Category: Books
My Conversation with Carl Zimmer
Here is the audio, video, and transcript. Here is part of the episode summary:
He joins Tyler to discuss why it took scientists so long to accept airborne disease transmission and more, including why 19th-century doctors thought hay fever was a neurosis, why it took so long for the WHO and CDC to acknowledge COVID-19 was airborne, whether ultraviolet lamps can save us from the next pandemic, how effective masking is, the best theory on the anthrax mailings, how the U.S. military stunted aerobiology, the chance of extraterrestrial life in our solar system, what Lee Cronin’s “assembly theory” could mean for defining life itself, the use of genetic information to inform decision-making, the strangeness of the Flynn effect, what Carl learned about politics from growing up as the son of a New Jersey congressman, and much more.
Here is an excerpt:
COWEN: Over time, how much will DNA information enter our daily lives? To give a strange example, imagine that, for a college application, you have to upload some of your DNA. Now to unimaginative people, that will sound impossible, but if you think about the equilibrium rolling itself out slowly — well, at first, students disclose their DNA, and over time, the DNA becomes used for job hiring, for marriage, in many other ways. Is this our future equilibrium, that genetic information will play this very large role, given how many qualities seem to be at least 40 percent to 60 percent inheritable, maybe more?
ZIMMER: The term that a scientist in this field would use would be heritable, not inheritable. Inheritability is a slippery thing to think about. I write a lot about that in my book, She Has Her Mother’s Laugh, which is about heredity in general. Heritability really is just saying, “Okay, in a certain situation, if I look at different people or different animals or different plants, how much of their variation can I connect with variation in their genome?” That’s it. Can you then use that variability to make predictions about what’s going to happen in the future? That is a totally different question in many —
COWEN: But it’s not totally different. Your whole family’s super smart. If I knew nothing about you, and I knew about the rest of your family, I’d be more inclined to let you into Yale, and that would’ve been a good decision. Again, only on average, but just basic statistics implies that.
ZIMMER: You’re very kind, but what do you mean by intelligent? I’d like to think I’m pretty good with words and that I can understand scientific concepts. I remember in college getting to a certain point with calculus and being like, “I’m done,” and then watching other people sail on.
COWEN: Look, you’re clearly very smart. The New York Times recognizes this. We all know statistics is valid. There aren’t any certainties. It sounds like you’re running away from the science. Just endorse the fact you came from a very smart family, and that means it’s quite a bit more likely that you’ll be very smart too. Eventually, the world will start using that information, would be the auxiliary hypothesis. I’m asking you, how much will it?
ZIMMER: The question that we started with was about actually uploading DNA. Then the question becomes, how much of that information about the future can you get out of DNA? I think that you just have to be incredibly cautious about jumping to conclusions about it because the genome is a wild and woolly place in there, and the genome exists in environments. Even if you see broad correlations on a population level, as a college admission person, I would certainly not feel confident just scanning someone’s DNA for information in that regard.
COWEN: Oh, that wouldn’t be all you would do, right? They do plenty of other things now. Over time, say for job hiring, we’ll have the AI evaluate your interview, the AI evaluate your DNA. It’ll be highly imperfect, but at some point, institutions will start doing it, if not in this country, somewhere else — China, Singapore, UAE, wherever. They’re not going to be so shy, right?
ZIMMER: I can certainly imagine people wanting to do that stuff regardless of the strength of the approach. Certainly, even in the early 1900s, we saw people more than willing to use ideas about inherited levels of intelligence to, for example, decide which people should be institutionalized, who should be allowed into the United States or not.
For example, Jews were considered largely to be developmentally disabled at one point, especially the Jews from Eastern Europe. We have seen that people are certainly more than eager to jump from the basic findings of DNA to all sorts of conclusions which often serve their own interests. I think we should be on guard that we not do that again.
And:
COWEN: If we take the entirety of science, you’ve written on many topics in a very useful way, science policy. Where do you think your views are furthest from the mainstream or the orthodoxy? Where do you have the weirdest take relative to other people you know and respect? I think we should just do plenty of human challenge trials. That would be an example of something you might say, but what would the answer be for you?
I very much enjoyed Carl’s latest book Air-Borne: The Hidden History of the Air We Breathe.
What I’ve been reading
1. Eric Topol, Super Agers: An Evidence-Based Approach to Longevity. Longevity research goes mainstream! Very clearly written, well argued, and focused on the science. I cannot pretend to evaluate the details of the material, but this seems a step ahead of the other, typically less serious books on the same topic.
