Pun Salad

The disappointing answer to the book's title: still workin' on it.

But since I started reading the book a few days ago, I've kept my eye peeled for news. And it's pretty easy to find. A couple weeks ago, there was a Christopher Mims column in the WSJ: The Biggest Problem With Flying Cars Is on the Ground. (I.e., where are they going to land?)

But perhaps more sobering, from Reason's wonderful Katherine Mangu-Ward: Where's My Damn Flying Car?: An Update

Terrafugia, Inc., an MIT-born firm, has released a flight simulator for their model, the Transition. They're calling it a "roadable aircraft" because of niggling little details like the fact that you need a pilot's license to operate the vehicle. But it's a flying car. You can drive it to the airport, unfold the wings, and take off.

Only problem: that's from 2006. Terrafugia was taking deposits for delivery of the Transition in 2009. And you may have noticed: it didn't happen.

These days, Terrafugia has more modest goals: the SEEKER, "an innovative, electric, fixed-wing/VTOL hybrid aircraft designed explicitly for autonomous commercial aerial applications." Unmanned. Ho hum.

But back to the book: flying cars are only one of the areas the author, J. Storrs Hall, investigates. He's willing to believe they could happen, and considers a lot of the obvious constraints and objections: yes, flying is well within the capabilities of normal humans; yes, it's plausible there would be a robust demand for them; yes, there are no obvious technical gotchas. The big roadblocks are government over-regulation and the explosion of liability lawsuits.

But flying cars are only one example of a general problem. The concept behind nanotech was (essentially) thought up by Richard Feynman in 1959. K. Eric Drexler's 1986 book Engines of Creation (yes, I read it) told us all of the wonders just about to come… and then, meh. What happened? Hall has explanations there, too. Again, there don't seem to be any technical roadblocks, just misdirected government funding to organizations that don't seem very interested in doing anything revolutionary.

The book contains many other interesting technological wonders that could be ours, if only we'd get our act together. Some are (near-literally) blue sky. Worried about climate change? Hall doesn't mention my favorite solution, Artificial photosynthesis; instead he imagines billions of centimeter-sized diamond baloons filled with hydrogen, floating 20 miles up. They would contain mirrors that could be continually adjusted to reflect sunlight back into space: essentially a global thermostat. Cool! (Literally.)

Hall's stories are plausible and interesting. (He has an unfortunate hangup about the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, though.) And his observations sometimes overlap into mine: he likes the technologically-optimistic SF of Heinlein over the pessimistic drug-inspired dystopias of Philip K. Dick. (My own: Dick has 46 writing credits at IMDB; Heinlein has a mere 20. And a slew of those 20 are from the execrable Starship Troopers franchise.)

All in all, the book made me think about Deirdre McCloskey's insight: that the "Great Enrichment" of the past couple centuries was due to a shift in beliefs and moral norms that extended respect and dignity to commercial activity.

I can't help but wonder if what Hall calls the "Great Stagnation" is due to a similar shift in attitudes. And whether such a shift will turn into a "Great Impoverishment". It's unfortunately not implausible.

• I would have preferred to read "Elon Musk and His Triphibian Atomicar". But I'll take James Freeman's headline if I have to: Elon Musk and the Baby Bust.

  Due to recent declines in stock prices, Elon Musk is now down to his last $200 billion. But despite all the sellers in today’s market, Mr. Musk is not letting those vast herds get him down. Instead, the Tesla CEO and SpaceX founder is once again offering compelling commentary on Twitter.

  Today Mr. Musk is sharing a graphic from the Wall Street Journal and tweeting:

  USA birth rate has been below min sustainable levels for ~50 years...

  Contrary to what many think, the richer someone is, the fewer kids they have.

  I am a rare exception. Most people I know have zero or one kid.

  Perhaps Mr. Musk will consider broadening his social circle. According to a March story in People magazine, he has fathered eight children.

  One of the kids (just turned two) is named X Æ A-Xii, which David Harsanyi claims is pronounced “my dad is an unfathomably wealthy eccentric”.

  ---

• Fluency in diverse computer languages does not count. If you were thinking about attending Northern Arizona University, you got another think coming. John D. Sailer relates their latest graduation requirement: A Bachelor’s in Diversity.

  At Northern Arizona University, a course titled Intersectional Movements of Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality promises to analyze “how intersectionality, and the matrix of inequality, have shaped the production of knowledge” and to provide “a critical lens through which intersectional epistemologies can be foregrounded.” Another, Introduction to Queer Studies, covers “queer theory and activism,” the “social and historical construction of gender and sexuality,” and the “role of allies and social change.” Trans Existence and Resilience, meantime, promises to “examine trans epistemologies as well as critiques of Eurocentric models of thinking about genders that explain peoples’ existence within Western frameworks and ontologies.”

