The Sacking of The Libraries

Imagine if you will a scene in which a young Southern California boy and his mother are about to enter the Norwalk Library sometime during an evening of a school year shortly before the advent of the Internet.  (Note: I have nothing against the Norwalk Library - it's just that I happen to know where it is because I used to live in So. Cal.)  Let's say that the mom has taken the boy to the library so that he may search for books on treatments for mange in animals such as dogs and cats.  Let's also say that the boy needs this information in order to write a book report (remember those?) for his middle-school biology class.  However, just as the boy and his mom cross the threshold, a mysterious space-time bubble phenomenon transports them to a library built 50 or 60 years into the future.  Imagine that libraries of the future have been shaped by the evolution of commercial culture in ways that could not have been imagined by our hapless boy and mom pair.  

Thus, when the boy and mom go to an information terminal to look for books on veterinary medicine, the first thing they see is not the location of the books they desire, but rather a screenful of paid ads for vets, pet stores, pet treats, pet grooming supplies, cat and dog clothes, etc.  Bemused and befuddled by the screen, the boy and mom start walking around the library in search of a librarian.  Once they find her, they ask where the books on veterinary science are located.  The librarian asks whether they want to buy some dog or cat food while they are at the library, explaining that she gets a commission from every sale she makes.  Oh, and by the way, would they like a recommendation for a vet?  Perhaps some "natural, drug-free remedies"? Or maybe some shampoo?  In a state of both mounting confusion and mounting frustration, the mother of the boy grumbles that she is just looking for books written by veterinary authorities so that her son can write a book report for school.  "Besides," the mom says, "our family doesn't have any pets!"  Grudgingly, the librarian leads the mom and her son to the bookshelves that contain books on veterinary science and diseases in pets.  However, the boy and mom notice that most of these books are actually coupon books advertising veterinary services and pet hospitals in Southern California!  In desperation the boy and mom walk out, wondering what on earth happened to their library.  As they are walking through the parking lot to their car, a man sidles up to them and says, "I noticed that you were looking for information on treating mange.  You must like pets! I have some hamsters in the trunk of my car, and I'm willing to let you have one for a special low price..."

Although this scene may sound far-fetched, I'd like to suggest that this perverse "library of the future" accurately describes the state into which our society has increasingly evolved, and that this is a consequence of the monetization of information exchange.  The prime example of this is the evolution of the internet from its inception until now.  This evolution has been especially rapid and widespread during the last seven or eight years.  Perceptive souls can remember a time in which information that was transmitted electronically was not monetized, and those who provided information via the World Wide Web did so for reasons that had little to do with financial gain.  Indeed, the explosive growth of free exchange of information that occurred during the 1990's was a consequence not only of the growth of the Web, but also of the growth of the availability of technologies that allowed people to bypass traditional gatekeepers in order to publish their own creative content.  A case in point is the miniaturization and lowering of cost of technologies for recording and storage that allowed musicians to mass-produce recordings of their own performances without having to sign on to a record label.  (In fact, I own a few self-published CD's from such "indie" artists.)  Such technologies for self-publishing became known as "democratizing technologies" because they allowed large numbers of ordinary people to publish their creative content without needing access to costly centralized infrastructure.

The internet was originally born out of the need for large governmental agencies and public research institutions to share information easily and cheaply.  Yet the internet swiftly became one of the most powerful democratizing technologies, since it drastically reduced the cost any individual had to pay to reach a large audience quickly.  Moreover, the culture and worldview of the original architects of the internet prioritized its democratizing nature.  To quote from an Atlantic article titled, "The Rotting Internet Is A Collective Hallucination":

"The internet’s distinct architecture arose from a distinct constraint and a distinct

freedom: First, its academically minded designers didn’t have or expect to raise

massive amounts of capital to build the network; and second, they didn’t want or

expect to make money from their invention.  The internet’s framers thus had no money to simply roll out a uniform centralized network ... Instead, they settled on the equivalent

of rules for how to bolt existing networks together.

"Rather than a single centralized network modeled after the legacy telephone system,

operated by a government or a few massive utilities, the internet was designed to allow

any device anywhere to interoperate with any other device, allowing any provider able

to bring whatever networking capacity it had to the growing party. And because the

network’s creators did not mean to monetize, much less monopolize, any of it, the key

was for desirable content to be provided naturally by the network’s users, some of

whom would act as content producers or hosts, setting up watering holes for others to

frequent." (Emphasis added.)