2. Daniel Dain, A History of Boston, 772 pp., clearly written and consistently interesting. Most of all one receives the sense of Boston as a place with a long history of radical ideas. Has it moved away from that tradition or cemented it in? I find that more and more of America has little acquaintance with New England and its history, and this book is one good way to remedy that. Remember Rt.128? Paul Revere?
3. Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee, In Covid’s Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us. A reasonable, evidence-based, non-crazy account of governance failures and excesses during the Covid crisis. For me there was not so much new here, but I am glad to see saner voices moving into the discourse.
4. Making and Meaning: The Wilton Diptych, National Gallery of London. If you want to learn about a historical figure (in this case Richard II), read a book about an art work associated with them.
5. Zaha Hadid, Complete Works 1979-Today. Architecture, plus excellent preliminary sketches of the works. The Weil am Rhein works are my favorite of what I have seen by her. Exactly the kind of picture book that will become more valuable in an age of strong AI. Here are seventeen buildings by her.
John McWhorter, Pronoun Trouble: The Story of Us in Seven Little Words. Mostly about actual pronouns, not the PC debates.
There is Paul Bluestein, King Dollar: The Past and Future of the World’s Dominant Currency.
What I’ve been reading
Alain Mabanckou, Dealing with the Dead. Most African fiction does not connect with me, and there is a tendency for the reviews to be untrustworthy. This “cemetery memoir,” from the Congo (via UCLA), connected with me and held my interest throughout.
Philip Zaleski and Carol Zaleski, The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings: J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams. I was in the mood of thinking I don’t need to read another book about these people. Yet this one was so good it won me over nonetheless.
Eddie Huffman, Doc Watson: A Life in Music. A fun book about one of America’s greatest guitarists. Watson was blind from an early age, and he was collecting state disability benefits until he was 40 — a classic late bloomer.
Philip Freeman, In the Brewing Luminous: The Life and Music of Cecil Taylor. Call me crazy, but I think Sun Ra and Taylor are better and more important musically than say Duke Ellington. Freeman’s book is the first full-length biography of Taylor, and it is well-informed and properly appreciative. It induced me to buy another book by him. The evening I saw Taylor was one of the greatest of my life, I thank my mother for coming with me.
Carlos M.N. Eire, They Flew: A History of the Impossible. Ross Douthat recommended this one to me. It is well done, and worth reading, but I don’t find it shifted my priors on whether “impossible” events might have really happened.
I agree with the central arguments of Samir Varma’s The Science of Free Will: How Determinism Affects Everything from the Future of AI to Traffic to God to Bees. I was happy to write a foreword for the book.
Kathleen deLaski, Who Needs College Anymore? Imagining a Future Where Degrees Don’t Matter. One of a growing chorus of books suggesting higher education is on the verge of some radical changes.
There is Daniel Brook, The Einstein of Sex: Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld Visionary of Weimar Berlin. It is good to see him getting more attention.
There is also Brandy Schillace, The Intermediaries: A Weimar Story.
Paul Millerd on AI and writing
I have been thinking a lot about this. Have been experimenting like a madman for two months
A few unhinged thoughts: – It’s a huge advantage to have a past body of work and style in terms of fine-tuning and training. It can help you understand your own style and keep evolving that over time independent of LLMs
– Vibe Writing will be a thing in 6-12 months if not the next couple of months. LLM suggest edits => accept. The biggest thing stopping this is reliable output based on an input/preferred vibe. It is getting CLOSE
– Much of the friction of writing, like getting stuck on sections/sentences/phrasing is basically gone. You can just prompt your LLM coach for alternatives to unstuck yourself
– LLMs will empower existing authors with audiences. LLMs will enable you to build your own team of people. An LLM developmental editor (slower reasoning models), a parter co-writer LLM for remixing and rewriting sentences, an LLM copyeditor and proofreader and LLM translator – its still so early but these are coming
– This leads to the fact that LLMs will increase the speed of writing. The time to first draft can be dramatically shortened. You can now generate really good writing that is similar to yours as a first draft
– Right now we have less books because its hard to write a damn book. As this gets easier, we’ll see more books, shorter books, and more creative collaborations
– just like music has such a fast production and relase cycle (singles dropping randomly) I think authors go this wway too.
– The reading experience obviously will change. Kindle will likely ship AI features in the next 2-3 years that will help you understand characters, refactor books to your preferences, and instantly translate to different languages / audio. Of couse the traditional publishing dinosaurs will lose their minds of this.
– Theres a huge opportunity for more reading devices clear AND a big opportunity for new direct to reader distribution (long self-publishing lol) – Text to voice will be instant and cheap too meaning the divide between reading/listening gets fuzzier
Here is the link, responding to the thoughts of David Perell immediately below.
What should I ask Ian Leslie?
