Category: Writing

Problem gambling

It takes all types.

I will admit that I have never been one for gambling. Perhaps a small bet between friends in my earlier English days. I do not know the cause of my resistance to ‘playing the odds’. My guess is that it is a product of being born in London in 1944 when life was pretty tight. I grew up being careful about my finances.

Thus, having a better obsession is not something that I understand.

However, this article about Brazil, published in The Conversation, was interesting enough to warrant me republishing it.

ooOOoo

The next World Cup won’t be only about passion for soccer. It will also be about betting obsession

For most of soccer’s history, fans all around the world cheered for goals and other skillful moves, but now online betting platforms have broken the game into hundreds of small financial bets, changing what soccer means emotionally for many of its fans. aniloracru/Unlimphotos

David Nemer, University of Virginia

In Brazil, the World Cup is far more than a sports event; it’s part of the country’s identity. Brazil has won the men’s tournament five times, and has high hopes of a sixth in the upcoming event taking place in Canada, Mexico, and the United States from June 11 to July 19.

In a country where kids play soccer in the streets, the World Cup is one of the rare times when millions across the nation share in the same excitement. But the way many Brazilians experience that excitement has changed for one big reason: Betting.

For most of soccer’s history, fans all around the world cheered for goals, great saves, skillful moves, comebacks, and wins. Now, online betting platforms have broken the game into hundreds of small financial bets. Fans can bet on the final score, but also on yellow and red cards, corners, throw-ins, shots on goal, saves, fouls, and almost every stat the game produces.

This shift changes what soccer means emotionally for many of its fans. For example, someone might cheer for a corner kick against their own team if it helps their bet. They might hope a defender gets a yellow card, even if it’s bad for their side. Some care less about Brazil’s game style and more about how much stoppage time there is for another chance to win a bet.

This isn’t simply about adding more entertainment. It turns passion into a transaction. Soccer’s magic comes from everyone sharing the same hope for a goal. Betting breaks that bond. Now, a foul isn’t just a foul; it’s a chance to win money. A corner kick becomes a way to cash out.

Betting and social costs

This is especially important in Brazil, where online betting is now part of daily life. Fixed-odds betting became legal in 2018, but real rules came much later. Between 2018 and 2024, companies grew quickly in a regulatory gray area, filling soccer, social media, and ads with betting. By the time Brazil’s regulated market started in 2025, betting was already everywhere.

The numbers reveal how big this has become. In 2025, Brazil ranked fifth in the world for online betting revenue – the United States came first, followed by the U.K., Italy and Russia. Around 26.3% of Brazilian households took part in some form of sports betting. In the past year, 39.5 million Brazilians used betting platforms. In just the first quarter of 2025, betting sites in Brazil had over 5 billion visits — more than 650 every second. Central Bank data showed Brazilians were moving up to R$ 30 billion (US$ 6 billion) each month through these platforms.

The social costs are clear. Nineteen percent of bettors, about 7.5 million people, said they spent money on gambling in a way that compromised their livelihood income. Forty-one percent gave up other purchases to bet. Seventeen percent skipped paying a bill to gamble. Twenty-nine percent ended up on bad-debt lists because of betting. The average monthly spend was R$ 187 (US$ 37.4), and for lower-income bettors, it was R$ 151.98 (US$ 30.4). For poor families, that money could have been better spent on food, transport, diapers, electricity, or rent.

And it’s not an exclusively Brazilian problem. Research in the U.S. found that nearly third of Pennsylvania gamblers are at risk of problem gambling. In Australia, gambling harm is likely underreported, while in the U.K. research showed gamblers don’t understand the true cost of so-called “free bets” – offers like welcome bonus on first deposits and other financial inducements.

Ties with masculinity

In Brazil’s favelas, betting is rarely just a pastime, as I observed during two years of fieldwork in communities in the city of Vitória, capital of Espírito Santo state. People see it as hope — a way to stretch a little money when jobs don’t pay enough. One young man told me he started because a coworker told him an app “made money.” He put it simply: “Who doesn’t want to make money these days?”. Another pointed out that people only share their wins, not their losses. Many knew the odds were arranged against them. As one person said, “the ones who really win are the platform owners.”

Soccer betting is also tied to ideas about masculinity. Many young men I spoke with saw sports betting as a way to show their knowledge, control, and skill. Betting on soccer was proof that you understood teams, form, possession, rivalries, and odds. Barbershops and WhatsApp groups became places where men shared tips and advice. One person told me betting was more common among men because it’s about soccer; another said young men “go deeper”, risking more money for bigger wins.

It’s not that women don’t bet; they do. But soccer betting often carries a masculine image: the man as expert, strategist, and provider. When money is tight, betting tells young men they can turn soccer knowledge into cash, and cash into pride. Losing feels shameful, so wins are shown off, and losses are kept quiet. This show of control hides the fact that the platform is really in charge.

Stronger rules and regulations

The 2026 World Cup will make all of this even bigger. There will be daily matches, national pride, celebrity ads, influencer tips, betting links, instant money transfers, and live in-game markets. The tournament will be promoted as a soccer festival. For betting companies, it will also be a chance to profit.

It’s a harsh irony. Brazilians will pin their hopes on the national team, but many will also risk their rent, wages, and emergency funds on bets about cards, fouls, and corners. In this game, the real winners aren’t the fans; they’re the betting platforms.

This doesn’t mean Brazilians should stop loving soccer. It means they need to protect the game from turning into just another way to make money. Simply licensing companies and collecting taxes isn’t enough. Brazil needs strong rules on advertising, real limits on losses and deposits, restrictions on in-game micro-bets that make every foul a bet, and public health campaigns that don’t blame people for a system built to trap them.

The World Cup should remind us why soccer is important. Its beauty isn’t about how many bets you can place. It’s about the impossible goal, the common excitement, the joy of winning together, and the dignity of losing without losing the money you need to live.

David Nemer, Associate Professor in the Department of Media Studies, University of Virginia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ooOOoo

I have never been to Brazil but I appreciate it is a very big country. It practically takes over South America (SA). I’m certain that it is the largest country in SA.

I have a follower of this blog who lives in SA and if John reads this post perhaps he will leave a comment. I hope so!

Far, far away (in stellar terms).

Deep space is beyond anything we have ever known.

Like many other people, I am fascinated by the dark, clear, night sky. It appears to go on forever.

But this ‘foreverness’ is just our galaxy.

As is said in the following article: “…. if Earth were the size of a pea, the distance to Proxima Centauri would roughly equal the distance between New York and Sydney, Australia.”

The article shows how distant we are, how small we are, how irrelevant we are, in the vastness of the universe.

