Chamayou argues that drone warfare is qualitatively distinct from other forms of state violence. The psychological rift stems from asymmetry – one side risks money, the other risks life.
The use of drones keeps U.S. soldiers safer. But in Chamayou’s opinion (translated by Janet Lloyd, and slightly modified by me for students to read aloud),
If the U.S. military withdraws from the battlefield, enemy violence will turn against targets that are easier to reach. Even if soldiers are safe, civilians are not.
Drone warfare compels enemy combatants to engage in terrorism. They cannot shoot back at the soldier who is shooting them – that soldier might be sitting in a nondescript office building thousands of miles away, unleashing lethal force as though it were a video game.
I don’t mean to trivialize the suffering of U.S. soldiers who are involved in drone warfare. Pilots have an extremely high suicide rate – they are expected to placidly shift from the battlefield to the civilian world each evening, and this is deeply disturbing to most people.
But enemy soldiers cannot fight back. They could shoot down the drone, but the U.S. military would launch a new one. There’s no comparison between that and the drone shooting a missile at your family’s home.
An enemy combatant can only put U.S. lives at risk by attacking the general public.
Our policies don’t always have the outcomes we want.
Not unexpectedly, somebody in class mentioned the War on Drugs. Banning marijuana caused a lot of problems, he said.
Somebody else disagreed – he’s been in and out of prison on drug charges for seventeen years, but has high hopes that this next stint of rehab is going to take. “I still think marijuana’s a gateway drug. That’s what I started with.”
“It’s not pot, it’s the lying about pot. They say over and over that marijuana’s as bad as heroin. What do they think will happen once kids realize marijuana’s safe?”
“If people could’ve bought pot, maybe nobody would’ve invented spice. Like that K2 stuff was sold as incense or whatever, but everybody knew it was pot replacer.”
“You take this,” a guy said, holding up a sheet of paper, “spray it with spice, send it into prison. Two thousand dollars, easy. You get somebody to OD, then everybody’s gonna want some. People like that feeling, right at the brink between life and death.”
Somebody sighed. “I know. I’ve done a lot of drugs, and with most drugs, I could take it or leave it. But that spice, man. No offense to anyone, but I’ve never sucked cock for drugs. For spice, though, I’d think about it.”
“You just get so sick.”
“So sick! I’ve kicked heroin, and that feeling sick was bad. But not like this. There were weeks when I had to set an alarm, get up every two hours to take another hit. Otherwise I’d wake up puking and shitting myself. And I’d be in there, you know, sitting on the toilet with a bag, still taking my hit.”
“I got that too. I was waking up every ninety minutes.”
“Would you have started smoking spice if marijuana was legal?” I asked.
“I mean, yeah, now you’re gonna have people who would. Because everybody knows about it. Like you had that summer two years ago, people all along the street, up and down Kirkwood, smoking it right out in the open. But, like, before it all started? Nobody would’ve sat down and tried to invent spice if they could’ve sold pot.”
“I remember reading a review of K2 spice on Amazon,” I said, “must’ve been in 2008, before it was banned, all full of puns and innuendo. The reviewer was talking about how it made him feel so ‘relaxed,’ in quotes.”
“ ‘Relaxed,’ shit, I get that. I never touched the stuff before this last time I came to jail. But I’ve smoked hella marijuana. So somebody handed it to me and I took this giant hit, the way I would, and I shook my head and said, ‘Guys, that didn’t do shiii …’ and, BAM, I fell face first into the table.”
“You were so out of it!”
“It was like, WHOA, blast off. I was lying there, like flopping all over. That night I pissed myself.”
“That sounds … “ I said, “… bad. A whole lot worse than smoking pot.”
“But you can get it!”
And there lies the rub. With so many technologies, we’re playing whack-a-mole. We solve one problem and create another. But sometimes what comes up next isn’t another goofy-eyed stuffed animal mole – the arcade lights flash and out pops a hungry crocodile.
Since people couldn’t buy pot, they started smoking a “not-for-human consumption” (wink wink) incense product that you could order online. Since enemy combatants can’t shoot back at soldiers, they plant more bombs in subways.