Yes, I will be doing a Conversation with him. I loved his forthcoming book John & Paul: A Love Story in Songs. Ian has done other things too, but for the time being those don’t matter. This will be a Beatles episode, and also an episode about artistic collaboration.
So what should I ask him?
What should I ask Ezra Klein?
Yes I will be doing a podcast with him. And he has a new and very good book coming out with Derek Thompson, namely Abundance. So what should I ask him?
My excellent Conversation with Gregory Clark
Here is the audio, video, and transcript. Here is the episode summary:
How much of your life’s trajectory was set in motion centuries ago? Gregory Clark has spent decades studying social mobility, and his findings suggest that where you land in society is far more predictable than we like to think. Using historical data, surname analysis, and migration patterns, Clark argues that social mobility rates have remained largely unchanged for 300 years—even across radically different political and economic systems.
He and Tyler discuss why we should care about relative mobility vs growing the size of the pie, how physical mobility does and doesn’t matter, why England was a meritocracy by 1700, how assortative mating affects economic and social progress, why India industrialized so late, a new potential explanation why Britain’s economic performance has been lukewarm since WWI, Malthusian societies then and now, whether a “hereditarian” stance favors large-scale redistribution or a free-market approach, the dynamics of assimilation within Europe and the role of negative selection in certain migrations, the challenge of accurately measuring living standards, the neighborhood-versus-family debate over what drives mobility, whether we need datasets larger than humanity itself to decode the genetics of social outcomes, and much more.
Here is one of many interesting excerpts:
COWEN: How do you think about the social returns to more or less assortative mating? Say in the United States — do we have too much of it, too little of it? If we had more of it, you’d have, say, very smart or determined people marrying those like them, and you might end up with more innovation from their children and grandchildren. But you might also be messing with what you would call the epistemic quality of the median voter. There’s this trade-off. How do you think about that? What side of the margin are we at?
CLARK: Assortative mating turns out to be a fascinating phenomenon, and in this new book, we actually have records of 1.7 million marriages in England from 1837 until now. What is astonishing in England is the degree to which people end up assorting in marriage so that basically, they’re matching with people that are as close to them, essentially genetically, as their siblings in marriage. It’s really interesting because people could mate in any way.
You could think I want the tallest person, the handsomest person, the youngest person, but for some reason, consistently, people seem to want to match to people who are close in social status. Now that doesn’t affect anything about the average level of ability in a society, but if it’s consistently followed over generations, it will widen the distribution of ability.
COWEN: Yes, and are we doing too much of that or too little of it in the United States?
CLARK: It depends what your view is. If you think that the engine of high-tech society now, like the United States, is the top 1 percent or 5 percent of the ability distribution, then you would say the more assortative is mating, the more people will be in that extreme and the greater will be economic growth.
In the new book, I actually speculate about, was assortative mating in Northern Europe a discovery of the late Middle Ages that actually then helped propel things like the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, because as I say, it’s a remarkably constant feature of British society.
We can only trace it back to about 1750, the actual degree of assortativeness. So, in that sense, you can’t have too much if that’s your view about how society operates.
COWEN: At least we could have more of it. There might be some margin where you’d have too much.
CLARK: But it does produce more inequality, so if you’re worried about inequality in society, you don’t want assortative mating. The one way to correct a lot of inequality would just be to have much more random matching.
One of the remarkable things about Denmark is, education is essentially free until you’re age 24. They give you subsidies for your living expenses, for childcare provision — it’s all available. They’ve compressed the income distribution quite sharply.
There is this periodic survey of how well students do, the PISA measures. Nordic countries have not reduced the inequality of PISA measures compared to much more unequal societies like the United States. Again, it’s just interesting that a high degree of inequality is still found within these societies. It turns out that in Nordic societies, people are mating again very strongly assortatively even now. That is the thing that you would worry more about, that there is going to be this trade-off between assortative mating and the degree of inequality in a society.
Stimulating throughout, with lots of debate.
Baudrillard on AI
If men create intelligent machines, or fantasize about them, it is either because they secretly despair of their own intelligence or because they are in danger of succumbing to the weight of a monstrous and useless intelligence which they seek to exorcize by transferring it to machines, where they can play with it and make fun of it. By entrusting this burdensome intelligence to machines we are released from any responsibility to knowledge, much as entrusting power to politicians allows us to disdain any aspiration of our own to power.
If men dream of machines that are unique, that are endowed with genius, it is because they despair of their own uniqueness, or because they prefer to do without it – to enjoy it by proxy, so to speak, thanks to machines. What such machines offer is the spectacle of thought, and in manipulating them people devote themselves more to the spectacle of thought than to thought itself.