This article is republished courtesy of The Conversation.

ooOOoo

Could aliens ever visit Earth? An aerospace scientist unpacks the challenges of interstellar spaceflight

The universe is vast and teeming with stars – but if intelligent life exists, it may not be able to visit Earth. NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI, Rohan Naidu (MIT); Image Processing: Joseph DePasquale (STScI), CC BY

Kai James, Georgia Institute of Technology

On May 22, 2026, the Pentagon released a second batch of previously classified photos and videos showing what appear to be unexplained flying objects. These file dumps were the culmination of a process that was set in motion back in July 2023, when a group of government whistleblowers testified before Congress that the U.S. government was secretly in possession of extraterrestrial spacecraft and suspected alien body parts.

That congressional hearing marked the beginning of a cultural shift in which UFO reports are increasingly treated as a matter for serious discussion, both within the government and the scientific community.

A grainy photo of a dark, blurry object in the sky.
The Pentagon released over 200 previously classified UFO files in May 2026. Department of Defense

But is this newfound legitimacy deserved? As an aerospace scientist who studies aircraft and spacecraft design, I approach this question using math, physics and the principles of engineering. To assess the plausibility of alien visitors, it’s necessary to understand the obstacles that an extraterrestrial vessel would need to overcome to reach Earth.

The tyranny of distance

There is no evidence of intelligent alien life in our solar system. So any extraterrestrial visitors would likely have to come from another star system within our Milky Way galaxy.

Proxima Centauri, the star closest to our Sun, is located 4.25 light-years (about 25 trillion miles or 40 trillion kilometers) away.

For perspective, if Earth were the size of a pea, the distance to Proxima Centauri would roughly equal the distance between New York and Sydney, Australia.

Even the stars closest to Earth are incredibly far away.

Since only a fraction of stars are thought to host intelligent life, the nearest alien civilization – if one exists – is surely much farther away than Proxima.

A need for speed

Given the scale of interstellar distances, it’s inevitable that any alien voyage to Earth would span many years and possibly several centuries. But as the time spent in transit increases, so does the risk of catastrophic accidents or system malfunctions that could jeopardize the mission. So it’s important to avoid an overly lengthy journey by traveling as fast as possible.

No object can reach or exceed the speed of light (roughly 186,000 miles or 300,000 kilometers per second). But well before approaching that threshold, engineering constraints begin to assert themselves. Limited fuel availability and the potential for structural damage will restrict the spacecraft’s peak velocity.

There is no universally accepted upper limit on interstellar flight speeds, but studies tend to converge around 19,000 miles per second (30,000 km/s) – 10% of the speed of light – as a realistic cruise velocity. At this speed, a journey of 10 light-years will take approximately 100 years to complete.

Fueling the dream

Finding a way to accelerate the ship to its target cruise speed is the central challenge facing any would-be alien explorers.

Interstellar space is unforgivingly vast, but the emptiness has some advantages. The lack of atmosphere means there is no aerodynamic drag. So when the ship reaches its cruise speed, it can shut down its propulsion system and coast toward the final destination. Unfortunately, the lack of atmosphere also means there is nothing to slow the ship down prior to arrival. So ideally, the propulsion system would be used for both acceleration at the start of the trip and deceleration at the end.

One of the more exotic propulsion strategies employs high-powered laser beams to push the ship through space. The beam is projected from a stationary array near the travelers’ home planet and directed toward a thin reflective sail attached to the ship. The beam’s photons exert radiation pressure on the sail, propelling the ship forward.

This approach has a major advantage in that it requires no onboard fuel. But the amount of energy and infrastructure needed to operate the laser would be staggering. Also, beamed propulsion provides no mechanism for deceleration. At best, this method could be deployed as part of a hybrid strategy that uses a separate system for deceleration.

A more practical approach is to use rocket propulsion. Rockets generate propulsive force, also known as thrust, by expelling high-velocity exhaust in a rearward stream. By reversing the direction of the exhaust, rockets can also be used to slow the ship down.

Their main disadvantage is that rockets must carry their own fuel in addition to carrying the passengers, the habitat and other life-sustaining systems. The extra load necessitates even more fuel. In other words, you need fuel to transport your fuel. The result is a costly snowball effect that can cause the total fuel requirement to balloon to absurd proportions.

Rocket propulsion can be divided into three broad categories.

Chemical propulsion uses chemical reactions – typically combustion – to extract energy from the bonds between atoms. All human space missions thus far have used chemical propulsion. The problem with this method is that it accesses only a tiny fraction of the energy contained within the fuel.

Consequently, using chemical propulsion on a spacecraft with a cruise velocity of 19,000 miles per second (30,000 km/s) would require more fuel than all the mass in the observable universe.

Antimatter propulsion is theoretically the most efficient option. When antimatter comes into contact with ordinary matter, the two undergo mutual annihilation and 100% of their combined mass is converted into energy. This makes it possible to achieve the same cruise velocity – one-tenth the speed of light – with fuel accounting for less than a quarter of the ship’s total mass. This is science fiction-level fuel efficiency, which makes antimatter an attractive option for interstellar propulsion.

The downside is that antimatter is extremely unstable and difficult to make. To date, particle physicists have produced less than 20 billionths of a gram of antimatter. Moreover, these particles had lifespans lasting only fractions of a second and a price tag in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Nuclear fusion offers a more viable alternative to antimatter. This approach harvests energy stored inside the nucleus of an atom using the same process that powers the Sun. With current technology, fusion engines remain aspirational, but they could, in theory, produce 10 million times more energy per kilogram than chemical rockets.

An illustration of a cylindrical spacecraft orbiting Earth
NASA has been working to develop nuclear propulsion. This artist’s impression shows what a nuclear-powered rocket could look like. John Frassanito & Associates/Wikipedia

Still, a fusion-powered ship with a cruise velocity of 19,000 miles per second (30,000 km/s) would require fuel equivalent to 150 times the mass of the ship itself.

A delicate balancing act

These numbers assume that our extraterrestrial visitors have figured out how to efficiently convert the energy released by their reactor – whether nuclear fusion or antimatter – into thrust.

Just as importantly, they must be able to create optimized fuel tank structures that are ultra lightweight yet highly secure. Designing the structure of the ship, from the fuel tanks to the hull, would be one of the biggest engineering challenges of the entire mission.

Interstellar space contains a sparse smattering of hydrogen atoms and microscopic grains of cosmic dust. At 19,000 miles per second (30,000 km/s), dust particles would smash into the ship’s hull with the energy of a .22-caliber bullet. The bombardment of hydrogen atoms would produce a violent cascade of radiation that could erode even the most resilient engineering materials.

Surviving the onslaught would require no less than a flying fortress with complex magnetic shielding. This would increase the total mass of the ship, which further drives up the demand for fuel.

This example is just one of the hundreds of delicate design trade-offs that would plague any interstellar vessel. Each individual design requirement acts as a filter, reducing the number of feasible solutions.

Finding a single system that simultaneously satisfies all the requirements is analogous to shopping for a car online. With each new filter you apply – four-wheel drive, black exterior, less than 10,000 miles on the odometer – the number of available options dwindles.

When design requirements are in tension with one another – for example, requiring a structure that is lightweight but also supremely durable – the number of feasible solutions can drop to zero.

No single law of physics prohibits an interstellar voyage to Earth. But the combined effects of hundreds of extreme, often conflicting engineering requirements may render it physically infeasible.

It’s also possible that alien civilizations have discovered novel technologies that outperform anything currently known to humans. But like the examples discussed here, any such technology will inevitably encounter its own engineering hurdles.

The trillion-dollar question

Ultimately, engineering challenges are just some of the many barriers to interstellar travel. Any prospective alien visitors must also have sufficient cognitive ability, technological maturity, physical resources, collective desire and proximity to Earth.

That said, if the stars were to align and an alien vessel made it to Earth intact, it would trigger a torrent of burning questions: Where are they from? What do they want? What are they made of?

But the question that would go furthest in shedding light on the deeper mysteries of the universe is, “How on Earth did they get here?”

Kai James, Professor of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ooOOoo



Kai James poses the unanswerable questions in the last two paragraphs. And how about this statement: “Consequently, using chemical propulsion on a spacecraft with a cruise velocity of 19,000 miles per second (30,000 km/s) would require more fuel that all the mass in the observable universe.“

Your dog-proof home

A post from Penny Martin.

Penny sent me this post and I thought that I would be able to post it before now. However, it seems like the perfect item for today.

ooOOoo

How to Design a Stylish Home That Stands Up to Your Dog

Dog owners who care about décor know the daily tug-of-war between stylish pet-friendly interiors and real-life messes. A sofa that looks perfect can turn into a scratch magnet, clean walls collect nose smudges, and “nice” floors don’t always survive muddy paws, spilled water, or surprise zoomies. The heart of dog-friendly home design is balancing aesthetics and functionality without treating every room like a sacrifice zone. With the right mindset, pet damage challenges can become design boundaries that still leave a home feeling pulled together.

Make 7 Upgrades That Survive Paws, Spills, and Zoomies

If you’ve ever tried to keep a home looking pulled-together while living with a dog who treats the hallway like a racetrack, you already know the goal: durable choices that still feel like you. These upgrades focus on the high-impact trouble spots, floors, walls, entryways, feeding zones, and the yard, so your style holds up to real life.

  1. Choose scratch-resistant flooring in the “runway” zones: If you can’t replace every floor, prioritize the routes your dog actually uses, entry → living room → back door. Look for scratch-resistant flooring with a tough wear layer, and use large, low-pile rugs (with a grippy pad) in corners where dogs pivot and launch. Keep nail trims on a 2–4 week rhythm to reduce micro-scratches, especially on stairs and landings.
  2. Create a paw-and-mud landing strip at the entry: Give dirt and water a place to “stop” before it hits your sofa. Add a washable runner, a closed hamper for dog towels, and a hook or basket for wipes right by the door. A shallow boot tray works great as a water bowl “parking spot,” too, especially for sloppy drinkers.
  3. Install a built-in dog feeding station (even a mini version): A built-in feeding station keeps bowls from wandering, helps contain splashes, and makes the feeding area feel intentional instead of cluttered. For a simple DIY approach, dedicate the bottom of a pantry cabinet or a mudroom nook and add a wipeable surface underneath. If your dog is a messy eater, choose deeper bowls and keep a small handheld vacuum nearby for daily 30-second resets.
  4. Protect walls and corners with “invisible armor”: Paint scuffs and body-oil streaks happen right at nose height and shoulder height. Use a durable, wipeable finish on walls, and add corner guards or wood trim where dogs rub and turn. If you’re renting or not ready to build, a narrow console table along a high-traffic wall can act like a stylish bumper.
  5. Set up a safe zoomie zone with flexible barriers: Instead of correcting your dog all day, manage the space. Use baby gates to block off carpeted rooms, kids’ toy areas, or the staircase when you can’t supervise. This is especially helpful during muddy season, post-bath chaos, or when guests are coming and you need a calm, contained zone fast.
  6. Upgrade fabrics to “cleanable by default” seating: Treat your sofa like performance gear: tight weaves, washable covers, and darker or heathered colors hide fur and drool better than flat, light solids. Keep a throw blanket on your dog’s favorite spot and wash it weekly, your couch stays nicer without starting a daily battle.
  7. Design pet-friendly landscaping for safe outdoor dog areas: Skip yard materials that can hurt paws or tempt chewing, and build a clear path where your dog naturally runs. Penn State Extension suggests flagstones or smooth gravel for pathways, which can reduce paw irritation and keep traffic from killing the grass. Aim for one easy-to-clean potty zone, one shaded “hangout” spot, and fencing you can trust, because outdoor durability counts just as much as indoor style.

Plan New-Home Peace of Mind: Ask About Structural Warranties

Those durability upgrades feel even better when your long-term protection matches the care you’re putting into the build. If you’re building a new dog-friendly home, ask your builder about adding a structural warranty or similar long-term protection, specifically, what’s included, how long it lasts, and how claims work. Solid warranty coverage for new builds can help safeguard the home’s underlying integrity if bigger issues show up later, which matters when everyday dog life adds extra wear and tear. It also helps protect the money you’re investing in pet-friendly choices like durable flooring and built-in features, so you’re not left feeling like you upgraded everything except your peace of mind.

Dog-Proof Design Options at a Glance

This quick comparison helps you choose finishes and features that look intentional, not improvised around your dog. Use it to balance durability, safety, and day-to-day convenience across high-traffic floors, outdoor boundaries, and feeding setups.

OptionBenefitBest ForConsideration
Luxury vinyl plank flooringScratch and spill resistance with many modern stylesBusy kitchens, mudrooms, play zonesCan dent under heavy furniture or sharp impacts
Porcelain tile with matte finishVery tough surface; easy cleanupSlobbery drinkers, rainy-paw householdsHard underfoot; use runners for traction
Real hardwood plus washable runnersClassic look with replaceable protectionLiving rooms where warmth mattersMore visible wear; requires routine refinishing over time
Vinyl-coated chain-link fenceDurable, lower cost, secure containmentLarge yards and strong pullersMore utilitarian look; needs thoughtful landscaping
Built-in feeding station in cabinetryKeeps bowls tidy for a seamless polished lookSmall kitchens and design-forward spacesLess flexible if you change bowl sizes or layout

If traction and easy cleanup are your top priorities, start with flooring and add rugs where your dog sprints or turns fast. If curb appeal matters most, fence style and a discreet feeding zone can make pet features feel fully “designed in.” Knowing which option fits best makes your next move clear.

Dog-Friendly Design FAQs Homeowners Actually Ask

Q: Can a dog-friendly home still protect resale value?
A: Yes, when you choose features that read as timeless upgrades, not pet-only add-ons. Think durable floors in classic tones, washable textiles, and clean-lined storage that hides leashes and toys. Keep any pet-specific elements easy to remove or swap so the home still shows well to non-pet buyers.

Q: How do I keep my floors from looking wrecked in a year?
A: Start with prevention: trim nails regularly and place a textured runner where your dog launches into turns. Use felt pads under furniture and wipe up grit fast, since sand acts like sandpaper. A small “paw station” by the door can cut down on tracked-in dirt.