Because access to the original internet was not centrally owned or controlled, the internet became self-curating.  In other words, websites naturally began to be ranked according to how many people found their content to be interesting or useful.  A website thus gathered many hits by being genuinely good.  Thus the early internet became a legitimate source of edification, education, often extremely high-quality information, and exhilaratingly interesting conversation between people who might not otherwise have connected with each other.  

But then certain individuals began to see how they could make money from this sudden outburst of connection and conversation.  The first monetizers were creators of centralized platforms for connecting people to each other.  These creators exploited a weakness of the proto-internet, namely the need for early participants to have somewhat deep knowledge of programming languages and things like Java and HTML.  Since most people did not have this knowledge, they welcomed such platforms as MySpace and Facebook which allowed people to connect with each other electronically without needing deep coding knowledge.  Once most users of the internet were aggregated by the owners of these platforms, it was only natural for corporations and capitalists to seek to monetize these platforms.  At first the monetization was rather clunky and clumsy.  (Remember when big corporations like the Ford Motor Company or Eaton were urging us to "like them on Facebook"?)  But the eventual form taken by platform monetization consisted of pushing advertising (both of the obvious kind and of more subtle, sneaky kinds) on these platforms.

Within the last seven or eight years, this pushing of advertising has conquered its final frontier: the monetization of search engines.  This is certainly true of Google (who are now owned by Alphabet Inc.).  But it is also true of Duck Duck Go, Bing, Brave, Smartpage, Yahoo, and every other advertiser-supported search provider.  Thus when one conducts a Web search using any of these engines, the top results are usually either ads or are webpages that have been monetized by hosting ads on them.  The mission of these advertiser-supported search platforms has thus changed from helping people effectively search for information.  The mission now is to direct people to advertising packaged as clickbait.  I'd like to suggest that this is leading to certain consequences which have possibly not been foreseen by the monetizers.

The first of these consequences is the increase in transaction costs, that is the costs involved in exchanges taking place in a given economy.   To quote from Transaction Costs, Institutions and Economic Performance by Douglass C. North:

"It is the cost of measuring the valuable attributes of the goods and services or the performance of agents in exchange that is the fundamental key to the cost of transacting."

In other words, in making an economic transaction between two parties, each party must spend time and resources to accurately determine what kind of value and how much of this value they are likely to get from the transaction.  When each side has unbiased information from impartial sources, the transaction costs are relatively low.  When the only information that is available comes from paid advertisers, the transaction costs become much higher, because part of the transaction costs consists of spending time trying to figure out how much the information sources are lying.  Case in point: about fifteen or twenty years ago, manufacturers of health supplements began to tout the health benefits of fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS).  Some of the things these manufacturers said began to be of interest to people suffering from intestinal disorders.  However, these sufferers were forced to take what they were hearing with a massive grain of salt, because some of the claims made about FOS were outlandish.  In order to make an informed decision regarding FOS, some of these sufferers turned to the internet, where they encountered a massive amount of unbelievable claims.  These sufferers were stymied until they discovered that FOS is also called inulin (not insulin), and they began to do Web searches with the keyword "inulin."  That was when they found the peer-reviewed papers from research institutions that enabled them to make an informed decision.  (Note: since then, things have undergone a further mutation.  Supplement manufacturers discovered that people were researching inulin and that searches for information on FOS were falling off.  So now these manufacturers have modified their Web advertising to push the fact that their products contain "inulin."  "A rose by any other name...")  From this we see the general principle that when people are faced with decisions regarding transactions that have potentially large consequences (either because of the money that must be spent or the effect of the transaction or both), an increase in transaction costs resulting from a decline in the quality of available information about the transaction leads to a decrease in the number and rate of transactions.  Or to put it simply, if when you walk into a market, you know that all the sellers in the market are lying to you, you tend to not want to spend your money.

