I wish that those who romanticize the relationships between those who inhabited the Americas prior to Columbus’s arrival and nature would pay more attention to articles like Jules Bernstein’s at the UC Riverside’s News:

Though some believe prehistoric humans lived in harmony with nature, a new analysis of fossils shows human arrival in the Bahamas caused some birds to be lost from the islands and other species to be completely wiped out.

The researchers examined more than 7,600 fossils over a decade and concluded that human arrival in the Bahamas about 1,000 years ago was the main factor in the birds’ extinction and displacement in recent millennia, although habitat fluctuations caused by increased storm severity and sea level rise could have played a role.

Human beings have been disrupting the environment as long as there have been human beings. It isn’t just Christians of European descent. To attempt to control is to disrupt.

Those particular romantics aren’t the only ones romanticizing. Strong states are necessary to conserve natural resources. Those who point to private property rights as the only way to prevent “tragedies of the commons” ignore that strong states are necessary to enforce private property rights, too.

That sad reality is that a balance is required, is difficult to maintain and that balance requires ongoing adjustments.

In this piece at RealClearScience author Danny Dorling really puts his finger on one of the major impediments in formulating good policy for dealing with COVID-19:

In 1968, at the height of the last great influenza pandemic, at least a million people worldwide died, including 100,000 Americans. That year A.M.M. Payne, a professor of epidemiology at Yale University, wrote:

In the conquest of Mount Everest anything less than 100% success is failure, but in most communicable diseases we are not faced with the attainment of such absolute goals, but rather with trying to reduce the problem to tolerable levels, as quickly as possible, within the limits of available resources…

That message is worth repeating because the schism between those seeking “absolute goals” versus those seeking “tolerable levels” is very much evident in the current pandemic. On September 21, the BMJ reported that opinion among UK scientists is divided as to whether it is better to focus on protecting those most at risk of severe COVID, or imposing lockdown for all.

One group of 40 scientists wrote a letter to the chief medical officers of the UK suggesting that they should aim to “suppress the virus across the entire population”.

In another letter, a group of 28 scientists suggested that “the large variation in risk by age and health status suggests that the harm caused by uniform policies (that apply to all persons) will outweigh the benefits”. Instead, they called for a “targeted and evidence-based approach to the COVID-19 policy response”.

Read the whole thing. That, too, is the underlying issue in a frequent commenter’s observation yesterday:

I think avoidance is the first order precaution, masks are secondary. But everybody treats mask as something far too important, either as a force field that protects the righteous or a symbol of enslavement.

Such politicization does not serve us well but that’s what we are facing. It’s definitely an impediment in forming good policy.

At American Consequences, a distinctly right-leaning site, Trish Regan treats us to a rather likely preview of the debate between Kamala Harris and Mike Pence which I thought was pretty fair despite its bias. She then concludes with what she regards as the economic question that should be asked:

Why should we trade prosperity, capitalism, and freedom… for high taxes, slow growth, and economic instability?

which strikes me as a “when did you stop beating your wife” sort of question. It certainly isn’t the question I would ask. If I wanted to ask something rather pointed of the candidates, I would ask “Sweden’s economy is actually less controlled by the Swedish government than ours is by the U. S. federal government. Should the federal government control our economy more or less, why, and how would your administration accomplish that?” but that isn’t the economic question I would ask. The question I would ask is “The American Dream is becoming a less achievable goal for most Americans under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Does your administration plan to change that and how?”

Feel free to supply your own questions in the comments section.

There are times when the Washington Post’s David Ignatius is a funnier comedy writer than Dave Barry. Take this sentence in his most recent column:

The world was looking for generous, confident leadership when the virus hit; instead, a self-obsessed America went into retreat.

I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry. What evidence is there for that? Other than wishful thinking and nostalgia for a U. S. hegemony that hasn’t existed for 70 years. Or take this one. What are the two most pressing foreign policy challenges? I’m guessing you would not pick the two he does:

But when it comes to big issues such as the Iran nuclear agreement and the Paris climate accords, the United States stands awkwardly alone.

Those are the big issues. My bad. I would have thought they were the wars threatened between India and China, China’s threats to Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines, or the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan. He’s appalled that other countries have interests of their own or that they are able to apply more force in their immediate environs than we are in their immediate environs:

The global power vacuum invites mischief. The war between Armenia and Azerbaijan has escalated over 10 days of fighting. Armenian leaders initially hoped that U.S. diplomacy could produce a cease-fire; now, they look to Moscow. Turkey has been pressing for regional dominance through allies in Libya, Syria, Iraq and now Azerbaijan. The U.S. response has been late and muddled, and Turkey has taken full advantage.

Russian President Vladimir Putin presses ahead with his campaign to avenge past reversals. Even as Russia conducts aggressive cyberattacks, Moscow shamelessly proposes to write new rules for cyberspace. Thankfully, U.S. companies such as Microsoft still try to enforce global norms, independent of Russian and Chinese attempts to set the framework. The Trump administration is mostly missing in action.

