch. Winchester notes that the slightest deviation in blade shape, alignment, or material composition could cause vibration, inefficiency, or worse–engine failure and pilot death. The jet engine components had to endure extreme temperature changes and withstand metal fatigue while operating with high-speed rotating parts. Thousands of parts had to be precisely designed and integrated to provide the propulsion necessary for flight.

Whittle’s ultimate success leads him to be Knighted in 1948.

Whittle is recruited in 1937 by British Thomson-Houston, an engineering firm, to build a prototype of a jet engine. With money to create a prototype, Whittle turned his design idea into reality. With the help of two retired RAF officers, Whittle formed a company called Power Jets Ltd. In 1944, Britan nationalized Power Jets Ltd and Whittle was compelled to resign from the board in 1946. However, Whittle was ultimately recognized and knighted in 1948 for his contribution to Jet engine development.

The next big area of change addressed by Winchester is computer chip manufacture.

Transistors like these in the early years of computers are used in computer chip manufacture.

Winchester’s primary subject is Moore’s law postulated in 1965 by Gordon Moore, the co-founder of Intel. Moore predicts microchip computing power and efficiency would double every year and then every two years with continued miniaturization of chip transistors. His prediction, as of today, holds true. The size of computer chip transistors is measured in millimeters in the early 1960s. Today, measurement is at an atomic level, trending toward the use of quantum theory to continue Moore’s law prediction.

The last chapter of “The Perfectionist” is about measurement as a tool. Ironically, understanding measurement evolves through history. It may be a standard of change, but it is also a subject of change. The idea of distance measurement has evolved from an organic explanation that only imperfectly describes the visual world. That imperfectness leads to an obsession with exactness that boggles the mind.

As a caution, Winchester suggests the pursuit of precision may blind us to other values. The aesthetic beauty of a musical composition, architecture, a great novel, or mere thoughts of human beings may have little to do with precise measurement but can change the world. What one sees or feels is what we discount or respond to with emotion and/or appreciation, regardless of measurement analytics. Science is unquestionably dependent on precise measurement while art or literature may have little to do with it.

VANISHING WORLD

Murata’s satire infers obsession with sex for pleasure, child rearing collectivization, gender dysphoria, and pregnancy equalization are pathways to societal destruction.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Vanishing World (A Novel)

Author: Sayaka Murata

Narrated By: Nancy Wu

Sayaka Murata (Author, Japanese novelist.)

Sayaka Murata’s subject is clearly revealed in its title, “Vanishing World”. “Vanishing World” is a provocative assessment of how sexual relationship and sex education has changed. Murata satirically reveals how human reproduction, objectification of life, motherhood, and technology may dehumanize society.

Murata’s fictional story is highly informative in regard to sexual difference and similarity between men and women.

In one sense, Murata’s fictional story is highly informative in regard to sexual difference and similarity between men and women. As a reader/listener, Murata offers a detailed description of the physical difference between the sexes. Many who think they know something about sexual difference will find the author’s candor enlightening. However, her depiction of social relationship is off-putting with a satirical exaggeration of socio/sexual objectification.

Murata writes about a single parent family with a young daughter who lives with her mother and is nearing the age of puberty.

(Though not mentioned in Murata’s story, single family homes in America have grown by nearly 30% in the 21st century.) The main character’s name is Amane and Murata’s story is about Amane’s sexual awakening and how she views social relationship. Amane is infatuated with an animated male character on television. She imagines being married to this character before puberty but holds this character in her mind throughout childhood and later life.

Murata suggests reproduction may evolve into a preferential desire for artificial insemination rather than sexual intercourse between a man and woman.

This idea feeds into a listener/reader’s mind as a diminishment of the need for emotional attachment to the opposite sex for procreation. Sex becomes detached from procreation, evolving into only “hooking up” for sexual stimulation and/or personal gratification. Murata infers desire is no longer needed for procreation but only to experience intercourse as an emotional and physical pleasure. Consequently, it seems perfectly natural to transfer sexual desire to a fictional character because it becomes unnecessary to have emotional attachment to humans when a figment of one’s imagination is available.

Murata creates a bizarre world.

The bizarro world that Murata creates is an extension of a belief that society is becoming less attached to their humanity. Marriage, human relationship, and motherhood are replaced by mindful personal’ inwardness and endless pursuit of physical stimulation without emotional entanglement. By extension, Murata suggests science will create wombs for men so that the difference in sexes equalizes childbirth and care of children. Caregiving becomes bureaucratic and collective because caregiving is no longer personalized.

Murata suggests that a new system of childcare will evolve into collective training camps for working parents who are too self-absorbed to raise their own children.