As one American soldier explains, “We must understand that attempts to isolate our force against all potential enemy threats shifts the ‘burden of risk’ from a casualty-averse military force onto the populace. We have lifted the burden from our own shoulders and placed it squarely upon civilians who do not have the material resources to bear it.”
recently played the board game Fists of Dragonstone. It was fun – the premise is that each turn a
spell is revealed and players will make a simultaneous, secret bid to acquire
its effect. The spells might earn
victory points, increase your future income, or help you thwart other players’
Each turn felt tense because Fists of Dragonstone uses “all pay” auctions. If you bid two dollars, you’ll lose this money whether or not you get the prize you wanted. This type of auction is a slippery beast – inherently stressful in the real world, but psychologically compelling within the safe confines of a game.
most people think of auctions, they imagine the type that eBay uses – only the
winner pays, and the amount paid is equal to the second-highest bid. In this type of auction, you ought to state
your intentions honestly. If you would
get $15 worth of joy from owning an item, you should bid $15 – you’ll either
get to have it for that amount of money (or less), or else learn that someone
else values the item more.
didn’t have such rampant wealth & income inequality, this type of auction
would arguably improve the world.
Objects would wind up in the hands of whomever valued them most,
boosting overall happiness.
In practice, of course, things don’t work out so well. Some people have access to far more money than others. Even if a wealthy person estimates that a blanket would provide $60 of happiness, and a poor person estimates that the same blanket would provide $10 of happiness, it might be that the poor person would actually get more happiness from the blanket. Inequality means that there’s no universal way to convert between money and joy, but the marketplace treats all our dollars the same.
In a board game, you can address inequality by doling out the same set of initial resources to each player. But the standard auction type – which rewards honest valuation – wouldn’t be much fun. Everyone should value each item equivalently, and so the game is reduced to a puzzle. It might be fun to solve once, but there wouldn’t be a reason to play again.
In an “all pay” auction, though, you benefit by being unpredictable. Because you lose your bid whether or not you win the auction, you should often bid zero even if there’s an item you’d like. You’re throwing away money if you make a non-zero bid but someone else bids higher.
You could still attempt to “solve” this sort of game, but the optimal solution invokes random behavior. You should make a bid somewhere between zero and your true valuation, with a certain probability assigned to each. That’s what a robot would do.
Most humans are pretty terrible at doing things that are actually random, though. When we try to create a fake list of outcomes from a set of coin flips, for instance, we usually hew to an alternating pattern of heads and tails.
we’re bad at making random choices – and we know that other players are bad at
it too – we fall back on misguided psychological reasoning. She bid nothing the last two rounds, so
maybe I can sneakily win this next auction with a $1 bid! We get to feel clever when our stratagems
succeed. We get to curse when they
fail. All much more fun than the honest
appraisal encouraged by auctions in which only the winner pays!
real world, though, an “all pay” auction is a recipe for waste.
This type of auction is a good proxy for many types of adversarial encounters. Political contests, computer security, sporting events. Even restaurant management, if people have a discrete budget set aside for eating out and are simply choosing which establishment to frequent.
of these situations, every player has to pay – to run for political office, you
invest years of your life and spend a whole bunch of money on
advertisements. It’s not as though you
get that time or money back when you lose.
All players spend their total bids, but only one gets the prize of
Contemporary political campaigns are incredibly expensive. So many people have already devoted years of their lives to the 2020 presidential campaign. The efforts of the losing side will have been wasted. Because major platforms are willing to air totally fraudulent advertisements, candidates have little chance of victory if they spend much less than their opponents.
Sure, sometimes people will console themselves with the thought that “We may not have won the election, but we changed the tenor of political discourse!” In our country, this is a fantasy. U.S. politics is sufficiently polarized that the winners rarely concern themselves with the expressed desires of the losing side. Two of our past three presidents lost the popular vote and still proceeded with their agendas as though they’d received an overwhelming mandate.
Security is another form of “all pay” auction. This is an asymmetrical game – your initial resources and victory conditions are clearly different if you happen to be playing as a homeowner or a thief – but the basic principle remains the same. One player bids an amount on security; the other player bids time and money to undermine it; depending on who bids more, a break-in succeeds or it doesn’t.
As in Fists of Dragonstone, players have an incentive to randomize their behavior. Sometimes a homeowner should display signs for a security system that hasn’t actually been installed. Sometimes a thief should pass by a house even if it looks like a juicy target. If players are too predictable, they can be narrowly outbid.
encryption is an auction like this. Equifax bid less than the people trying to
hack its servers; a huge amount of personal data was stolen. Mine too.