  Each of these courses counts toward one of NAU’s two “diversity requirements,” which students must satisfy to complete their degrees. Now, NAU plans to take the requirements even further, mandating that students take four of such courses—a policy that the university’s own diversity-curriculum committee describes as “unprecedented.”

  These new requirements follow a concerted effort on NAU’s part to weave diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) “into the fabric of the institution.” In a forthcoming case study for the National Association of Scholars, I explore how Arizona’s universities teach American history and civics. The study shows that, increasingly, civic education is simply overshadowed by DEI initiatives, which often provide a gloss on American history and politics using the watchwords of identity politics: oppression, systemic injustice, and intersectionality. NAU provides the most striking example.

  I note that my spellchecker is dubious about "epistemologies". So am I.

  Another note of interest:

  According to notes from the university’s Liberal Studies Committee, foreign language courses fail to qualify for diversity designation. Why? “Because they do not incorporate critical theory which the [Diversity Curriculum Committee] expects of the courses it approves.”

  Actually learning something useful takes a back seat to ensuring you meet your Minimum Yearly Requirement for Woke Propaganda.

  This would normally send me scurrying over to the University Near Here website to see if they're making any effort to match the NAU, but I'm afraid of what I'd find.

  ---

• Speaking of David Harsanyi… He's moved over to the Federalist, and here's a recent example: Biden Promises To 'Transition' America Back To The 1870s.

  When it comes to the gas prices, President Joe Biden explained Monday, “we’re going through an incredible transition that is taking place that, God willing, when it’s over, we’ll be stronger and the world will be stronger and less reliant on fossil fuels when this is over.”

  That’s, of course, if we survive the transition out of modernity.

  Fox News characterized Biden’s remark as “odd,” but higher energy prices have been the central aim of “climate” policy for decades. Nearly every piece of climate legislation championed by Democrats, from cap-and-trade to Green New Deal, has been a deliberate effort to make energy less affordable, either by creating scarcity through fabricated markets and inhibiting fossil fuel production (banning fracking or stripping leases) or by trying to spike prices through gas taxes and mandating expensive alternative sources.

  It's all very Soviet Five-Year-Plannish, comrade.

  ---

• Cato coins a new slogan. Michael F. Cannon trots it out: Return $1 Trillion to the Workers Who Earned It. Gee, what could that be?

  Thanks to an accident of history, the U.S. tax code treats employee health benefits differently from cash wages. The “tax exclusion” for employer‐sponsored health insurance shields workers from having to pay income or payroll taxes on compensation they receive in the form of health benefits.

  Economists hate the tax exclusion. It has done enormous harm to workers, patients, and overall economic productivity. It has literally ruined lives. Eliminating that tax differential may be the single most important thing Congress can do to make health care better, more affordable, and more secure.

  At the same time it harms workers, however, the exclusion benefits powerful interest groups. It gives large employers and unions an advantage over their competitors. It compels workers to channel $1.3 trillion annually to human‐resources professionals, health insurance companies, and health care providers. It penalizes workers if they attempt to limit that spending. Those groups denounce any effort at reform. It doesn’t help that every reform attempt to date would have raised taxes on significant numbers of workers. Finally, policy wonks obstruct reform by describing the exclusion in ways that hide how it works, how it harms workers, and the benefits of reform.

  It's not bad, for a slogan. And it's a good idea. And it probably won't happen, because you can probably write a scarifying TV ad against it in your sleep. ("THEY want to TAKE AWAY your HEALTH CARE…")

  ---

• They should have run this by Jake first. Charles C. W. Cooke wonders What Was State Farm Thinking?.

  Conservatives are annoyed with State Farm because, per a leaked email that was sent to the insurance giant’s agents in Florida, the company intended to help “increase representation of LGBTQ+ books and support our communities in having challenging, important and empowering conversations with children Age 5+.” Progressives are annoyed with State Farm because, having been criticized by conservatives for intending to help “increase representation of LGBTQ+ books and support our communities in having challenging, important and empowering conversations with children Age 5+,” the company reversed course.

  What in the ever-loving hell was State Farm doing starting this fire in the first place?

  State Farm is an insurance company, not a bordello. It is engaged in one of the most necessary — and one of the most boring — pursuits in the country: playing with the actuarial tables until it can offer customers a cost-effective way of managing their financial risk. State Farm has a natural interest in public policy as it relates to the insurance industry, but, outside of that, nothing the company does requires it to get involved in politics in any particular way. Until roughly five minutes ago, nobody in America had ever wondered what his insurance agent’s parent company thought about any of the hot-button issues that animate our politics. The very idea is preposterous. Deductibles, medical exemptions, loyalty discounts, bundling deals — those are State Farm’s bread and butter. Making more LGBTQ+ books available to pre-K kids? Not so much.

  Nothing says "we have more money than we know what to do with" than supplying LGBTQ+ books to 5-year-olds.