The second consequence is a decrease in connected conversations resulting from the restriction of the free flow of free (as in free coffee) information.  Monetization of information flows often means that valuable and useful information is locked behind paywalls guarded by rent-seeking corporations.  This is especially true of the kind of academic knowledge formerly disseminated free of charge by publicly funded research institutions.  The flow of this knowledge is increasingly controlled by gatekeepers such as Elsevier, John Wiley & Sons Inc., the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), and Science Direct.   The combination of monetization of the channels of conversation (through advertising) and monetization of the valuable things that may arise in any potential conversation (through rent-seeking and paywalls) produces a decrease in productive conversation.  This leads to a decrease in innovation within a society.  To see how innovation in the United States and the West has begun to decline, click here and here.  Note especially how at least one of these sources mentions the restriction of the free flow of information.  Also, a fictional case of this decrease can be found in a recent novel called Vagabonds by Hao Jingfang.  (Ms. Hao has a bachelors degree in physics and a doctorate in economics, is a mother of two, a social entrepreneur, a scholar who is part of a think tank in China, and a member of a new wave of Chinese science-fiction writers who have crafted extremely strong, thought-provoking and awesomely good stories.  More on the Chinese sci-fi phenomenon in another post.)  In that novel, set in the 22nd century, Mars has been colonized by humans (sorry, Elon Musk, but Ms. Hao doesn't mention you at all), and has successfully fought a war of independence to break away from the government and economy of Earth.  In her novel, Earth's economy is described as a hyper-monetized "information economy" obsessed with guarding "intellectual property" while the Martians have created a society of free information exchange in which citizens make contributions motivated solely by their desire to create.  As a result, the Martian society becomes more advanced technologically while Earth begins to stagnate.  Although this is a fictional example, I would argue that it reflects what is seen in real life in organizations, institutions, and societies in which the free flow of information is constrained.  Our problem in the West, particularly in the United States, is that we have failed to recognize the constraints which our very own hyper-capitalist system imposes on our own ability to have the sort of cross-disciplinary, spontaneous conversations in which disparate ideas collide to produce innovation.  The internet in its early days began to provide a forum for those sorts of productive conversations, but the monetization of the internet has begun to choke off those conversations.

I predict that this choking off will lead (perhaps has already begun to lead) to a third consequence: an increasing dissatisfaction with this state of affairs, and an increasing push by many people to "get back to the garden"; that is a push by many people to re-create spaces in which neither information nor the channels of conversation are monetized.  I don't believe that I'm the only person who is becoming tired of high transaction costs.  And I don't believe that I'm the only one who is looking for a way to build spaces of connectedness and conversation that are free from the corruption of advertising and rent-seeking.   But those of us who seek to build such spaces must know that we must pay a price in sweat equity (that is, our own hard work) to build such spaces.  They don't come for free.  As the old internet adage goes, "If you're not paying for the product, then you are the product."  Perhaps some will need to work to build spaces in realspace where conversations between diverse partners can arise.  Such spaces will be the strongest form of the revival I am thinking of.  But such spaces may also be virtual.  However, for such virtual spaces to arise, the participants will need to learn to do for themselves many things which they have been taught to take for granted due to the ease of using centralized platforms for connection such as social media.  In the absence of these platforms, people who want to build networks of conversation and information exchange will have to take themselves back to the mindset that built the internet in the first place.  Some of us may have to learn coding (especially HTML); some of us will have to learn how to build our own Web crawlers.  Some of us may have to read books or take courses to learn these things.  Whether in realspace or in cyberspace, it will be interesting to see the ways in which groups of people reclaim spaces for constructive conversation.

Russia Must Not Be Allowed To Win

The Russian invasion of Ukraine seems to have evolved into a war of attrition.  On the one hand is Putin's Russia, the revanchist monster which has thrown staggering amounts of men and materiel into its attempt to conquer a sovereign and free nation.  Many of these men have been killed and wounded, and much of the materiel has been destroyed.  Yet Russia still has men and materiel to blow on its stupid and evil endeavor.  On the other hand is Ukraine, a small nation which Putin had hoped to make into the first appetizer in his meal of devouring Europe (and after that, the world).  Ukraine has done mighty deeds in resisting the Russian monster, but the people of Ukraine are worn down by weeks of unrestrained war and an onslaught of crimes against humanity which have been perpetrated by Russia.