As an apology for low-balling their security bid, Equifax will send me a
settlement check for some amount between $125 and $0.03, depending on how many
of the other victims they choose to compensate.
could I do with three pennies?
I glued pennies together to make little legs for my laptop computer – three cents for the back legs, two for the front – hoping to improve air flow for the exhaust fan. When a computer overheats, programs malfunction. The operating system might freeze, the same way I do when I’m typing and somebody says “Hi” to me. My brain stutters – processing, processing – unable to determine whether I know this person, and, if so, from where.
Anyway, building these laptop stilts out of pennies seemed cheaper than any other materials. I’ve already built them, though. I don’t really need another $0.03 check from Equifax.
But this situation must feel frustrating for the people at Equifax, too. Improved encryption isn’t valuable in and of itself. This is an adversarial contest that produces only waste. A world in which companies spent little or nothing on computer security and other people simply chose not to breach their nonexistent defenses would be better than our world, in which data needs to be scrupulously guarded.
in which politicians didn’t advertise, trusting voters to learn about their
platforms from impartial sources, would be better than our world.
That’s not where we live, though. Instead, scientists are working to create quantum computers. These are marvels of engineering. In contrast to the behavior of macroscopic objects, certain properties of a quantum transistor can remain undefined during a calculation, collapsing into a discrete binary value only at the end. To accomplish this, the transistor must be guarded from its environs – you may have heard that “measurement” collapses wavefunctions, but measurement doesn’t mean that a human is looking at something. Measurement simply means that the state of an object becomes coupled with the state of its environment.
photon approaches, the state of the object becomes linked with the state of the
photon. They might’ve collided or not,
which narrows the range of space in which the object might exist, which narrows
the set of wavefunctions that could be summed to give its momentum. A collision-less encounter restricts us to a
different set of futures than if the photon hit the thing.
In practice, that means a quantum computer needs to be kept dark, and atmosphere-less, and very, very cold. For a long time – the transistors have to stay unmolested for the entire duration of a calculation.
these devices are very expensive to build and run.
might we want them? Well, they’d be
better than conventional computers at … um … at factoring the large numbers
that are used for computer encryption!
Quantum computers are fascinating. Our attempts to build them have helped us learn more about the workings of our world. But the actual existence of quantum computers – at least until we think of an application other than cracking computer security – will make the world worse.
Worried that people might copy data and then use quantum computers to decode it later — you know, after these computers have been invented — security experts say that we need to start spending more money on encryption now.
While playing Fists of Dragonstone, my friends would curse and shout after making an exorbitantly high bid and then seeing that every other player bid zero. I could have won with $1!
That’s basically what security experts are encouraging us to do. Not curse — overbid. They say that we should make extremely high bids on encryption now, to protect ourselves from a technology that might never exist. Otherwise, undesirables might gain access to the password-protected folder of risqué photographs that you and your partner(s) took. Or break into your bank account.
Occasionally, adversarial work improves the world. When restaurants compete, service might get better. The food, tastier.
But most adversarial contests are engines for waste. High-speed stock trading makes the market more fluid – you can log on and purchase a few dozen shares of whatever you’d like since AI algorithms are ready to facilitate transactions between buyers and sellers.
That’s a small service, though. High-speed trading firms shouldn’t be extracting as much wealth as they are in this country. Mostly they eavesdrop on others’ conversations, sneak in front of people who’re trying to buy something, then scalp it back at higher prices. Trading firms pay exorbitant rent on shelf space that’s close as possible to the stock exchange mainframes – if one scalper is microseconds faster than another, that’s the one who gets to shake you down.
board game, cooperation is generally less fun than adversarial play. For the former, players are trying to solve a
puzzle created by the designer. With
adversarial rules, players are using their intelligence to create puzzles for
each other in real time.
In a game, the waste is the entire point. Nothing tangible is produced, but the expended time leads to social camaraderie. The expended brainpower can give you a sense of satisfaction from having worked through intellectual puzzles. And, hopefully, you’ll have fun.
But – whoops – we’ve used the principles of good game design and mistakenly applied them to the real world. Fists of Dragonstone was fun; our political system shouldn’t be based on all-pay auctions. With major politicians poised to ravage the Amazon, cull the world’s few remaining old-growth forests, and dredge up Arctic oil fields, the people wealthy enough to make high bids on upcoming elections might well destroy us.
Featured image for this post: “Auction Today” by Dave McLean on Flickr.
If you’re worried that you don’t feel enough stress and anxiety, there’s an easy chemical fix for that. Habitual methamphetamine use will instill intense paranoia.
In our poetry classes in jail, I’ve talked with a lot of guys who stayed up for days watching UFO shows on TV. A few were also stockpiling military grade weaponry. One man used strings and pulleys to link his shotgun’s trigger to a doorknob, ensuring that anyone who tried to enter the house would be rudely greeted.
They’ve dismantled dozens of computers and phones: sometimes out of suspicion, sometimes because there are valuable components. Although they were rarely organized enough to hawk the proceeds of their dissections.
Suffice it to say that, deprived of sleep and dosed with powerful stimulants, their brains became tumultuous places.
Which is why we spend so much time
talking about conspiracy theories.
I’ve written several previous essays about conspiracy theories – that the Santa myth teaches people to doubt expertise (children learn that a cabal of adults really was conspiring to delude them); that oil company executives have been conspiring to destroy the world; that, for all the ways Thomas Pynchon’s Gravity’s Rainbow probes at the undercurrents of truth beneath government conspiracy, the text blithely incorporates metaphors from a Disney-promulgated nature conspiracy.
But, with the fiftieth anniversary
coming up, the men in my class have been talking more about whether the moon
landing was faked.
There’s only so much I can say. After all, I, personally, have never been to
One of my colleagues from Stanford recently conducted molecular biology experiments on the International Space Station, but that’s only zero point one percent of the way to the moon … and she and I were never close enough for me to feel absolutely certain that she wouldn’t lie to me.
Visiting the moon does seem much easier than faking it, though. Our government has tried to keep a lot of secrets, over the years. Eventually, they were leaked.
But that line of reasoning is never going to sway somebody. The big leak might be coming soon.
Instead, the strategy that’s worked for
me is to get people worried about another layer of conspiracy.
“Let’s just say, hypothetically,” I say, “that we did send people to the moon. Why would somebody want to convince you, now, that we didn’t?”
When NASA’s project was announced, a lot of people were upset. Civil rights activist Whitney Young said, “It will cost $35 billion to put two men on the moon. It would take $10 billion to lift every poor person in this country above the official poverty standard this year. Something is wrong somewhere.” (I learned about this and the following quote from Jill Lepore’s excellent review of several new books about the moon landing.)
During John F. Kennedy’s presidential
campaign, he argued that we needed to do it anyway. Despite the challenge, despite the
costs. “We set sail on this new sea
because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they
must be won and used for the progress of all people.”
We did reach the moon. But, did we use that knowledge to benefit the rights and progress of all people? Not so much.
A lot of the guys in jail went to crummy schools. They grew up surrounded by violence and trauma. They didn’t eat enough as kids. They’ve never had good medical care. They’ve struggled to gain traction in their dealings with government bureaucracies … we’ve spent years underfunding post offices, schools, the IRS, the DMV, and, surprise, surprise!, find that it’s arduous interacting with these skeletal agencies.
To keep these men complacent, the people in power would rather have them believe that we didn’t visit the moon. “Eh, our government has never accomplished much, we faked that shit to hoodwink the Russians, no wonder this is a horrible place to live.”
The fact that people in power are maliciously undermining our country’s basic infrastructure would seem way worse if you realized that, 50 years ago, with comically slapdash technologies and computers more rudimentary than we now put into children’s toys, this same government sent people to the moon.
Ronald Reagan said, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” And he was in a position to make his words true – he was the government, so all he had to do was be incompetent. And then people would hate the government even more, and become even more distrustful of anyone who claimed that good governance could improve the world.
Needless to say, 45 has taken strategic incompetence to a whole new stratosphere. Beyond the stories of corruption that pepper the news, there’s also the fact that many appointments were never made; there are agencies that, as of July 2019, stilldon’t have anybody running them. These agencies will perform worse.
If people knew how good our government used to be, they might revolt. Better they believe the moon landing was a sham, that the faked photographs are as good as anybody ever got.