Q: What’s the simplest way to manage shedding and odors without losing the cozy vibe?
A: Choose low-pile rugs, slipcovers, and throws you can wash weekly, then stick to a quick two-minute daily sweep in high-shed zones. A lidded hamper for dog blankets keeps smells contained. Ventilate after baths and rainy walks so fabrics stay fresh.

Q: Should I build in a feeding area, or keep it flexible?
A: Built-ins look polished, but flexibility often wins for real life. Try a wipeable mat and a tray that can move for cleaning, guests, or a new bowl size. If you love the built-in idea, plan for extra width and a removable insert.

Q: Can my dog’s routine really affect how well my home holds up?
A: Absolutely, because calmer dogs tend to do less damage when they are bored or overstimulated. A simple step is choosing the best foods for your dog with your vet, since nutrition can influence energy and behavior. Pair that with predictable exercise and a designated chew zone to protect your furniture.

Make Stylish, Dog-Ready Design Choices That Last

Living with a dog can feel like a constant tug-of-war between a home that looks good and one that can handle real life. The calmer path is a mindset of integrating pets into home life, planning for paws, fur, and play while still aiming for stylish and functional living. When that approach guides confident dog owner design choices, harmonious dog-friendly homes become easier to maintain, not harder to enjoy. Design for the dog you live with, and style will follow. Choose one long-term pet-friendly design change to start this week, and let it set the tone for the rest of your space. A home that supports both of you builds daily ease, deeper connection, and resilience for the years ahead.

ooOOoo

That is an excellent set of recommendations, many of which would not have occurred to me. Neither to Jeannie, who has loads more experience of looking after dogs than I have.

So, thank you, Penny and I look forward to your next ‘guest’ post.

The Emperor’s New Mind

I have finished this fabulous book.

The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and The Laws of Physics

Book by Roger Penrose

Here is a summary of the book that is first, a very deep read, and, second, full of detailed mathematics that were beyond me. I just skipped those parts. However, it is an incredible book and one that has extended my knowledge in so many ways. I think that it isn’t going too far to say that it has amended my knowledge tremendously and I am so glad to have read it, even at the age of 81.

If you wish, you may refer to my thoughts when I first obtained the book, written down on April 14th.

ooOOoo

The Emperor’s New Mind (1989) by Roger Penrose argues that human consciousness involves non-computable processes, meaning a computer can never fully replicate the human mind, even if it can simulate its functions. Penrose uses Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and quantum mechanics to support his view, suggesting that consciousness arises from physical processes in the brain that are not algorithmic, and that a deeper understanding of physics, possibly involving quantum gravity, is needed to explain the mind. The book explores the “mind-body problem” and challenges the idea that all thinking is computation, proposing that human understanding can grasp truths that formal systems cannot. 

Key arguments and concepts

  • Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems: Penrose argues that human mathematicians can see the truth of certain mathematical statements that a formal system (like a computer program) cannot prove, demonstrating a non-computable aspect of human thought. 
  • Non-computability: He posits that certain mental activities, like mathematical insight, are inherently non-algorithmic and cannot be simulated by a computer, even a powerful one. 
  • Quantum mechanics and consciousness: Penrose suggests that consciousness is linked to quantum mechanical processes in the brain, specifically involving microtubules, a theory he later developed further in Shadows of the Mind. 
  • Critique of Strong AI: The book challenges the “strong AI” hypothesis that a sufficiently complex computer can achieve genuine consciousness, arguing that it misunderstands the nature of human understanding. 

Reception and legacy

  • The book won the 1990 Science Book Prize. 
  • It sparked debate and collaboration, notably with Stuart Hameroff, leading to the “orchestrated objective reduction” (Orch OR) theory of consciousness. 
  • It remains a significant work in the philosophy of mind, artificial intelligence, and the physics of consciousness, influencing discussions on the limits of computation and the nature of the mind. 

ooOOoo

Penrose won the Science Book Prize in 1990 for The Emperor’s New Mind.

I am not surprised.

A wonderful poem from Bela

And I am not going to let my words interfere. Just read this.

ooOOoo

Clear the Needle

Who is she,
if she does not even know herself?

Trajectories confuse
when forced
into linear containers..

Like the cosmos —
all spirals and orbits —
we spin and dance,

sometimes skillfully,
sometimes clumsily.

The vinyl record spinning,
fine dust collecting
on the diamond needle.

We must stop
from time to time
and clear it

so that we might perceive sound
more accurately,
truer to itself.

I have collected
more than my share
of detritus.

But I have never been granted
the grace of someone or something
clearing the needle for me.

It remains a reminder
to pause.

Stop the music.
Lift the arm.
Clear the cartridge.

Begin again.

ooOOoo

Not only was Bela’s poem perfect so, too, was the comment left on Bela’s site from Shakti that I am going to share in full.

Hi Bela,

I found in the verse a striking metaphor for the human condition. 

We spend so much of life assuming the music has changed, when often it is the dust on our own needle that has altered the sound. Memory, hurt, ego, assumptions, fatigue—each leaves its fine sediment, subtly distorting how we hear ourselves, others, and the world. 

The most profound act, perhaps, is not to keep forcing the song forward, but to pause with enough honesty to ask: what in me is creating this static? The verse’s quiet power lies in rejecting rescue—no one may come to clear the needle for us. Self-awareness, then, becomes both responsibility and grace. To stop. To clean. To begin again—not as the same listener, but as a truer one

Shakti

“To begin again—not as the same listener, but as a truer one“

As I said, a perfect comment.

The unacceptable side of technology

The right to repair one’s own technology products is under attack.

I hadn’t really thought of this before now. I am speaking of an article last Friday that was published by The Conversation.

A large part of me is very open to the ways that technology is helping me. I presume that I am far from being alone.

Here is that article that questions the way things are.

ooOOoo

Today’s bans on DIY repairs of everything from cell phones to tractors grew out of Hollywood’s fear of videotaping

Betamax video recorders like this one helped set off a chain of events leading to bans on repairing your own devices. Steve Jurvetson/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

Oana Godeanu-Kenworthy, Miami University

If you have ever tried to repair something, realized that it was beyond your financial or technical means, and ended up buying a new one, you are not alone. Repairing electronics and household appliances has not been a real option in the United States for decades now, particularly for items that have proprietary software in them.

Absurd situations have proliferated. It can cost about the same to buy a new printer as it does to replace the ink cartridge. The U.S. Department of Defense cannot repair the weapons systems it purchases because the intellectual property rights remain with the manufacturer. John Deere, the farming equipment company, doesn’t allow farmers to access the software needed to repair their own combines and tractors because, while the purchase covers the physical machinery, it does not cover the software.

One consequence, in addition to cost and frustration for consumers, is environmental harm. The U.S. is the world’s second producer of electronic waste after China, to the tune of about 43 lbs (19.5 kg) of electronic waste annually per person. Only 25% of this e-waste is recycled.