Russia must be taught that crime does not pay.  Russia must instead pay an unbearable price for its attempt to take over the world.  Therefore, the West must do whatever it takes to ensure that Russia loses completely and decisively in Ukraine.  The West must furthermore destroy Russian power so that Russia never again tries to exalt itself above the rest of the world in order to build a global empire.

A Few Thoughts On The Death of Betty Geftakys

My foray into blogging initially began while I was living in Southern California, in the aftermath of my departure from an abusive evangelical group known as "The Assemblies."  Those who want to find out more about the group can click here.  My first blog was an account of my experiences in that group (especially as an African-American in that group), and my thoughts and reflections upon leaving it.  When I left the Assemblies back in 2003, it was because I had come to realize that the family that was in charge of the group - namely, George and Betty Geftakys and their two sons - were a collection of crooks.  Back then I was under the impression that the Assemblies were an example of a "fringe" group that did not reflect white American evangelicalism as a whole, and that evangelicalism was, by and large, healthy - so that I believed that in order to heal from the damage I suffered, I simply needed to find a "healthy" church after leaving the Assemblies.  What a far cry from my attitude today, when most of the world can now see that white American evangelicalism is a disgusting barrel of monkeys, and that it has been so for a rather long time!

As I mentioned, the Assemblies were abusive.  This abuse was an outworking of the way in which the head family exploited the members, and an outworking also of the way we were taught to relate to each other in our bid to climb the ladder of church leadership.  But some small element of Scriptural truth managed to seep into the consciousness of most of us members - especially the part of Scripture that teaches that when you do wrong to others, you need to repent.  And that this repentance must involve making things right with the people you wronged.  So when the Assemblies were blown apart by scandals in 2003, many of us hoped, prayed, and half expected that George, Betty, and their two sons would sooner or later take that step of repentance.

In the years since my departure, George Geftakys died (in 2014), and his son David died (in 2017).  I learned today that George's wife Betty died just last month.  I am ashamed to admit that upon hearing of the deaths of each of these people, my first reaction was a rather strong feeling of schadenfreude.  Today I have once again needed to repent of that feeling.  For I still follow the Good Book, which says in part that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.  Yet as I read that same Good Book, I can't help but shudder at the thought of the legacy these people have left and the future that awaits them.  Their later years remind me of a chapter from a Chinese sci-fi book that I recently enjoyed, namely the Three-Body Problem by Liu Cixin.  The chapter in question is titled, "No One Repents."

The Boil That Must Be Lanced

The Russian invasion of Ukraine which began in late February is now in the midst of its fourth month.  This invasion is not some isolated sudden manifestation of evil, but rather merely the sharpest and most obvious sign of an ongoing, historical evil.  It is the manifestation of the deep-seated evil of Russian national narcissism.  The invasion has been accompanied by verbal threats made by Russia against others of its neighbors, including Poland, because these other nations are building up their defenses to prevent themselves from being invaded by Russia.  These threats, along with the invasion and all the Russian efforts before the invasion to subvert the governments of free and sovereign nations, are the manifestation of Russia's contempt for the entire non-Russian world, the manifestation of Russia's desire to be some sort of "Third Rome" that rules the entire earth and makes Russia great by trashing everyone else.

So we who are not Russian and who do not want to be turned into Russian subjects are once again confronted with the necessity of the task before us.  And we must not look at the world - or at Russia - through the rose-colored glasses of wish-fulfillment fantasy.  Rather, we must face our task with clear-eyed, hard-edged realism.  

We must not become enamored of the idea of "peace through negotiations."  Negotiations only work with people who have "better angels" that we can appeal to.  Putin's Russia has no "better angels."

We must face the fact that our task is to completely shatter present-day Russian power. 

We must create a situation in which Russia's ability to project either hard power or soft power (including cultural power) is annulled.  

Our efforts must continue without slacking until our goal is achieved.

And our goal must be pursued through the evolution of a strategy which combines a number of indirect approaches to cut off Russian power.  (Think of both Basil Liddell-Hart and Salvor Hardin.)  Here I want to re-emphasize the fact that a key component of our strategy must be to eliminate Western economic dependence on Russia as much as possible.  It is heartening to see that both Europe and the United States have begun to cut themselves off from dependence on Russian oil and gas.  This has brought a period of some pain and suffering in both Europe and the U.S.; however, it is opening up opportunities to create a sustainable global zero-carbon economy.  It is interesting that the emergence of such an economy will occur at the same time that Russia is demonstrating its own unwillingness to manage its own internal ecological affairs.  I fully expect that this year, while Putin continues to spend tens of millions of rubles on his futile war, he will fail to spend as much as a dime on preventing the sort of devastating Arctic wildfires that have burned in Russia over the last several years.  Putin's regime is a piece of garbage.