The United States’ self-isolating diplomacy has been on display with Iran, too. The Trump administration quit the nuclear agreement in 2018, and then last month demanded that other signatories join in “snapback” sanctions. That effort failed, like an August demand to extend a U.N. arms embargo. Even Washington’s closest allies rejected the U.S. approach, and Iran got an undeserved win. “The U.S. is isolated and embarrassed,” boasted Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

concluding:

If America were a stock, would you buy it or sell it? I would be a buyer, especially when our stock is trading so far below its real value. But any sensible analyst would say that this underperforming asset badly needs a change in management and a thorough restructuring to regain its competitive position.

My answer would be that for the last several generations the U. S. has been playing a strong hand poorly while other countries, particularly Russia and China have been playing relatively weak hands quite well for the last ten or twenty years. Remediating that will require rebuilding the U. S. industrial base, insisting that the supply chains of publicly-held companies do not subsidize countries that see themselves as our competitors. Bar U. S. companies that engage in offshoring or make substantial use of H1-B workers from bidding on federal contracts. We also need to reduce the ability of our elected officials, their families, and their major political donors from benefiting from influence peddling but that’s another subject.

Rely more on U. S. economic might and a lot less on invading or threatening other countries.

Assuming that they’re accurate, what can you conclude from the charts presented here at Rational Ground?

1. Masks don’t work to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2.
3. They might work but mandates to wear masks are violated too routinely.
4. Lockdowns don’t work to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2.
5. Lockdowns might work but they were applied so haphazardly they were probably mostly useless.
6. Not much.

Just for the record my own view is closest to E. The real world is messy and there are too many things happening all at the same time to draw conclusions about what measures intended to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 worked or how well. All of the measures proposed (masks indoors, masks outdoors, lockdowns, social distancing) probably would work in theory to some degree but cost-benefit analysis should be applied. Wearing masks indoors—in stores, public transportation, etc.—passes cost-benefit analysis. Wearing masks out-of-doors except, possibly, on crowded city sidewalks, fails cost-benefit analysis due to moral hazard. Social distancing of 10 meters fails cost-benefit analysis. Social distancing of one meter probably passes cost-benefit analysis. I’m not sure we know enough to conclude whether social distancing of two meters passes or fails cost-benefit analysis. I think that significantly more restrictive lockdowns of, say, three weeks or even six weeks duration could have been justified if the time had been used to ensure that the health care system were not overwhelmed. That would have probably required more coordination among federal, state, and local governments than was possible. I’m skeptical that the much longer but much less restrictive lockdowns that were actually applied accomplished much of anything other than driving thousands or even hundreds of thousands of businesses into bankcuptcy and throwing millions of people out of work.

Now it’s time to play “What’s Wrong With This Test?”. From ScienceNews:

Researchers in Hungary and Mexico used brain-scanning technology on 20 pet dogs to measure responses to faces. The dogs were trained to lie still in a sphynx position inside an MRI tube, resting their head on a chin rest while watching a screen. The scientists played four types of two-second video clips for the dogs to view: the front or back of a human head, and the front or back of a dog head. Thirty human volunteers in MRI machines saw the same short videos.

As many earlier studies have found, faces were captivating for people. When shown a face — either human or dog — a large swath of these people’s visual systems became active. These brain regions were quieter when the people saw the backs of heads.

The vision-processing parts of the dogs’ brains, however, didn’t seem to care about faces, the researchers report October 5 in the Journal of Neuroscience. No brain areas had greater activity when viewing a face compared with the back of a head. Instead, areas of the dogs’ visual systems were more tuned to whether the video featured a dog or a human.

They provide a hint in the next paragraph:

Still, the study measured brain responses — not behavior. The results don’t mean that dogs themselves don’t see, or don’t care, about faces. Other studies have shown that canines can recognize people’s facial cues.

So, what’s wrong with the test that they conducted? Your answer should reconcile the difference between the test that was conducted and the many other studies that have found that dogs respond to human facial expressions.

In his Wall Street Journal column Walter Russell Mead comments on the war brewing between Armenia and Azerbaijan:

Prospects for a cease-fire are poor. While Armenian diplomats frantically work the phones to gin up international support, Azerbaijan and Turkey demand an Armenian withdrawal and an apology as the price of peace.

For Mr. Erdogan, a victory in the Caucasus would be a personal triumph. Siding with the predominantly Shiite but ethnically Turkic Azeris against Christian Armenia is wildly popular with both religious and nationalist Turks. Victory would force Russia to take Ankara more seriously as a force in the region. It would increase Mr. Erdogan’s independence from the U.S. and enhance his credentials as the man who can revive the lost glories of the Ottoman caliphate.

