Digging a little deeper . . . I didn’t get it. It's a story about obsession and the human need to find meaning in the unknown, even when the unknown is unknowable. And maybe that's why I didn't get it? Because there's nothing there to get? (Probably not. But that's what I'm going with.)
Sunday, June 29, 2025
“as she climbed across the table” by Jonathan Lethem
Tuesday, June 17, 2025
“Unsettled?” by Steven E Koonin
- Koonin states that "heat waves are now no more common than they were in 1900... the warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past 50 years..." This shows either deliberate obfuscation or clear misunderstanding of climate change. The current definition of climate change is that global average temperatures are increasing.
- A graph on page 39 clearly shows a dramatic increase in global ocean heat content since 1990. Koonin first tries to argue this away by saying we've only been thoroughly measuring ocean surface temperatures for the past 50 years, with deeper levels only measured since 2000 (hinting that the dramatic rise since 1990 is just the continuation of a trend that isn't seen on the graph because data from prior years is insufficient). Then he claims that the ocean has seen similar rises in temperature in the past, prior to human influence (and prior to the more thorough measurements that are being taken now). Which is it? Insufficient data from prior years not allowing for formation of a graph that doesn't make it look like ocean temperatures are rising precipitously? Or the data from prior years is sufficient, and we can see that the current rise mimics past rises prior to human influence? It seems to me like the data is sufficient when it fits Koonin's worldview, and it's insufficient when it doesn't.
- On page 68, Koonin states what I've been thinking: yes, hundreds of millions of years ago the atmospheric CO2 levels were far higher than they are now--but there were no humans back then, and humans are not adapted to such high levels. He even admits that at current rates of increase, atmospheric CO2 will rise to levels high enough to cause drowsiness in humans . . . but not for "some 250 years." Right, no one alive today will be around for that. But does that absolve us of all responsibility? It won't affect us personally, so we don't have to care?
- On the same page, we learn that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for so long that reducing emissions "would only slow the increase in concentration but not prevent it." Isn't slowing the increase better than nothing?? Koonin gives the impression that there's no point in even trying.
- In the same vein, on page 165 we see that it should take 200 years for sea levels to rise enough that Honolulu is inundated. According to Koonin, because of this time scale, we should calm down and not worry. Whereas my thinking is: shouldn't we try to make changes with the aim of preventing this from happening? Or make changes to help us cope with the eventuality?
Monday, June 9, 2025
“The Hill Road” by Patrick O’Keeffe
Sunday, June 8, 2025
“god is not Great” by Christopher Hitchens
Anyway, one down, three to go. Unfortunately I didn’t give this book the most careful of readings, and now I’m wishing I had taken notes.
Why did I choose this book in the first place? I don't remember even being aware of Christopher Hitchens until relatively recently. Maybe I first heard of him when Sam named him as one of the Four Horsemen of New Atheism; then Skeptics' Guide to the Universe talked about him in episode #336, following Hitchens' death in 2011. (I've been listening to their back catalog, and probably came across this episode in January of this year. Notably, I have just discovered that in 2.5 more episodes, I'll be hearing a SGU/Hitchens interview from 2007). Jay Novella specifically called this book a Must Read, and the provocative title piqued my interest.
Hitchens has a very sharp and sarcastic tone in this book, and he refers to myriad people and historical events that I have no knowledge of. I could have spent ages on this book, going down all kinds of rabbit holes and learning many things I still don't know, but I was not prepared to spend that amount of time with it. My aim was to get a taste of the writer, not to intensely inspect all his claims and statements. But I do think I can sum up the main ideas of the book: all religions (and the god or gods of each) were created by man. Faith has been used as an excuse for many evils and abuses. And religious faith is not a prerequisite foundation for acts of kindness or a life of good moral character. Hitchens describes a focus on the afterlife and religion in this way: "It is as if someone, offered a delicious and fragrant out-of-season fruit, matured in a painstakingly and lovingly designed hothouse, should throw away the flesh and the pulp and gnaw moodily on the pit."