Lastly, our strategy must continue without wavering until the moment when the Russian people overthrow their megalomaniac, kleptocratic leaders and install a government that is willing to live in peace with the rest of humanity.

Mid-Air Self-Destruct

Over the last five or six weeks, I've been very, very busy.  (Being an entrepreneur is not exactly a good way to relax!)  So today's post will be short.  But I was motivated to write today's post by some news items of which I became aware during this past week.  

The news has to do with the ongoing revelations of massive sexual abuse in the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).  The most recent and comprehensive revelations were publicized in a report released this month by an independent investigating committee; however, this is by no means the first report of sexual misconduct and rape by clergy and members among the Southern Baptists.  (See this also.)  To me, the most notable case of Southern Baptist sexual misconduct concerns Paul Pressler, a retired Texas judge and Republican Party operative who figured prominently in the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.  It has been revealed that during Pressler's most active political periods, he was also raping boys in his church youth group, and that he was soliciting sex from adult men.  (He is by no means the only SBC pastor guilty of homosexual acts and pedophilia.  See Frankie Wiley and John Langworthy also.)  Paul Pressler had marketed himself as a champion of conservative Christian family values, which brings up a very interesting point that I will address shortly.  But before I address that point, let me add an item of news which falls on the heterosexual side of the rape/abuse line, namely, that many female victims of SBC rape were later forced by SBC leadership to get abortions in order to hide the evidence of the crimes committed against the victims.

And now the point I want to make.  People who study the history of the intersection of religion and politics in the United States should be well able to trace the means by which the Christian profession was transformed, from 1979 onward, into a political weapon of the Republican Party.  The overall strategy was quite simple, consisting of the following elements:

• The loud, strident proclamation that America is in danger of moral decline caused by "liberal" elements and the loss of "family values", particularly those values centering on sexual morality
• The loud, strident proclamation that America is in danger of losing its "liberty" due to threatening outside agents such as the Soviet Union (before the Soviets rolled over and died conveniently in 1989), or Muslims or illegals (who replaced the Soviets as bogeys after the Soviet collapse) or "socialists" (Oops! I mean, sssssssocialistssssss...) (One more parenthesis under this point - Soviet Russia was truly a thug nation, and I do not want to minimize the danger they posed.  But they were a gang that couldn't shoot straight much of the time, just like Putin's thug Russia is now.)
  
• The loud, strident proclamation that only the Republican Party could save America from losing its identity as a "city on a hill", because only the Republicans were willing to openly confess faithfulness to Jesus Christ
• The loud, strident proclamation that the duty of Christians in the United States was therefore to vote Republican and to support Republican solutions to the "crises" being sold to us - solutions which, of course, always involved building more prisons, locking up more people (especially the poor and nonwhite, regardless of whether or not they were actually guilty of any crime), procuring more guns, killing more "enemies", and giving more power to the obscenely rich.

I am ashamed to admit that for many years, I drank that Kool-Aid.  But even in my most Kool-Aid-intoxicated state, I had to notice that whenever I saw Republican candidates for office, they always seemed to be a "disease cure" that had massive undesirable side-effects.  For while the so-called "Christians" who handed out their so-called "Christian voter guides" to people of color like me always told us that we needed to vote for their candidates so that they might "save America from moral decline", closer observation always revealed that these candidates pushed policies designed to murder and oppress the poor and the nonwhite in this country.  Yet we were told that we needed to bear with these side effects because of the much greater importance of the disease these candidates were ostensibly seeking to "cure," the "great issues of our time" which these candidates were promising to address.

The ongoing revelations of ongoing sexual abuse - not only in the SBC, but throughout most of mainstream American evangelicalism - are yet one more proof that all of the assertions of the American Religious Right are utter crap, to borrow a phrase from Liu Cixin.

