Two Things I've Heard All My Life That Don't Make Sense

Even though we're closer to Armageddon than we were 50 years ago, somehow it seemed like the real "Armageddon Fever" took place a half century ago. Maybe it was Hal Lindsey's 1970 bestseller The Late Great Planet Earth that stimulated the subsequent firestorm of pop-Apocalyptic lit. Or maybe it was simply the turbulence of the times--assassinations, Viet Nam, cities burning--that spawned the belief that humanity was doomed.

While Christians were reading about the end of the world and looking for their Lord's return, secular readers were engaged with books like Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb and doomsaying by groups like the Club of Rome. And let's not forget the angst generated by the somewhat intangible, though ever present, threat of nuclear holocaust as presented in books like On the Beach and Pat Frank's Alas, Babylon.

From those times to the present I've observed a few statements by pundits that never seem to go away. They may lay dormant for a season or two, but pretty soon they are being recycled again.

The first: In 10 years we will be out of oil.
This declaration was always accompanied by hand wringing about oil running out and the need to cut our dependence on oil. The latter is noble, though when I was young the statement emphasized cutting our dependence on foreign oil. There is so much oil under U.S. soil that you can't even imagine it. For some reason this off limits and that is off limit and those folks should be permitted to use their oil rigs and that pipeline has to be shut.... Bottom Line: It's empty rhetoric.

The real moral of this story is: Repeating silly pronouncements with specific dates or numbers will diminish your credibility

The second: There are too many people to feed. The world can't sustain any more.
In 1960, the population of the world was 3 billion. By 1974 it had grown to 4 billion. As of this moment, August 2023, there are 8 billion people populating our planet. 

Paul Ehrlich's book predicted mass starvation of the global population by the end of the 70s. 

What I remember most is that despite the troubling rise in population, technology was also advancing to make production of food more efficient and human life sustainable.

Now here's what I don't understand. After decades of handwringing about not being able to feed the world population as it grows, these very same people are diverting food crops for ethanol. And they are eliminating cattle in the Netherlands because of flatulence. (Ireland and Canada are pushing 30% cuts as well.) And I just heard that even more cropland is being eliminated for solar panel farms.

What happened to the concern about hunger?

Photo by Jesse Gardner on Unsplash

Sometime around 20 to 25 years ago Popular Science magazine had a detailed breakdown of the costs and benefits of turning corn into ethanol for car fuel. By the time you grow the corn, harvest it, transport it, convert it, distribute it.... There has been absolutely no gain. It uses up as much energy to create ethanol as the net gain from using it. In short, it is a waste.

Here's something else they don't tell you. E-10 gasoline (E-10 means 10% ethanol) can cause damage to small engines if not handled properly. It's too technical for this blog post, but you can look into it. The problem is called "phase separation." 

So what does our Minnesota leadership do? They are now pushing the use of E-15 instead of E-10. Moving forward with ethanol is ridiculous. Lawmakers close their ears to the experts who point out the silliness here. First, ethanol can damage older engines because it is a solvent which can dissolve some of the plastics, metals and rubber components used in older engines. Second, it has a lower energy content than gasoline. The result is lower fuel economy, the exact opposite of the increasingly stringent fuel economy objectives pressed by the EPA through CAFE regs. Third, because ethanol evaporates more easily than gasoline, it can contribute to smog formation. So why is Governor Walz celebrating the increased use of E15?

Why are we decreasing food production to increase production of a form of fuel that is less efficient and creates more smog? Whatever happened to all that concern about not being able to feed the masses?

*

A couple stats about corn in Minnesota. According to the USDA, Minnesota farmers planted 8.5 million acres of corn in 2021. 31% of this corn crop was used for ethanol. That's slightly more than all the acres used for cities, towns and roads in Minnesota. 

*

It's time to take a walk.

The Decline of America's Culture Industries: The Struggle Between Bureaucracy and Creativity

While I was in Italy  this spring I was surprised to see the pervasiveness of Bob Dylan books, art and music. There was a Dylan Retrospectum (art) in Rome, and books about or by Dylan featured in every bookstore. I struck up a conversation with a craft beer brewer in Parma regarding this observation, and he noted that it's not just Bob Dylan that America has exported, but Pop Culture in general.

This notion of American pop culture as a product being exported led to my noticing an increasing amount of commentary about the widespread dissatisfaction with the products Hollywood has been feeding us over the past decade or more. Here are some thoughts generated by feeding a sentence into ChatGPT, regurgitated in essay form.

In recent years, America's culture industries have faced a formidable challenge, grappling with the effects of decay, monopolization, and increasing bureaucracy. As the pursuit of profit has intensified, creativity has become stifled, leading to a worrying decline in the quality and diversity of cultural productions. 

Let's examine the claim that America's culture industries have been transformed into anti-competitive, risk-averse monopolists, suffocating real creativity under the weight of mind-numbing and politically driven bureaucracy.

The rise of corporate giants within the culture industries (esp. Hollywood, literature, music) has undoubtedly fostered a monopolistic environment. Large media conglomerates have acquired numerous entertainment companies, consolidating their control over various creative outlets, from music and film to television and publishing. This monopolization has led to a lack of competition, as smaller players struggle to compete in an industry dominated by a select few. As a result, fresh and daring ideas are often sidelined in favor of formulaic, mass-appealing content that guarantees a return on investment.

Furthermore, the fear of taking risks has permeated the culture industries. Executives, driven by the pressure to maximize profits, tend to prefer established franchises and sequels, diminishing the opportunities for originality and innovative storytelling. This risk-averse approach stifles the potential for groundbreaking works of art and entertainment that push the boundaries of creativity.

To compound the problem, culture industries have become entangled in layers of bureaucracy. The quest for efficiency and streamlining often results in cumbersome approval processes and decision-making hierarchies that slow down productions and impede the free flow of ideas. 

The weight of bureaucracy also affects the individual creatives, subjecting them to creative restrictions and inhibiting their ability to express themselves fully. The prioritization of market research and focus groups over genuine artistic vision further exacerbates the problem, leading to a homogenization of content and an erosion of creativity.

Moreover, the rising politicization of the culture industries has added another layer of complexity. In an attempt to appeal to specific demographics or avoid controversy, creative decisions are sometimes shaped by political considerations rather than artistic merit. This approach may lead to watered-down narratives, sanitization of historical events, or the avoidance of sensitive issues, ultimately undermining the power of storytelling to address important societal challenges. 

In conclusion, the decay of America's culture industries can be attributed to a combination of anti-competitive monopolistic practices, risk aversion, and the burdensome bureaucracy they have imposed on their productions. Creativity, once the driving force behind cultural innovation, is now suffocating under the weight of profit-driven decision-making and politically motivated constraints. To revitalize the culture industries and foster an environment of genuine creativity, it is crucial to address these issues, encourage healthy competition, and prioritize artistic vision over short-term gains. Only then can American culture industries regain their vibrancy and contribute meaningfully to the enrichment of global artistic expression.

* * * 

Here's the prompt I used to produce the above brief essay:  "As America’s culture industries have decayed into anti-competitive, risk-averse monopolists, they have imposed layers upon layers of mind-numbing and increasingly politicised bureaucracy on their productions that make real creativity all but impossible." I pulled it from a much longer essay titled America's pop-culture armageddon by David Samuel at Unherd.

In short, the more that is at stake, the less people are willing to take risks. And because the giants control the channels of distribution, the most creative, outside-the-box original ideas never see the light of day.  

* * * 

Where things go from here is anyone's guess. What do you think?