The Matrix is an incredible film. The cinematography is gorgeous. The major themes – mind control, the nature of free will, and what it means to reject the system – are no less relevant today than when the Wachowski sisters first made their masterpiece.
Matrix also features many, many guns.
I recently read many of Grant Morrison’s comics. After The Invisibles, which was rumored to have a major impact on the visual style of The Matrix, I felt inspired to re-watch the film.
For the most part, I still loved it. But the action scenes were, for me, a person whose spouse is a school teacher, viscerally unpleasant.
spouse’s second day of student teaching in northern California, a child arrived
at her school with an assortment of lethal weapons that included a chain saw
and several pipe bombs. The child was
tackled; the bombs did not explode; nobody died. Media coverage was minimal, even in the local
On multiple occasions, classes at her schools have been canceled due to credible threats of violence. A few years ago, a student lingered after the bell, wanting to talk. “I have a friend who I’m a little worried about …” Later, after this kid had unspooled more details to a guidance counselor, police officers came. The troubled student was sent away for treatment. Once again, nobody died. Media coverage was, to the best of my knowledge, nonexistent, even in the local paper.
Crisis averted, right? No need to alarm everyone with a write-up, a terrifying enumeration of the arsenal retrieved from a student’s locker. Although, in a town this small (population: one hundred thousand), plenty of people heard rumors through the whisper network.
Students today are growing up with far more stress than I experienced. Among top students, more emphasis is placed on applying for college, and the process of getting accepted to the “best” schools is more arduous. There are more AP classes, more clubs to join, more service projects to undertake, plus the pressure of having some uniquely-honed skill that marks the possessor as somehow deserving of a spot at schools like Harvard, Stanford, or Yale.
subset of students are subject to those particular torments, though.
simply existing has grown more stressful for kids. For every single student inside the building.
Growing up in a house where the parents are seething with rage, slowly and arduously divorcing, is pretty hard on children. That is now a burden that all students have to bear. The political atmosphere of the United States is like a nation-wide divorce, with the two dominant political parties unwilling to agree on common norms, or even facts.
individual people argue, they often cloister their perceptions inside bubbles
of internally-consistent narration. It’s
quite common for each parent to sincerely believe that the other is doing less
than a fair share of the housework.
There obviously is an objective truth, and you could probably
figure out what it is – by installing security cameras throughout their home, a
couple could calculate exactly how many chores were being done by each
person. But in the moment, they just shout. “Well, I unloaded the dishwasher five times this
week, and I was cooking dinner!”
I have a pretty extreme political bias – I’m against regulating behaviors that don’t seem to hurt anyone else (which adult(s) a person marries, what drugs a person consumes), and I’m in favor of regulating behaviors that endanger a person’s neighbors (dumping pollutants, possessing weaponry). But I also talk to a lot of different folks, and I live in the Midwest. It’s pretty easy to see why a person with different religious beliefs than mine would find my political stance immoral, if not downright nonsensical.
Republican Party – which by and large espouses political beliefs that I
disagree with vehemently – is correct that the United States was originally
founded as a Christian nation. The
underlying philosophy of our constitution draws upon the Bible. And the Bible does not promote gendered or
racial equality. In the Old Testament,
the Bible tells the story of a people who were chosen by God for
greatness. In the New Testament, the
story is revised such that all people, by accepting Jesus as lord and savior,
can join the elect; still, the New Testament draws a stark contrast between us
Biblical point of view, it’s reasonable to subject outsiders to harm in order
to improve the circumstances of your own people. Indeed, it would be immoral to do
It’s like Alan Greenspan’s devotion to the concept of Pareto Optimality, in a way (“Pareto Optimality” is the idea that a distribution of goods and resources, no matter how unequal, is “optimal” if there is no way to improve anyone’s circumstances without making at least one other person worse off. Even a situation in which one person owns the world and no one else has anything is Pareto Optimal, because you can’t help the masses without taking something from that singular world owner).
Using an expensive jar of oil to anoint Jesus’s feet is fine: she was helping the elect. It was be worse to sell that oil and use the money to aid non-Christians, because then your actions only reduce the well-being of God’s people. (Within a New Testament worldview, the possibility for future conversion complicates things somewhat, but if you knew that someone would never embrace the Lord, then you’d be wrong to help that person at the expense of your fellow Christians.)