Listen up, white American evangelicals.  Your real message to all the rest of us is that God supposedly chose you from the foundation of the world to rule all the earth, and that He chose all the rest of us to be your punching bags, your doormats, your slaves, and your trash cans.  The reasons you offer for this supposed choice are that you are supposedly morally superior to everyone else, and that therefore God has granted you the right to re-enact the violent conquest by ancient Israel of the land of Canaan - except that nowadays, you take the place of the "people of promise" and that gives you the right to use the rest of us for target practice in order to "punish us for our evil." However, you're just as evil as the people you want to kill.  Your real agenda is and always has been white supremacy over the entire earth.  The "side effects" the rest of us suffered from voting for your candidates were always your real aim.  This is why you have the gall to tell us that we need to vote for your political candidates who promise to stamp out homosexuality even while you secretly practice the very sin you condemn.  This is why there will always be an avenue for abortion in the United States even if Roe vs Wade is overturned, because when your pastors rape each other's wives and daughters, you will always need some means of destroying the evidence of your crimes.  This is why you so zealously supported the presidency of a serial sex offender, serial adulterer, and serial crook named Donald John Trump.

And this is why you have lost all legitimacy with me.  Believe me, the loss has been a long time coming.  In 2006 I first began to see through you, and your support of Donald Trump was merely the icing on a poisonous cake.  Today, instead of attending any of your churches, I have done some housecleaning and some private Bible reading of my own, and I think I'll sit in my backyard and enjoy the sunshine while I make out my schedule for next week.  But I'll never again listen to any of your sermons.  Do you want to help the proclamation of the Gospel of Christ?  Then shut up.  Just. Shut. Up.

The Antidote To The Strongman Is Responsibility

Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has netted some impressive losses for Russia.  Among those losses are up to 17,000 Russian troops killed, over 40,000 Russian casualties (including soldiers who have been wounded, but not killed), pariah status among the nations of the world, crippling economic consequences, and a series of singular losses on the propaganda front.  But over the last week and a half, Russia has mounted a ferocious cyber-counterattack in order to retake the initiative in the information war.  So we have many, many "news" sites aligned with the Far Right (and blogs by Putin trolls who pretend to be, among other things, morbidly obese housewives) which are criticizing President Biden as weak or incompetent, or accusing Ukraine of developing bioweapons, or who are repeating the tired old Russian talking point that Russia's attack of Ukraine was designed to eliminate a potential "threat to Russia" either from NATO - which has not attacked Russia at all - or from the presence of independent, happy, self-reliant people on Russia's doorstep.  (In other words, "YOUR freedom is a threat to ME!")

The most recent weapon to be deployed in this information war is the threat of the "chaos" that may engulf the world if Russia is not allowed to get its way.  So there are Russian mouthpieces spouting threats of the end of the world, or the threat of nuclear war, or the threat of widespread economic breakdown as a result of the West's resistance against the imperial ambitions of Putin.  To be sure, there is some substance to those threats.  But that substance consists of the weaknesses of position which we in the West have created for ourselves as a result of allowing ourselves to become dependent on Russia for a number of the resources needed in our modern industrial economies.  We knew for decades that in depending on Russia for things like grain, oil, and fertilizer, we were relying on a regime that despises democracy and human rights, a regime that would use our dependence as a tool to try to subjugate us.  Putin's Russia would now try to persuade us that we have only the stark choice between the kind of "peace" that comes from capitulating to Putin versus starvation and shortage.  That, however, is false.

We have also known since the 1970's that the resource base of the societies and economies of the Global North would one day decline to the point where we would have to devise new ways of living - ways that are more suited to a world of limits.  Recognizing those limits is not the end of the world, and we don't need to have a meltdown when faced with the need to make necessary adjustments.  However, a meltdown is just what many of us have had (or, to use a British expression, too many of us have thrown a wobbly) whenever the need to learn to live within limits has been mentioned.  Our tantrums are provoked at the thought that our lives, our ambitions, our dreams, our cravings might to be subject to limits.  This is especially true of the privileged upper-middle-class members of the dominant culture.  And this leads to a danger.  For although we know, deep down, that everyone on earth will have to face a world of limits, the danger is that we will choose to believe strongmen and populists who promise us otherwise - men who promise that by waving a magic wand they and they alone can bring back the days of past glory if only we give ourselves entirely to the wishes of these men.  The experience of those of us who lived through the Trump years or through the disaster of post-Brexit Britain should be enough to teach us otherwise, but as Abe Lincoln once said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time..."