Jean Baudrillard – The Transparency of Evil_ Essays on Extreme Phenomena (Radical Thinkers)-Verso.
For the pointer I thank Petr.
*Steven Weinberg: A Life in Physics*
A fun book, I enjoyed the read. Here is one bit:
There is another contribution to my productivity. While sitting at my desk at home doing physics or preparing classes, or doing some science writing, I picked up the habit of watching classic movies or the History Channel on television. My TV is always turned on in its corner of my desk. Doing the two things at once doubles the value of my time. And the movie keeps ne gnawing at a problem in physics when I might otherwise have knocked back my chair and decamped in frustration.
And:
At this time, Louise [his wife] literally saved my life. Through my friendship with Bernie Feld, I found myself welcome at, and attending, international meetings of various experts on the problems of the international order. Louise understood the situation better than I did. She advised me to have nothing further to do with Bernie’s world, if I wanted to get anything done in physics. She made me see that this was a world of disheartened older men giving themselves something important-looking to do, but that I was an optimistic young man with real work to do. I do not exaggerate when I confess that she saved my life.
You can order it here.
An Economic Approach to Homer’s Odyssey: Part II
My three-part essay for Liberty Fund continues, here is the opener:
In the previous article, I outlined what an economic approach to reading Homer’s epic, The Odyssey,1 might look like. I also noted that what most strikes me about The Odyssey is Homer’s treatment of comparative political regimes. Looking at the wide variety of regimes Odysseus encounters is the focus of this article.
Given that human behavior, at least in The Odyssey, can be understood in terms of the non-standard assumptions described in my previous essay, what are then the possible states of affairs? Which polities might we look to for arranging human interactions and maintaining political order? Utopia is not readily achieved, not only because of material constraints, but also because human behavior is too restless and too desirous of alternative states of affairs. A straightforward order based on political virtue is also beyond human grasp, again because it clashes with the nature of human beings as we understand them. What then might fit with a vision of humans as restless, intoxicating, deceiving, and self-deceiving creatures? The travel explorations of The Odyssey can be understood as, in part, an attempt to address this question.
I will now consider the major and some of the minor polities described by The Odyssey, roughly in the order they appear in the story.
The discussion starts with Pylos and Sparta…
How the System Works
Charles Mann is worried that so few of us have any notion of the giant, interconnected systems that keep us alive and thriving. His new series, How the System Works at the The New Atlantis, is a primer to civilization. As you might expect from Mann, it’s beautifully written with arresting facts and images:
The great European cathedrals were built over generations by thousands of people and sustained entire communities. Similarly, the electric grid, the public-water supply, the food-distribution network, and the public-health system took the collective labor of thousands of people over many decades. They are the cathedrals of our secular era. They are high among the great accomplishments of our civilization. But they don’t inspire bestselling novels or blockbuster films. No poets celebrate the sewage treatment plants that prevent them from dying of dysentery. Like almost everyone else, they rarely note the existence of the systems around them, let alone understand how they work.
…Water, food, energy, public health — these embody a gloriously egalitarian and democratic vision of our society. Americans may fight over red and blue, but everyone benefits in the same way from the electric grid. Water troubles and food contamination are afflictions for rich and poor alike. These systems are powerful reminders of our common purpose as a society — a source of inspiration when one seems badly needed.
Every American stands at the end of a continuing, decades-long effort to build and maintain the systems that support our lives. Schools should be, but are not, teaching students why it is imperative to join this effort. Imagine a course devoted to how our country functions at its most basic level. I am a journalist who has been lucky enough to have learned something about the extraordinary mechanisms we have built since Jefferson’s day. In this series of four articles, I want to share some of the highlights of that imaginary course, which I have taken to calling “How the System Works.”
We begin with our species’ greatest need and biggest system — food.
and here’s one telling fact from the first essay:
Today more than 1 percent of the world’s industrial energy is devoted to making ammonia fertilizer. “That 1 percent,” the futurist Ramez Naam says, “roughly doubles the amount of food the world can grow.”
Addendum: Tom Meadowcroft from the comments: I teach chemical engineers, who are expert at understanding, designing and managing processes, and will be running many of these civilizational processes after they graduate. Even amongst that group of very bright thinkers, there is remarkably little knowledge as to how we achieve clean water, reliable electricity, fuel for transport and industry, dispose of sewage, and grow and distribute food. These same young adults can all tell you about colonial mindsets, how the world is going to burn, and how various groups are victimized. Our K-12 education system has very warped priorities and remarkably ignorant people at the front of the classroom.