And so it’s perfectly reasonable that people who vote for the Republican Party support policies that I abhor. I wouldn’t want to be married to those people … but, by virtue of the social contract that we were born into, we are constitutionally bound together. And we’re bickering. Endlessly, maliciously, in ways that are damaging our children.
kids at school are subject to the constant fear that they’ll be murdered at
their desks. Horrific stories are
routinely broadcast on the national news … and, as I’ve realized from my
spouse’s teaching career, the stories we’ve all heard about are only a fraction
of the terrifying incidents that students live in dread of.
the fault of The Matrix. But this
film sculpted the initial style for school shootings. The Matrix was released on March 31st,
1999. Twenty days later, on the day
celebrated both by potheads (based on the police code for marijuana) and white
nationalists (because it’s Hitler’s birthday), a pair of students murdered many
classmates at Colombine High School.
In The Matrix, a character named Morpheus explains:
Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is
our enemy. But when you’re inside, you
look around, what do you see?
Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to
save. But until we do, these people are
still a part of that system and that makes them our enemies.
murderers saw their classmates as enemies.
to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly
dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
Within the world of the film, this mutability is made explicit: any character who has not joined the heavily-armed heroes could blur and become an Agent. The beautiful woman in red, an unhoused alcoholic man bundled in blankets – either might suddenly mutate into a threat.
And so Neo kills. He and Trinity acquire military-grade weaponry; they stroll into a government building and murder everyone inside.
Anyone willing to complacently work there is, after all, the enemy.
I teach poetry classes inside a jail. Through Pages to Prisoners, I send free books to people throughout the country. I think that the criminal justice system in the United States is pretty abhorrent.
But that doesn’t mean the people who work within that system as corrections officers are bad. They have families to feed. And many are surely aware that if too few people worked as corrections officers, leading the facilities to be understaffed, the people incarcerated inside would be much less safe.
lets me appreciate nuance. I am an
ethical vegan; good people choose to become butchers. I don’t like our criminal justice system;
good people work inside.
was a teenager, though, I felt moral certitude.
I didn’t like school. And so, if
you were the sort of drone who could sit contentedly at your desk, I didn’t
like you. And, yes, I too had
notebooks where I’d written the sort of vitriolic short stories about leveling
the place with a Golden-Eye-(the N64 game, not the movie)-style grenade
launcher, an onscreen point counter tracking deaths. Yes, my friends and I made short films with
BB gun props full of senseless killings.
remember one of the films we made as being pretty good. But after Colombine, we destroyed the video
tapes. I threw my notebooks away.
And I was pissed to be called so often to the principal’s office. I understand now why they were worried. Moral certainty is dangerous; it lets you consider people who disagree as the enemy.
years later, my body stiffened and my heart sank when I watched The Matrix. I loved that movie; I’m not sure I’ll ever
see it again.
glory be, I am now blessed to live in a nation led by a president who feels
nothing if not moral certainty.
The womb-suckers are trying to eat your children. Poke a soda straw into the future and sluuurp, away they go. Hopes and dreams, metabolized today into so many dollar bills.
I spend a fair bit of time with drug dealers. Most are ethical people – they wanted to ingest drugs, and they knew some other people who wanted to ingest drugs, so they started selling.
But there’s an unethical way to push – some dealers focus on getting new users hooked. That way they’ll have a steady income stream. Most of the guys in my poetry class, if somebody talks about getting clean, congratulate and encourage the dude. But some dealers would see rehab as a threat to their own livelihoods.
The future-eaters are like the second type of dealer. They’re trying to kill babies – including babies who haven’t even been conceived yet – while proffering incredibly cynical rationalizations.
Here’s the deal: regions of the Earth’s crust that lie beneath territories claimed by the United States contain rich deposits of hydrocarbons. These could be dug up and combusted to power our factories, our automobiles, our giant arrays of computer servers that enable the internet. The average person’s lifestyle in the U.S.gobbles energy, and deep below our lands is solar energy that photosynthesizing plants captured millions of years ago.
But we now know that there is only a limited amount of ancient stored sunlight beneath us. The world’s oil reserves will eventually be depleted. And so a smart investor, even if that investor believed that all the hydrocarbons beneath us should be combusted, bringing our planet closer to the hellhole that runaway climate change allowed Venus to become, would decide to wait. Right now, the price of oil is low. The total supply of oil is decreasing. The population is rising. If oil really is the best energy source, then the price will obviously rise.