Collective childcare disconnects parents from the management and development of their children. The sterility of conception by artificial insemination, collective childcare, and social acceptance of multiple sex partners diminishes both familial relations and child development. Birthing and raising children becomes a clinical process, i.e., less personal with both men and women capable of experiencing pregnancy and delivery; all without responsibility or obligation for childcare.

In some sense, this satire illustrates the negative potential of socio/sexual equality.

Murata’s story ends with the birth of their first child from a man who is Amane’s husband. She is torn over not being able to take the baby home because the child is already being “cared for” in a ward meant to raise and nurture all newly born children. A final point is made in the story by a visit from Alane’s mother after the birth. She asks Amane where the child is, and Alane explains the child will not be raised by her and her husband. Alane’s mother is aghast. Her mother falls to the floor and dies without any apparent familial concern for her sudden collapse and presumably, death. The next thing to happen is a visit from one of the children born in this new world. Alane chooses to have sex with him and the story ends.

“Vanishing World” implies 21st century science, organizational bureaucracy, and social change threatens survival of humanity. Murata’s satire infers obsession with sex for pleasure, child rearing collectivization, gender dysphoria, and pregnancy equalization are pathways to society’s collapse.

EQUALITY

Discrimination is certainly based on the color of one’s skin but also on gender, ethnicity, and income inequality. Those nations that embrace equality of opportunity for all will be the leaders of the future in the age of technology

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Caste (The Origins of Our Discontent)

Author: Isabel Wilkerson

Narrated By: Robin Miles

Isabel Wilkerson (Author, American journalist, winner of the Pulitzer Prize in journalism in 1994 while serving as the Chicago Bureau Chief for the NYTimes.)

Isabel Wilkerson has written a provocative book about what she characterizes as a rigid social hierarchy in America that undermines the ideals of democracy. Wilkerson weaves her personal life and the history of black experience with the sociological failings in America’s treatment of race. She notes the past and present truth of white America’s unequal treatment of its citizens based on race. However, her characterization of America’s discrimination as a caste system and its comparison to India’s and Nazi Germany’s governments is hyperbolic. Nevertheless, it creates a sense of urgency for those who believe in the ideal of human equality. It is difficult, if not impossible, to compare other nation’s inequality with America’s effort and present-day failure to fulfill the ideals of democracy.

The timeliness of Wilkerson’s book seems appropriate in relation to the backward steps being taken by Donald Trump.

Some Americans feel threatened by demographic change that will make white citizens less than 50% of America’s population by 2045. In theory, no one should care if all people are treated equally. What history shows is that the ideals of equality have never been achieved in America or in any other country with a dominant race and/or ethnicity.

Trump’s effort to return America to its past is interpreted by some as a return to industrial production.

America’s return to industrialization is a false flag that will not make America Great. Reindustrialization and keeping America white is a fool’s errand based on demography and the age of technology. Trump’s desire for power, adulation, and loyalty have little to do with prejudice but everything to do with appealing to the worst fears of middle-class America. Trump is willing to use whatever dog whistle is required to satisfy his desire for power and prestige. He understands the fears of the middle class and where American power lays. Power and money are the driving forces of capitalism. Middle class American’s buying power has stagnated or fallen since the 1970s despite the increasing wealth of the top 10% of American citizens. The middle class of America is something Trump appealed to in his re-election for a second term because of their disproportionate loss of income and the rising wealth of America’s business leaders. The irony is that Trump is one of the beneficiaries of that income gap between the very rich and the working-class.

Income disparity trend in the U.S. through 2015.

Wilkerson is right in the sense that America’s real objective should be to ensure equality of all. She is arguing we should have a greater sense of urgency in achieving equality. Equal treatment for all is a formula that can maintain America’s position as an economic, military, and political hegemon. American industrial hegemony is yesterday’s goal. Technological advancement is today’s goal. To achieve today’s goals, equal treatment of all becomes essential in technology because intelligence, innovation, and persistence does not lie in any one race, sex, or creed.

America is class conscious but not in the same way as either India’s or Nazi Germany’s histories.

Wilkerson notes a caste system can be built around ethnicity, religion, language, or gender but race discrimination is what she has personally experienced and underlays much of her comparisons of American history with India and Nazi Germany. Equality of opportunity is key to continued growth of human beings and national economies in the age of technology. In the short term, one may see an autocratic country like China become an economic and military hegemon, but maintenance of that success is dependent on equality of opportunity for all, not just those in power.

One can sympathize with the author’s view of discrimination but her comparison of America to India and Nazi Germany misses too much of what unequal treatment in America is based upon.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: