The Book Thread

[Yngvi]

What is this "we" shit?

Of course, by "we", I meant somebody other than myself who is both altruistic enough to do it and has the posting privileges required for it.

[Noah Ebner]

How do you explain China’s inverted demographic pyramid? Or Russia’s? Did he make up the data? As I understand it, they don’t have the young people to sustain any type of productive society, are his numbers wrong?

To be fair Jay, I haven't read the book cover to cover--only the sections the publisher made available to teachers looking to adopt the book. But, to address those points specifically, China no longer has that demographic inversion since they've relaxed the one child policy. The demographic squeeze that led China to implement the one child policy in the first place, incidentally, was exactly the opposite of too many old people. Also, China is almost as technologically advanced as the US is at this point, meaning that in our lifetimes, there will be exponentially more jobs than people. To me, this is the biggest issue with the book. Zeihan either doesn't understand or intentionally ignores the role that technology plays in promoting unemployment. I had one world-famous professor in college tell us that if he had to sum up all four volumes of Capital he would say its "a book about unemployment." In my 10 or so years of university education, this is the single most profound thing anyone said.

I won't argue the points about Russia being behind the curve but I don't think anybody in geopolitics seriously considers them a global power at this point. Most folks inside the US intelligence community that I follow seem to agree that the meddling in the last election says more about how sloppy we've gotten and less about the threat that Russia poses. The only thing Russia has going for it at this point is its veto at the UN and neither China nor the US has ever let the UN get in their way.

To answer your question directly, no, I don't think his numbers are wrong. Empirically, he's not a bad scholar; his sources and representation of data, from what I've seen anyway, appear solid. Where I do take issue, however, is how he interprets that data.

[IlPrincipeBrutto]

Regarding 1984, you’re absolutely right. A friend of mine offered $100 to a mutual friend’s 14-year-old son to read it. What he DIDN’T know was that this young man was a reading STUD and he would have read it for free. It was the easiest $100 he’d ever made!

I think 1984 is not a book for teenagers. They might grasp the superficial features, like the convoluted rules of double-speak, but it will be difficult to penetrate the deeper meaning. I think you need to have had a few years of living on your own and making your own decisions before you can appreciate what Orwell wrote.

Also: The Road to Wigan Pier seems like a good read.

IPB

[Mark E. Hurling]

At the start of the lockdowns, I took a detour into American History:

American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Cultures of North America (Colin Woodard) - An interesting look at the evolution of North America from the start of European colonization, from the perspective of cultural groups rather than political boundaries.

I have to read this. My initial take on it was a book written some 20+ years ago "The Nine Nations of North America", although this looks like a slightly different set of parameters to view things through. As for Southern Illinois being part of Appalachia? Oh yeah, and mostly in a good way albeit with a few not so good.

[JayLivsey]

To be fair Jay, I haven't read the book cover to cover--only the sections the publisher made available to teachers looking to adopt the book. But, to address those points specifically, China no longer has that demographic inversion since they've relaxed the one child policy. The demographic squeeze that led China to implement the one child policy in the first place, incidentally, was exactly the opposite of too many old people. Also, China is almost as technologically advanced as the US is at this point, meaning that in our lifetimes, there will be exponentially more jobs than people. To me, this is the biggest issue with the book. Zeihan either doesn't understand or intentionally ignores the role that technology plays in promoting unemployment. I had one world-famous professor in college tell us that if he had to sum up all four volumes of Capital he would say its "a book about unemployment." In my 10 or so years of university education, this is the single most profound thing anyone said.

I won't argue the points about Russia being behind the curve but I don't think anybody in geopolitics seriously considers them a global power at this point. Most folks inside the US intelligence community that I follow seem to agree that the meddling in the last election says more about how sloppy we've gotten and less about the threat that Russia poses. The only thing Russia has going for it at this point is its veto at the UN and neither China nor the US has ever let the UN get in their way.

To answer your question directly, no, I don't think his numbers are wrong. Empirically, he's not a bad scholar; his sources and representation of data, from what I've seen anyway, appear solid. Where I do take issue, however, is how he interprets that data.

Zeihan would say they are passed the point of no return in regards to the children. Even if they started 20 years ago, they wouldn’t be able to catch up. Not to mention, China is net importer of food and oil, they are done.

[Mark E. Hurling]

Not to mention, China is net importer of food and oil, they are done.

Like Japan in the 20th Century. Despite the immediate issues, the US still has some powerful leverage with the PRC. Although one hears that some of the "meat shortage" is being created by the PRC owned Smithfield sending meat there. Which is easily interrupted. The one thing Chinese rulers, either under an emperor or a commissar understand is that when food gets short, their shit gets weak.

[mitchless]

I think 1984 is not a book for teenagers. They might grasp the superficial features, like the convoluted rules of double-speak, but it will be difficult to penetrate the deeper meaning. I think you need to have had a few years of living on your own and making your own decisions before you can appreciate what Orwell wrote.

I think this is true for a lot of works, but that doesn't mean that the teenagers ought not read them. I can't think of a book worth reading that isn't worth re-reading, and new insights will be found on the second read. The Giver, for example, is young adult fiction (ages 12-18) but I don't think readers will fully grasp the horror of the society described therein until they are older. As they grow and experience life, they will come back around and read them with wiser eyes (one hopes). While there is so much to read, a reader will always find time to go back to a beloved or important book somehow.

[Christopher Button]

I think 1984 is not a book for teenagers. They might grasp the superficial features, like the convoluted rules of double-speak, but it will be difficult to penetrate the deeper meaning. I think you need to have had a few years of living on your own and making your own decisions before you can appreciate what Orwell wrote.

What I remember so vividly from reading it last year was that absolute hopelessness becomes the overriding theme. Orwell in fact offers hope all throughout, but then consistently snatches it away in every instance, and always so brutally and unexpectedly. He created a hellscape so vivid and impressive that the details of the entire novel are still fresh in my mind as I write this.

[Oso Rojo]

I just finished Chiva by Chellis Glendinning, the story of the heroin trade in northern New Mexico. I'm now on The Irregulars by Jennet Conant. It is about the British spying on the US during WWII.

[Eagle4Christ]

I just finished The Inimitable Jeeves by P.G. Wodehouse, one of the funniest books written in the English language, in my opinion. It is a fast read, light-hearted, and absolutely delightful,