I believe this relationship, lower supply = higher price, is taught within the first two lectures of any undergraduate economics course.
Since we’re rich enough to do it, we would make more money by buying oil now from those foolish countries who need cash right away and are currently selling their buried wealth, then extracting our own oil later when the total supply is lower and each barrel is worth more money.
The womb-suckers love money. So why isn’t this their plan?
After all, we as a nation are wealthy enough to invest. Throughout the ages, that’s what people blessed with current prosperity have done. By socking away money now – maybe by lending it to a neighbor and charging interest – you gain a constant source of income for the future.
The usual stereotype is that it’s foolish poor people who eat the future. When you’re starving, you might eat seeds from the granary. That’ll help you survive another winter, but next year the famine will hit even worse. Methamphetamines let you trade away future health to do more today. So do cigarettes.
But there is a framework in which their urgency to eat the future is rational. If people will notice what’s happening and stop them later, they need to get it done now. The window for personal gain is closing: slash and burn while you can.
And there is, of course, the comparison to an unethical drug dealer. You have to keep selling even when the heat is closing in because otherwise your customers could get clean and then you can’t make money off your product anymore.
We’ve reached a point where many people have realized that the future is in peril –most people who get their news from any source other than the state-endorsed propaganda network – but, let’s face it, people are lazy. I’m lazy too. Even though I know that disposable diapers are wasteful to manufacture and then ship off to landfills, my family resorts to them during weeks when we’re too overwhelmed to wash another load of excrement-encrusted rags.
Similarly, everyone knows that a vegan diet is better for the planet. But most people still eat meat. The Republican party’s big-government subsidies make hamburgers cheap … and those burgers are already cooked, waiting at the drive through, chock full of delicious fat, salt, and MSG. Being vegan takes more effort.
But we’re well-meaning, most of us. And lazy, well-meaning people just need a little nudge to start doing the right thing.
The womb-suckers are justifiably worried that a small hiccup in the rate of extraction now might be the final nudge necessary to get the world to change. Switch to renewable energy. Recycle and re-use more of what we’ve already dug from the ground.
The womb-suckers need to flood the market, get what money they can before the rest of us sober up. It’s the best thing for a murderous hedonist to do; with enough money, they can soar the skies in gold-plated airplanes. With enough money, even boorish, ugly men have a shot at having sex with pornographic film stars.
The future eaters see no contradiction, calling themselves “pro-life” while they frantically strive to make billions of unborn children die.
Sometimes the alternatives are jarring – you look and count a certain number, another person proffers a radically different amount.
Surely one of you is mistaken.
In the United States, there’s a rift between those who overestimate certain values (size of inauguration crowds, number of crimes committed by immigrants, votes cast by non-citizens, rates of economic growth) and their fellows.
In the 1960s and 70s, psychologist Henri Tajfel designed experiments because he was curious: how is genocide possible? What could sap people’s empathy so severely that they’d murder their thinking, perceiving, communicating neighbors?
Tajfel began with a seemingly irrelevant classification. In the outside world, people have different concentrations of epidermal melanin, they worship different deities, they ascribe to different political philosophies. But rather than investigate the gulf separating U.S. Democrats from Republicans, Tajfel recruited a homogeneous set of teenage schoolboys to participate in an experiment.
One by one, the kids were shown a bunch of dots on a screen and asked to guess how many dots were there. Entirely at random, the kids were told they’d consistently overestimated or underestimated the number of dots. The numbers each kid guessed were not used for this classification.
Then the kids participated in a pretty standard psychology experiment – they had various amounts of money to split between other study subjects. In each case, the kids were told that one of the recipients would be a fellow over-estimator (not themselves, though), and the other recipient would be an under-estimator.
An intuitive sense of “us vs. them” would pit study subjects against the researchers – kids should assign payoffs to siphon as much money as possible away from the university. When every option has an equivalent total payoff, you might expect a fair distribution between the two recipients. After all, the categorization was totally random, and the kids never had a chance to meet the other people in either their own or the other group.
Instead, over-estimators favored other over-estimators, even at the cost of lowering the total payout that the kids would receive from the researchers. Oops.