The right-to-repair movement emerged in response, calling for people to be able to repair what they purchase, or have third parties do the repair work, without unnecessary financial, legal or technical barriers. Right to repair seems to be a rare area of bipartisanship in Congress. The Warrior Right to Repair Act – introduced in 2025 by a Democrat – and the Repair Act – introduced by a Republican – are two ongoing legislative initiatives to create a federal legal framework that would make it easy and cheap for American users to repair their devices. Both bills are fiercely opposed by industry groups.

As a scholar of American culture, I found through my research that the origins of the legal and technical obstacles to product repairs lie in debates in the 1980s over new media and copyright guardrails.

Hollywood and VCRs

The rapid rise and popularity of video cassette recorders, or VCRs, in the late 1970s transformed films and TV shows from transient experiences into tangible consumer goods. As I show in my book, “Videotape,” despite the potential for extra revenue, Hollywood was alarmed by the fact that users were now able to copy films on videotape, and tried to stop the technology. Today’s repair bans are part of that story.

The first U.S. copyright provisions were embedded in the 1790 Constitution. Over time, the law was amended to include new technologies, but at the core of future legal arrangements remained the initial intent: to protect the financial rights of creators while giving enough access to information for society as a whole to progress.

Until the second half of the 20th century, the American doctrine of fair use, which allows the unlicensed use of protected works under specific conditions, allowed judges to prevent copyright law from negatively affecting public interest. Organizations such as public libraries, book clubs, universities and news organizations benefited from this legal approach. The concept was codified into American law in the Copyright Act of 1976.

When the film studios took Sony to court to stop the production and sale of video recorders in 1976, they argued that Sony’s product encouraged copyright infringement. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that taping TV content for personal use did not violate copyright law, expanding the understanding of fair use.

The industry then focused on finding a technological solution to the piracy problem and on securing stricter legal protections for its products.

They identified the digital versatile disc, or DVD, as a safer alternative to the VHS tape. Initially, the DVD was a read-only format. It took a few more years of engineering before affordable recording was possible. Even then, the process was far more complicated for users than videotape recording. In 1997, barely one year after the video disc was launched, all of the Motion Picture Association of America member studios joined the DVD Forum, collectively adopted the new format and started to phase out films released on videotape. https://www.youtube.com/embed/46RDkiy5h3U?wmode=transparent&start=0 Manufacturers use several tactics to block consumers and third-party repair shops from fixing their products.

Copyright and virtual locks

Then came digital rights management. Collectively, the term refers to the battery of technological tools that the industry developed in order to control user access to content. These include encryption software and various forms of authentication or enforcement software that limit which types of digital activities users can perform. For instance, some mechanisms block the option to download or share a digital file.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1998, provided the broad legal framework that allowed these technological locks to expand far beyond entertainment, including to software. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act reflected a new alignment in interests between the entertainment and software industries. It increased existing penalties for copyright infringement online and criminalized any technology used to bypass technological locks. The law was adopted although at the time – and since then – critics warned that it could stifle innovation and increase costs for consumers.

Since 1998, more and more consumer products, from toys to dishwashers, use microchips and proprietary software protected by copyright. Because of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, third party repairers cannot alter or bypass the proprietary software. If they did so, they would be liable for infringing the manufacturer’s intellectual property rights, as is the case for John Deere farm equipment. Some electronics are even designed to make tampering with the product impossible.

Manufacturers maintain that only they or authorized personnel can and should repair their products. These repairs are often quite costly. When getting a product repaired becomes almost as expensive as buying a new one, many consumers will choose to buy and throw repairable items away.

Rising resentment over repair bans

Technology tends to outpace existing legal arrangements. With over 80% of Americans supporting the right to repair, it remains to be seen when or if American law will catch up with the unexpected consequences of a law meant to protect the intellectual rights of the creative industries, but which is now hurting consumers’ pocket books.

Oana Godeanu-Kenworthy, Teaching Professor of American Studies, Miami University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ooOOoo

The end of that article points out that more than 80% of Americans support the right to repair and, I guess, that support extends far beyond the USA.

Indeed, a quick online search found that in the UK an organisation, Restart, had a website on the subject. Here is a little of what they said;

“The last few years have been really exciting for the Right to Repair in many countries outside the UK. Around the world we’ve seen people get access to more repairable and longer lasting products, cheaper repair options and better information about product repairability. As a result, repair is helping tackle climate change, reduce waste, lower living costs, support communities and create green skilled jobs in more places than ever.“

Then another search found out that the Eurpoean Commission had a Right to repair law in place. It was introduced in 2024. Here’s how it starts:

“The new rules reinforce the right to repair, aim to reduce waste and bolster the repair sector by making it easier and more cost-effective to repair goods.“

So, hopefully, Oana, the teaching professor at Miami University, can establish a new law that will give American consumers the right to replair their technology belongings.

The ‘Free’ Trial

As you are seeing on the Web.

This article from The Conversation really resonated with me. For as the online world is advancing, so too is the darker side of the Web.

Here is that article.

ooOOoo

Dark patterns on the web are designed to manipulate you – why aren’t they all illegal?

Website designs that try to change your behavior cross a line when they outright deceive. Fizkes/iStock via Getty Images

Gregory M. Dickinson, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Institute for Humane Studies

You open a free app to do one simple thing. Before you even start, a full-screen message asks whether you want to try the paid version. The “Start free trial” button is large, bright and hard to miss. The option to keep using the free version is smaller, buried at the bottom. The same prompt appears again tomorrow. And the day after that.

A lot of people look at screens like that and think, “Surely this has to be illegal.” We even have a name for them, “dark patterns.” They feel pushy. They waste time. They seem designed to wear you down. But in most cases, they are perfectly lawful.

“Dark pattern” is not a legal term with a clear boundary. It is a broad label for digital designs that nudge, pressure, confuse or trap users. As a legal scholar who studies consumer protection and digital design, I think the most important thing for readers to understand is that the label “dark pattern” covers a broad spectrum.

Some of that spectrum is just annoying. Some of it is aggressive salesmanship. And some of it crosses the line into deception or coercion. Federal and state consumer protection laws are mostly aimed at that last category. They do not ban every design choice people dislike, only those that trick or coerce.

Annoying isn’t illegal

smartphone screenshot of images of a well-dressed young man
The ‘X’ in the upper right corner of this ad, for users to click to dismiss the ad, appears after the ad has been displayed for a moment. The ad also has an ‘X’ in the upper left corner, which is part of the image in the ad. Some users might click the ‘X’ on the left to dismiss the ad but instead be sent to the ad’s website. Possibly annoying but not illegal. Screen capture by Gregory Dickinson

That reality may sound unsatisfying, but it is not unusual. Offline life is full of things that are irritating but not unlawful. Think of the cashier who asks whether you want to sign up for the store credit card, then points out the discount you are turning down, then asks again. Most people know exactly what is happening. They roll their eyes, say no and try to shop somewhere else next time.