The antidote to the false promise of the strongman and the populist is a willingness to accept the world as it is - that is, to make peace with reality - and to figure out the best and most moral way of living within the reality into which we have been placed.  Grab a clue: the present time of shortages and high prices was coming even without the West's sanctions against Russia.  Didn't anyone notice the shortages of 2020 or how gas prices were rising throughout all of 2021?  

P.S. I have at least three four blog posts in the oven.  Over the next month I hope to publish them.  One post will be an essay on the subject of populist leaders and how the pedagogy of the oppressed is designed to liberate the oppressed from the lies of the populist by teaching the oppressed to take personal and collective responsibility for our own lives.  (Today's post is a sneak preview.)  The second post will deal with the threat which false charity poses to genuine liberation.  The third post will be about programming search engines.  The fourth post will be a brief sketch of my experiences as a small business owner, as well as the things that moved me to pursue entrepreneurship.  Stay tuned.

The Case For Electrification In 2022

The geopolitical events of the last month have shown how foolish it has been for the free nations of the world to allow themselves to be hoodwinked into economic dependence on the regimes of tyrants.  In particular, we see how Russia has tried to use Western dependence on its fossil fuel resources as a means of dictating the internal affairs of the nations of Europe.  This has been one of the cornerstones of Russian imperialist strategy under Vladimir Putin.  It makes sense therefore when dealing with thieving little thugs like Putin to cut one's reliance on those thugs to zero.

So we come to the question of how the West can eliminate its reliance on Russian oil and gas in the quickest and most advantageous manner.  And in this regard, my mind was provoked recently by hearing of a few design and construction projects in the northern U.S. which are replacing natural gas-fired space conditioning equipment with all-electric, variable refrigerant flow heat pump HVAC systems at a number of government facilities.  Many of the facilities in question already have existing rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, which can be used to offset the energy cost of the new HVAC systems. 

These projects are an example of a larger trend in the architecture/construction industry and among facility managers to shift from buildings which use fossil fuels for space conditioning to buildings which use electricity only.  There are encouraging reports and studies which indicate that, given the current trends in the development of renewable energy sources and advances in HVAC systems, a shift to all-electric buildings can be significantly cheaper in the long run than maintaining buildings that continue to use fossil fuels.  I don't have time today for a detailed analysis of the literature on this subject, but I do intend to write a few posts that go into this subject in more detail as soon as I have time for more intense research.  However, for those who want to beat me to the punch (please do!), the following sources are a good place to start:

• A Case for Electrifying Heat In End-Use Residential Sector Towards Carbon-Free Buildings, Tolu O. Sodeinde, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2019
• "Efficient Electrification Newsletter," Electric Power Research Institute, January/February 2020
• "Edison International Sustainability Report 2019", Edison International
• "NBI BETR Webinar, 2-22-2021", New Buildings Institute
• And, for something slightly more cautionary, "Increased Electrification of Heating and Weather Risk In the Nordic Power System," Trotter, et al, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, December 2021.

Of course, any large-scale transition to an all-electric society must rest on a foundation of cheap, widely available electricity from renewable resources.  Here we have research that shows a very optimistic picture, as stated in an April 2019 report from the German Energy Watch Group in partnership with the Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology (aka LUT University) in Finland.  The title of the report is Global Energy System Based on 100% Renewable Energy: Power, Heat, Transport and Desalination Sectors.  A key paragraph from that study is the following:

"A transition to a global 100% renewable energy system is no longer a matter of technical feasibility or economic viability, but one of political will. Not only do we need ambitious

targets, but also stable, long-term, and reliable policy frameworks, adapted to regional conditions and environments. We call on the global community to urgently pursue a forward-looking pathway towards net zero GHG emissions by launching a rapid change of the way we use natural resources and provide electricity, heat and transport." - Hans-Josef Fell.

One of the findings of the study is that regional energy independence can be achieved by the development of regional renewable energy resources, as described in the paragraph titled, "Electrification and Decentralisation Lead To More Efficiency."  This would eliminate or at least drastically reduce the need for import of energy by one region from other regions.

Clearly these topics deserve deep and urgent consideration!