Mr. Erdogan’s downside risks are also large, especially if Russia decides to settle with Turkey once and for all. But in an increasingly disorderly world, middle powers like Turkey must take their opportunities where they find them. The coming winter will likely be a bitter one for the civilians and conscripts caught up in a war that an enfeebled international system seems unwilling or unable to forestall.

The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan is a proxy war but this time the big power opponents are not Russia and the U. S. but Russia and Turkey. Quite literally the only interest the U. S. has in this matter, other than the self-destructive urge to poke the Russian bear on our part, is Turkey’s membership in NATO.

I have been urging booting Turkey from NATO for some time. Simply stated Neo-Ottoman Turkey is a different country from the Kemalist Turkey that was one of NATO’s original members. That Neo-Ottoman Turkey is not our ally or our friend. The U. S., preferably along with other NATO members, should make it quite clear to Turkey that Turkish intervention in a war between Armenia and Azerbaijan will not trigger NATO’s mutual defense provision under any circumstances.

I don’t believe that either the Trump Administration or an incipient Biden Administration will do that and the U. S. risks being embroiled in a war that is not in our interest.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal have stuck their noses into the referendum on November’s ballot in Illinois to repeal the state’s constitutional provision mandating that state income taxes be levied at a single rate:

Democrats have announced a slate of new rates that will be imposed automatically if the measure passes. The current flat rate of 4.95% would rise to 7.75% for households earning above $250,000, with a top rate of 7.99% on incomes above $1 million. Proponents are also touting a planned tax cut for those making less than $250,000. But with a new bottom rate only 0.2 percentage point below the current one, taxpayers in that range can expect savings barely enough for an order of deep-dish pizza.

Mr. Pritzker says the economic slowdown requires raising more state revenue. But as the Prairie State’s own Barack Obama put it in 2011, “You don’t raise taxes in a recession.” Illinois’s unemployment rate in August was 10.9%, more than two points above the national average. The new tax scheme would further slow the jobs recovery by lifting the corporate tax rate to 7.99%, and by increasing the pass-through taxes paid by more than 100,000 small-business owners, according to the Illinois Policy Institute.

The tax increases won’t stop there. The political virtue of a flat tax is that it requires raising taxes on anyone who earns income. With a progressive structure, politicians can claim they’re only raising taxes on “the rich.” The state soon becomes beholden to affluent taxpayers for 40% to 50% of state tax revenue, even as the affluent increasingly leave the state.

Although the provision would raise my taxes I would support it under one condition: the amendment to the state’s constitution must include a provision prohibiting the legislature from change either the marginal rates or thresholds for ten years after the provision once the initial rates and thresholds above have been established. The reasoning is simple. The revenue that will be raised by what has been proposed is inadequate to resolve Illinois’s financial problems. Consequently, it is obvious that both will be changed quickly. Illinois’s legislators must grasp the nettle and do it soon.

Even better would be a simultaneous repeal of the provision in the Illinois provision rendering public pension commitments sacrosanct. As long as their are no restrictions on expenses, removing restrictions on taxes alone will never be sufficient to rectify the state’s balance sheet.

Illinois is different from California and New York. It has not been blessed with a benign climate, thousands of miles of beautiful, sunny beaches, or scenic mountains. It does not have New York’s history or cultural amenities. It is not as vital to the financial sector as New York.

Throughout its history Illinois has thrived because it is a place to work: agricultural, heavy industry, light industry, and definitely retail. It has the highest real estate taxes in the country, Chicago has the highest sales tax of any major city, it has the lowest credit rating of any state, it is the most politically corrupt state in the Union (but for Louisiana it would have little competition), and, with this change to the state’s constitution it will in all likelihood soon have the highest personal income taxes of any state. I am beginning to wonder if Gov. Pritzker will not be satisfied until the last job has left Illinois.

Speaking of energy, I found this report from the University of Arkansas by Bob Whitby fascinating:

A team of University of Arkansas physicists has successfully developed a circuit capable of capturing graphene’s thermal motion and converting it into an electrical current.

“An energy-harvesting circuit based on graphene could be incorporated into a chip to provide clean, limitless, low-voltage power for small devices or sensors,” said Paul Thibado, professor of physics and lead researcher in the discovery.

The findings, published in the journal Physical Review E, are proof of a theory the physicists developed at the U of A three years ago that freestanding graphene — a single layer of carbon atoms — ripples and buckles in a way that holds promise for energy harvesting.

The idea of harvesting energy from graphene is controversial because it refutes physicist Richard Feynman’s well-known assertion that the thermal motion of atoms, known as Brownian motion, cannot do work. Thibado’s team found that at room temperature the thermal motion of graphene does in fact induce an alternating current (AC) in a circuit, an achievement thought to be impossible.

There’s generally quite a gap between doing something in a lab and making it commercially available so I don’t think you should expect your EV to be powered by Brownian motion any time soon. I would expect that the first practical applications would be in certain kinds of sensors or, to get wild and crazy, wearable electronics or LED light bulbs that last practically forever.