The same is true online. A repeated pop-up can be obnoxious. A guilt-inducing button can be tacky. But consumers recognize ordinary annoyance for what it is. In many cases, the market answer is simple: Close the app, ignore the pitch or take your business elsewhere.

Similarly, law does not ban persuasive sales pitches just because they are effective. A car salesperson who keeps steering you toward the upgraded model is trying to influence your choice. So is the airline clerk who offers travel insurance. So is the restaurant server who asks whether you want dessert. Salesmanship is nothing new. Digital design often borrows from familiar techniques.

That helps explain why lawmakers cannot simply outlaw “manipulation.” And so many interfaces are built to persuade, openly and lawfully.

What crosses the line

What the federal FTC Act and analogous state consumer-deception statutes usually care about is not whether a design is annoying. They focus on whether the design is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. That is the core idea in modern consumer protection law.

So a design is likelier to be unlawful when it hides key facts, makes an optional choice look mandatory or tricks people about the effect of the button they are pressing. A fake countdown timer, a disguised ad, a misleading one-click purchase button or a cancellation path that looks finished when it is not are all different from ordinary hard selling. Those designs do not just pressure users; they can deceive them.

That is also why the app maker’s intent is not always the key question. In many consumer protection cases, a company does not get a free pass just because no one said, “Let’s trick people.” The legal question is often about effect: What would a reasonable user likely understand from this screen?

Research on dark patterns reinforces that concern. Even relatively mild designs can push people into choices they would not otherwise make. And regulators have increasingly focused on subscription flows, hidden fees and cancellation obstacles for exactly that reason.

image of a website form with a pop-up box in front of it
The instructions for this web form and the pop-up box that appears when users click ‘Continue’ indicate that the form has required fields. The form uses the word ‘mandatory,’ which could lead some users to believe that the form itself is required in order to continue when it is instead optional. Possibly annoying but not illegal. Screen capture by Gregory Dickinson

Why it feels like dark patterns are everywhere

One reason people might think there are no laws against dark patterns is that they see them so often. But that frequency reflects that the term covers a wide range of conduct, from lawful nagging to outright deception.

It also reflects enforcement limits. Regulators cannot chase every irritating screen on every app and website. They have to prioritize the worst cases. That leaves a lot of borderline conduct in the wild, which makes the whole problem feel bigger and murkier to ordinary users.

So when people ask why there is not a law against dark patterns, the best answer is that there already is, but the law does not prohibit every annoying or high-pressure design. It targets lies, misleading cues and coercive obstacles.

That line can be fuzzy. But the fuzziness is not a mistake. It is what you get when the law tries to separate persuasion from deception in a world full of both.

Gregory M. Dickinson, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Institute for Humane Studies

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ooOOoo

Gregory Dickinson does us a real service. Especially when the intention is to pass on blatant mistruths.

So many people get sucked into these dark patterns. The legality of these dark matters needs to be re-examined.

Knowledge

The following is an excellent message.

The Conversation yet again have published an excellent post. It is about becoming a more informed person.

ooOOoo

Most people don’t know what they don’t know, but think they do – correcting your metaknowledge can make you a better teacher and learner

The ability to say ‘I know that I know nothing’ could be considered a sign of wisdom. Nicolas-André Monsiau/Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts via Wikimedia Commons

Tommy Blanchard, Tufts University

Do you know what the Apple logo looks like?

Chances are, you think you do. It’s ubiquitous and iconic. How could you not know it?

But when tested, it turns out very few people can remember all the features of the logo. One study of 85 people found that only about half could pick the correct logo out of a lineup of similar ones. And only one person could correctly draw it.

This isn’t an isolated example. A classic study from 1979 found that people similarly couldn’t draw a penny accurately or pick out a correctly drawn penny from incorrect ones.

People aren’t just bad at remembering things they see all the time, but also in actually knowing how they work. In a 2006 study, many people made significant errors when drawing a bicycle, like putting the chain around the front wheel as well as the back wheel. More than just a forgotten detail, putting the chain around both wheels shows a deeper misunderstanding of how a bicycle works. A bicycle with a chain around both wheels wouldn’t be able to turn.

Illustration of bike with different components labeled
Do you truly know how a bicycle works? Al2/Grandiose via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

It turns out people’s knowledge of how the world works is often fragmented and sketchy at best. They systematically overestimate their understanding of everyday devices and natural phenomena. People will tend to give themselves high ratings on how well they understand something, such as how bicycles or zippers work. But when they’re asked to actually explain the mechanics of these objects, their ratings of their understanding typically drop.

Just like how your knowledge of the world around you is imperfect, your knowledge about your own knowledge – also called metaknowledge – is often flawed. My field of cognitive science has been uncovering various gaps in human metaknowledge for decades.

If people are systematically overconfident about how well they understand things, why don’t they notice when they don’t understand something? And what can people do to better recognize the limits of their own knowledge?

Why you think you know more than you do

Researchers have identified several factors behind people’s overconfidence in their knowledge.

One is that people confuse environmental support with understanding: The information is out in the world but not actually in your head. With a bicycle or a zipper, all of the parts are visible to you, and you may confuse this transparency for an internal understanding of how they work. But until you go to use that knowledge by attempting to explain how they work, you may not recognize that you don’t understand how those parts interact.

A second factor is confusing different levels of analysis. People can often describe how something works at a very high level. You know that the engine of a car makes the car go, and the brakes slow and stop the vehicle. But confidence in your high-level understanding of the car may bias you to think you also have a good grasp of the finer details, like how the engine pistons and brake pads work.

Additionally, people can be blind to the ways their knowledge shapes their own perception. In one study, researchers had participants tap out the tune to a popular song. On average, the tappers thought listeners would be able to identify the song about 50% of the time. But when listeners had to identify the tapped song, they actually could identify it only 2.5% of the time. The tappers didn’t realize how much their knowledge was making identifying the song seem easy to them.

A teacher talks to a student before a chalkboard wall filled with equations, chemical structures and graphs
Intellectual humility can help you see your expert blind spot. Vitaly Gariev/Unsplash, CC BY-SA

This disconnect has consequences beyond whether someone else can understand your Morse code version of a song. When teaching people, whether in formal classroom settings or through casual mentorship, you can sometimes have an expert blind spot: the inability to recognize the difficulties beginners face when learning something you have expertise in.

Building expertise often involves internalizing knowledge to the point where it becomes invisible to you. You draw on knowledge you don’t realize you have, making it hard to relate to learners who lack this knowledge – and, of course, hard for learners to relate to your teaching. You might have experienced this when you’ve gotten partway through explaining something, only to realize you’ve been using jargon you forgot isn’t common knowledge and lost your listener.

How to address metaknowledge failures

Your metaknowledge can fail in two directions: You can think you know more than you do, and you can be blind to how much you’re relying on knowledge you do have. Each calls for a different response to correct it.

When you’re overconfident in your knowledge, the remedy is using that knowledge. You’ll quickly realize how much you actually understand and dial down your confidence. Challenging yourself to actually try to walk through how something works is a great exercise in intellectual humility – that is, recognizing that you may be wrong – and can keep you from getting out over your skis.

Building a greater appreciation for what you know is more difficult. You can’t simply unlearn what you’ve internalized. But what this challenge shows is that, to some extent, knowing a subject and knowing how to teach it are two separate skills. Some experts are great teachers, but not simply by virtue of being experts. Recognizing that you have to approach teaching with humility, and that your expertise doesn’t automatically make you a skilled teacher, can go a long way toward making you a better teacher and mentor.

These aren’t easy and quick fixes to failures of metaknowledge. Both require ongoing intellectual humility and a willingness to distrust your own confidence. But acknowledging the fallibility of your own metaknowledge is a good place to start.

Tommy Blanchard, Research Associate in Cognitive Science, Tufts University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ooOOoo

This article is of particular interest for me. Because a few years ago, I had a biking accident at the local Merlin (OR) rail crossing. I banged my head badly and was unconscious for about eight minutes. Later on the surgeon who operated on my head said that I was lucky to be alive but that from here on my memory would be poor.

I work very hard to try and remember the items that I want to. And without my pocket book to write things down, I would be so much more forgetful.

Starting your own business

And even better if it involves dogs.

Another wonderful article from Penny Martin.

Years ago I started my own business back in England. It was wonderful. It was very different to what I expected. It was exciting, and tiring. In the main, I worked seven days a week!

ooOOoo

How to Start a Successful Pet Treat Bakery Inspired by Your Dog

For beginner dog owners who feel calmer, more connected, and more themselves around their pups, the idea of launching a pet bakery can feel both exciting and out of reach. The tension is real: canine-inspired business ideas spark hope, but uncertainty about what’s “safe,” what’s realistic, and what dogs truly need can stop dog owner entrepreneurship before it starts. A pet treat bakery business can be more than a hobby when it’s built with care, clarity, and respect for the animals it serves. With the right mindset, launching a pet bakery becomes a grounded next step.

Quick Summary: Starting a Pet Treat Bakery

  • Start by researching the pet treat market to confirm demand and spot clear customer needs.
  • Start by building a simple business plan that maps products, pricing, and day to day operations.
  • Start by focusing on essential launch strategies that keep your bakery realistic and manageable.
  • Start by choosing funding options that fit your budget and help you grow steadily.

Build the Business Backbone: Budgeting, Leadership, and Management

Going back to school for a business degree can help you sharpen the fundamentals behind budgeting, leading, and managing day-to-day decisions, so your big-hearted dog treat dream has a sturdy backbone. A business degree can also teach practical skills in accounting, business, communications, or management that translate directly into running any small operation. And because online degree programs are designed for flexibility, it’s often easier to keep working full-time while staying on top of your studies. When you’re ready to explore options, learn more about accredited online business bachelor’s programs.

With that groundwork in place, you’ll be ready to walk through the step-by-step process of opening your pet treat bakery.

From Recipe Idea to First Pet Treat Sale

With that groundwork in place, here’s your path to action.

This process helps you turn your dog-inspired treat idea into a real, legal, sellable product. It matters because dogs model integrity so well: they are consistent, they listen for feedback, and they earn trust one small choice at a time, which is exactly how a good bakery is built.

  1. Step 1: Develop one “signature” recipe and test it
    Start with a simple base recipe using dog-safe ingredients, then make small, trackable changes one variable at a time (texture, size, bake time). Share samples with a few trusted dog-owner friends and ask for honest notes about smell, crumbiness, and how dogs react. Keep a mini “treat journal” so your results are repeatable, like your dog’s steady routines.
  2. Step 2: Choose your selling setup and confirm licensing
    Decide where you will produce treats (home kitchen, shared commercial kitchen, or a rented space) because that choice affects permits, inspections, and packaging rules. Write down your product list and how you plan to sell (online, markets, local shops), then call your city or county office to ask what you must file before you accept money. Build integrity early by doing this before you print labels or buy bulk supplies.
  3. Step 3: Source suppliers and price your treats clearly
    List your must-have ingredients and packaging, then get quotes from at least two vendors for each so you can compare quality, minimums, and delivery times. Set a price that covers ingredients, packaging, test batches, and your time, not just the flour and peanut butter. 
  4. Step 4: Build a brand that reflects your values
    Pick a bakery name, a short promise (for example, “simple ingredients, honest sourcing”), and 2 to 3 product names that are easy to remember. Create labels that match what you actually do, not what sounds impressive, and write a short origin story about what your dog taught you about consistency and care. Trust grows when your branding and your behavior line up.
  5. Step 5: Market, take pre-orders, and make your first sale
    Start small with a weekly batch schedule, a simple order form, and a clear pickup or shipping plan. Post behind-the-scenes photos of testing days, ingredient prep, and your dog “quality control,” and invite early customers to review honestly. 

Small, consistent steps earn loyal customers, just like your dog earns trust every day.

Pet Treat Bakery Questions Dog Owners Ask Most

Q: What rules do I need to follow before selling dog treats?
A: Start by calling your local business licensing office and your state agriculture or feed control agency to ask how pet treats are classified where you live. Requirements often include a business license, approved production space, labeling rules, and possible registration. Keep a simple compliance checklist and treat it like your dog’s “house rules”: clear, consistent, and non-negotiable.

Q: How do I keep my treats food-safe if I’m baking in small batches?
A: Write down a basic safety plan: clean and sanitize surfaces, separate allergens, date every batch, and store ingredients in sealed containers. Use a batch log so you can trace what went into each run if a customer has a concern. When in doubt, simplify ingredients and processes until you can do them the same way every time.

Q: Can I say my treats help with anxiety, allergies, or joint health?
A: Be careful with health claims because they can trigger stricter oversight and customer distrust. Stick to truthful, verifiable statements like ingredients, sourcing, and texture benefits, and encourage pet parents to consult their veterinarian for medical needs. Integrity in marketing protects both dogs and your business.

Q: How do I find my first customers without feeling salesy?
A: Lead with service: offer a small sampler box to a few dog-owning communities and ask for specific feedback and referrals. Share your story, your standards, and your consistency, because trust sells better than hype. 

Q: What’s the biggest risk that makes new pet treat bakeries stall out?
A: One common trap is making a “great” product that nobody buys. Reduce that risk by taking pre-orders, validating pricing early, and tracking repeat purchases instead of likes. Let your dog’s honesty guide you: listen to real behavior, not wishful thinking.

Keep it simple, stay truthful, and let trust grow one good batch at a time.

Turning Dog-Led Treat Ideas Into a Trustworthy Bakery Brand

Starting a pet treat bakery can feel like a tug-of-war between big dreams and the real-world rules that keep pets safe and customers confident. The path that holds up is entrepreneurial motivation guided by integrity in business, making careful choices, staying consistent, and letting care lead every decision. When that mindset becomes the foundation, long-term business success looks less like luck and more like steady trust, repeat orders, and word-of-mouth that grows through community engagement.