Dwarkesh’s Question
One question I had for you while we were talking about the intelligence stuff was, as a scientist yourself, what do you make of the fact that these things have basically the entire corpus of human knowledge memorized and they haven’t been able to make a single new connection that has led to a discovery? Whereas if even a moderately intelligent person had this much stuff memorized, they would notice — Oh, this thing causes this symptom. This other thing also causes this symptom. There’s a medical cure right here.
Shouldn’t we be expecting that kind of stuff?
It’s a very good question. In 2023, I quipped, “I think they have, we just haven’t asked them.” Maybe, but less clear today. Dwarkesh reports that there have been no good answers.
New York City fact and poetic passage of the day
If the coastline of the New York Harbor region were stretched out, it would be longer than the state of California. New York City’s waterfront is bigger than those of Miami, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Boston combined. As vast as it is, the area that is officially known as the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary is even more staggering in its complexity, encompassing such a concatenation of inlets, margins, banks, strands, runnels, rivers, reefs, rivulets, coves, creeks, and kills; of brooks, basins, bays, shoals, shores, islands, islets, and peninsulas, of jetties, bluffs, heights, scallops, spits, crags, beaches, reaches, bends, bights, channels, sandbars, sounds, and points, as to be virtually unmatched in the United States.
That is from the new and fun book by Russell Shorto, Taking Manhattan: The Extraordinary Events that Created New York and Shaped America.
The Licensing Racket
I review a very good new book on occupational licensing, The Licensing Racket by Rebecca Haw Allensworth in the WSJ.
Most people will concede that licensing for hair braiders and interior decorators is excessive while licensing for doctors, nurses and lawyers is essential. Hair braiders pose little to no threat to public safety, but subpar doctors, nurses and lawyers can ruin lives. To Ms. Allensworth’s credit, she asks for evidence. Does occupational licensing protect consumers? The author focuses on the professional board, the forgotten institution of occupational licensing.
Governments enact occupational-licensing laws but rarely handle regulation directly—there’s no Bureau of Hair Braiding. Instead, interpretation and enforcement are delegated to licensing boards, typically dominated by members of the profession. Occupational licensing is self-regulation. The outcome is predictable: Driven by self-interest, professional identity and culture, these boards consistently favor their own members over consumers.
Ms. Allensworth conducted exhaustive research for “The Licensing Racket,” spending hundreds of hours attending board meetings—often as the only nonboard member present. At the Tennessee board of alarm-system contractors, most of the complaints come from consumers who report the sort of issues that licensing is meant to prevent: poor installation, code violations, high-pressure sales tactics and exploitation of the elderly. But the board dismisses most of these complaints against its own members, and is far more aggressive in disciplining unlicensed handymen who occasionally install alarm systems. As Ms. Allensworth notes, “the board was ten times more likely to take action in a case alleging unlicensed practice than one complaining about service quality or safety.”
She finds similar patterns among boards that regulate auctioneers, cosmetologists and barbers. Enforcement efforts tend to protect turf more than consumers. Consumers care about bad service, not about who is licensed, so take a guess who complains about unlicensed practitioners? Licensed practitioners. According to Ms. Allensworth, it was these competitor-initiated cases, “not consumer complaints alleging fraud, predatory sales tactics, and graft,” where boards gave the stiffest penalties.
You might hope that boards that oversee nurses and doctors would prioritize patient safety, but Ms. Allensworth’s findings show otherwise. She documents a disturbing pattern of boards that have ignored or forgiven egregious misconduct, including nurses and physicians extorting sex for prescriptions, running pill mills, assaulting patients under anesthesia and operating while intoxicated.
Read the whole thing.
*Atlantic Cataclysm*
The author is David Eltis and the subtitle is Rethinking the Atlantic Slave Trades. Here is one summary passage:
While Europe’s role in the slave trade may have been secondary it can scarcely be described as minor. The traffic was broadly based, with ninety-six European ports dispatching at least one voyage to Africa. Almost every port large enough to initiate transoceanic trade participated in the business. Owners, their employees and, most important, the public had unquestioning support for the business until the last quarter of the eighteenth century. The Portuguese and Spanish created the Atlantic slave-trading system, and they were the last to abandon it. They dispatched more voyages and carried off far more enslaved women and men than did the British throughout the era.
Eltis also writes:
Generally, the new data reveals a sense of equality between buyer and seller on the African littoral, at least until late in the slave trade era…Africanists have yet to take on board new population estimates for African regions in 1850 and match these with new estimates of the exodus of people that are now available. It now seems unlikely that outside influences transformed the nature of slavery in Africa.
And note:
…only four other jurisdictions in the Americas received more African captives than Barbados.
A very useful and important book on what is (yes) still a topic underrated in import.