We should expect our current over-estimators to favor each other irrationally, too. These groups aren’t even randomly assigned. And many of the alternate truths must seem reasonable. Who among us doesn’t buy in to the occasional fiction?
For instance, there’s the idea of “free market capitalism.” This is fictitious. In the absence of a governing body that threatens violence against those who flaunt the rules, there can’t be a market.
Sometimes anarchists argue that you could have community members enforce cultural norms – but that is a government (albeit a more capricious one, since the “cultural norms” might not be written down and shared policing introduces a wide range of interpretations). Sometimes libertarians argue that a government should only enforce property rights, but they purposefully misunderstand what property rights consist of.
If you paint a picture, then I spray it with a hose, you won’t have a picture anymore. If you have a farm, then I buy the adjacent property and start dumping salt on my land, you won’t have a farm anymore. I don’t have the physically take things out of your hands to eliminate their value.
If you own a house, then I buy the adjacent property and build a concentrated animal feeding operation, the value of your house will plummet. You won’t have fresh air to breathe.
Or maybe I want to pump fracking chemicals into your aquifer. You turn on your tap and poison spills out.
We have rules for which of these actions are acceptable and which are not. The justifications are capricious and arbitrary – honestly, they have to be. The world is complex, and there’s no pithy summary that solves all our quandaries. Right to swing my arm, your nose, pffft, nonsense. Why’d you put your nose there, anyway?
And our government enforces those rules. The market is not free. Corporations that denounce government intervention (e.g. dairy-industry-opposing tariffs, carbon tax, etc.) seek government interventions (now the dairy industry hopes that producers of soy milk, almond milk, coconut milk, etc., will be forced to rename their products).
But this probably doesn’t feel like hypocrisy. We humans are good at believing in alternate truths.
Investigators are searching for incontrovertible proof that our nation’s current president has conspired (or is conspiring) with an enemy nation to undermine the United States of America.
So far, there’s no public evidence that 45 is knowingly employed as a Russian saboteur, nor that he knowingly engaged the aid of other Russian agents to win the presidential election. His intentions are occluded from us.
But his actions are plain to see. 45 has obstructed investigations into the connections between his administration and the Russian government. The dictator of Russia wanted for him to be elected, and devoted significant resources toward either bolstering his chances or directly manipulating the vote. Numerous whimsical actions taken by 45 have caused strife among nations that were formerly allied in their opposition to Russia. As with his personal businesses, 45 is using kickbacks to bankrupt the United States – we won’t have the financial resources to fix future calamities.
And the punishment he’s being protected from? He’d lose his job. The Senate would step in to say “You’re fired.”
When the threatened punishment is 20 years in prison, however – somewhere between 25% and 40% of a poor person’s total lifespan – we don’t require proof. In those cases, if something looks like a rat, we call it a rat. Honestly, things don’t have to look all that rat-like – four legs, a tail, a too-pointy nose? We call it a rat.
We’ve passed laws outlawing various molecules in this country – it’s illegal to sell them, it’s illegal to possess them, it’s illegal to have them floating through your bloodstream. But we don’t stop there – it’s also illegal to possess objects that might be used to ingest those molecules.
Usually, hypodermic needles are legal. As are glass pipes. And soda straws.
But we’ve decided that it’s illegal for certain people to have soda straws. If a person looks suspicious, he can’t drink through a straw. If a suspicious-looking person foolishly does receive a straw along with his soda, he can be sent to Rikers, where he might receive permanent brain damage when actual criminals wail on him.
45 sowing discord among America’s allies isn’t enough – we need proof that he’s acting at Russia’s behest to undermine our position in the world. But possession of a soda straw? That’s sufficient evidence for us to ruin somebody’s life. Not even his accompanying soda could absolve the man of presumed guilt.
The punishment for possession of methamphetamine is far less severe than the punishment for possession with intent to sell. Again, we don’t require proof that somebody’s selling drugs. If you buy in bulk, you must be selling. Never mind how many people love shopping at Cosco (or my own propensity to purchase restaurant-sized jars of pickles because each would be a wee bit cheaper per).
Our criminal justice system routinely divines intent from a person’s actions. When people’s lives are on the line, our suspicions are enough to convict. Yet now, as our country plunges toward disaster (climate change, nuclear war, or economic collapse could do us in), we need proof.