Build trust first, and the bakery grows from there. You can take one next step today by starting a simple conversation, ask a local pet group what they look for in treats and listen closely. That kind of care creates resilience, connection, and a healthier, steadier business life for inspiring pet bakery founders.

ooOOoo

Thank you, Penny, for another great article. As an ex-salesman of office software, running my own business, I can vouch for trust in yourself, your company, and, especially, keeping the customer happy, being the most important qualities.

As the say goes: “The customer is always right.”

Geo. Monbiot’s Grim Message

Action regarding the climate crisis.

The following essay from George Monbiot is a difficult read but it is also a necessary read.

With the news that the polar ice caps are retreating, just read yesterday: “Polar ice caps and sheets are shrinking at alarming rates due to global warming, with Arctic sea ice decreasing by over 12% per decade and polar ice sheets losing 7,560 billion tonnes of ice between 1992 and 2020. Greenland and Antarctica are losing hundreds of billions of tons of ice annually, significantly contributing to rising sea levels. [1, 2, 3, 4]”

ooOOoo

Alternating Current

Posted on 29th April, 2026

If this crucial circulation system shuts down, the civilisational impacts will be irreversible. So why isn’t it a top priority?

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 23rd April 2026

The poor and middle pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the very rich pay lawyers – and the ultra-rich pay politicians. It’s not an original remark, but it bears repeating until everyone has heard it. The more money billionaires accumulate, the greater their control of the political system – which means they pay less tax, which means they accumulate more, which means their control intensifies.

They reshape the world to suit their demands. One of the symptoms of the pathology known as “billionaire brain” is an inability to see beyond their own short-term gain. They would sack the planet for a few more stones on the pointless mountain of wealth. And we can see it happening. Last week delivered the biggest news of the year so far, perhaps the biggest news of the century. But partly because billionaires own most of the media, most people never heard it. We might find ourselves committed to a civilisation-ending event before we even learn that such a thing is possible.

The news is that the state of a crucial oceanic circulation system has been reassessed by scientists. Some now believe that, as a result of climate breakdown changing the temperature and salinity of seawater, it is more likely than not to collapse. This system – known as the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (Amoc) – delivers heat from the tropics to the North Atlantic. Recent research suggests that if it shuts down, it could cause both a massive drop in average winter temperatures in northern Europe and drastic changes in the Amazon’s water cycles. This could help tip the rainforest into cascading collapse and trigger further disaster.

Amoc’s shutdown is likely also to cause an acceleration of sea level rise on the east coast of the US, threatening cities. It could also raise Antarctic temperatures by roughly 6C and release a vast pulse of carbon currently stored in the Southern Ocean, accelerating climate catastrophe.

Even when the countervailing effects of generalised global heating are taken into account, a further paper proposes, the net impact in northern Europe would be periods of extreme cold – including events in which temperatures in London fall to -19C, in Edinburgh to -30C and in Oslo to -48C. Sea ice in February would extend as far as Lincolnshire. Our climate would change drastically, with the likelihood of far greater extremes, such as massive winter storms. Rain-fed arable agriculture would become impossible almost everywhere in the UK.

This shift, on any realistic human scale, would be irreversible. Its speed is likely to outrun our ability to adapt. Amoc shutdowns, driven by natural climate variability, have happenedbefore. But not in the era of large-scale human civilisation.

The first paper proposing that Amoc might have an on-state and an off-state was published in 1961. Since then, many studies have confirmed the finding and explored potential triggers and likely implications. Until recently, Amoc collapse caused by human activity fell into the category of a “high impact, low probability” event, devastating if it happens, but unlikely to occur.

Research over the past few years prompted a reassessment: it began to look more like a “high impact, high probability” event. Now, in response to last week’s paper, Prof Stefan Rahmstorf – perhaps the world’s leading authority on the subject – says the chances of a shutdown look like “more than 50%”. We could pass the tipping point, he says, “in the middle of this century”.

So why is this not all over the news? Why is it not the top priority for the governments that claim to protect us from harm? Well, in large part because oligarchic power has championed a model of climate impact that bears little relation to reality: that is, they have a hypothesis about how the world works that is completely detached from scientific findings. This model underpins official responses to the climate crisis.

It began with the work of the economist William Nordhaus, who sought to assess the economic effects of global heating. His modelling suggests that a “socially optimal” level of heating is between 3.5C and 4C. Most climate scientists see a temperature rise of this kind as catastrophic. Even 6C of heating, Nordhaus suggests, would cause a loss of just 8.5% of GDP. Climate science suggests it would look more like curtains for civilisation.

As the eminent economists Nicholas Stern, Joseph Stiglitz and Charlotte Taylor have argued, the mild effects Nordhaus forecasts are merely artefacts of the model he has used. For example, his modelling assumes that catastrophic risks do not exist and that climate impacts rise linearly with temperature. There is no climate model that proposes such a trend. Instead, climate science forecasts nonlinear impacts and greatly escalating risk.

The likely impacts of high levels of heating include the inundation of major cities, the closure of the human climate niche (the conditions that sustain human life) across large parts of the globe, the collapse of the global food system and cascading regime shifts – that is, abrupt transitions in ecosystems – releasing natural carbon stores, potentially leading to a “hothouse Earth” in which very few survive. Never mind a few points off GDP: there would be no means of measurement and scarcely an economy to measure.

Bizarrely, the modelling also applies discount rates to future people: their lives, it assumes, are worth less than ours. In other words, it has taken a method used to calculate returns to capital and applied it to human beings. As the three economists point out, “it is very difficult to find a justification for this in moral philosophy.” Moreover, climate impacts disproportionately affect the poor – but under the models, their lives are also priced down.

Unsurprisingly, models of this kind, Stern, Stiglitz and Taylor note, have been seized on by “special interests” such as the fossil fuel industry to argue for minimal responses to the climate crisis. And it’s not just the oil companies. Bill Gates, who claims to want to protect the living planet, has given $3.5m (£2.6m) to a junktank run by Bjorn Lomborg, who has built his career on promoting Nordhaus’s model, thus helping to downplay the need for climate action. Nordhaus was awarded the Nobel Memorial prize for economics for his pernicious nonsense – and it is deeply embedded in government decision-making.

A billionaire death cult has its fingers around humanity’s throat. It both causes and downplays our existential crisis. The oligarchs are not just a class enemy but, as they have always been, a societal enemy: a few thousand people can destroy civilisations. It’s the billions v the billionaires, and the stakes could not possibly be higher.

http://www.monbiot.com

ooOOoo

Until I came to live in the the USA permanently, in 2010, I used to live in South Devon, near Totnes. Thus the AMOC was very familiar to me and the local population. AMOC stands for Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Much more information on AMOC may be read on the WikiPedia site.

Although the future of the AMOC is uncertain, many scientists are concerned that the AMOC will weaken.

The above article by George Monbiot is potentially frightening. As Monbiot says at the end; “… a few thousand people can destroy civilisations.“

What we need is a few thousand people to make this the number one priority! Not tomorrow but today!