Something for the weekend #165

Welcome to my round-up of the week’s causes for optimism, as noticed in the media. Plus some links to debunking of alarmism, and to discussion of optimism vs. pessimism. Sometimes, also some debunking of unfounded optimism.

* PayPal is to allow users in the UK… “to buy, hold and sell cryptocurrency”. Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin and Bitcoin Cash are the currencies. No Dogecoin, at least for now.

* The Wall Street Journal on how in the U.S. “The Media Ignores Optimistic Black Leaders”… “The ones you don’t hear about reject narratives of self-pity and resentment.”

* The Federalist celebrates that “Homeschooling Is Surging Across America” and probes behind the headlines for the full range of reasons. Well over a million U.S. kids have forever dropped school for home schooling, since the virus emerged.

* There is little chance of future sea-level rise being due to melting of the Antarctic ice sheet. So concludes a very authoritative sea-level rise project on Antarctica, made up of 60 researchers from 44 institutions, and using the official IPCC computer-models. One of the lead researchers summed up the findings by saying that models suggest global sea-levels will rise, but that… “There is little change, however, in projected sea level rise from the Antarctic ice sheet.” The latest research on the Thwaites so-called ‘doomsday’ glacier does suggests there may be some increased area of iceberg calving there by 2030-35, due to the geothermal activity and the sub-sea ‘grounding points’ there. And yes doubtless the eco-worriers will scream and shout about that. But for the continent as a whole, it looks like Matt Ridley has another failed alarmism to add to his tick-list.

* A bumper harvest in Australia. Key firm GrainCorp says… “We are building one million tonnes of new storage capacity in time for harvest”. Neighbouring New Zealand is also having an outstanding harvest across many crops.

* The Spectator takes the time to look into a report on “What caused the German floods?” The actual report, when read… “paints a very different picture of the event and any causal link with climate change.” The corporate media had parroted “deadly floods nine times more likely” because.. climate change. But The Spectator finds that… “The ‘nine times figure’ comes from analysis of rainfall intensity in the localised Meuse and Ahr areas over a two day period”. On these two days was built a very wobbly house-of-cards of historical comparisons and suppositions, as the report’s authors admit. The Spectator concludes… “the ‘nine times’ figure is the extreme upper limit of a range” based on shaky assumptions.

* An eco-optimism debunked. Supposedly eco-friendly LED street-lights… “are even more harmful for insect populations than the traditional yellow sodium bulbs”, says new UK research published this week. The LED streetlights are especially bad for moths, killing nearly 50% more of them than the old lights when sited near hedges. The LEDs also produce much more light pollution.

* In the U.S., new moves to take down miles of un-needed old fences “to help migrating wildlife”.

* Kenya’s first genetically-modified cotton is ready for harvest.

* In Qatar, the first ever General Election is set for 2nd October. This small step for democracy will elect the nation’s key 45 member advisory group, formerly appointed by fiat. Qataris over 18 will be able to vote and all women will be included as voters, which is a good start.

* And finally, Swedish researchers are developing a new battery concept made with cost-efficient, abundant and sustainable metals. Double-sided graphene layers are organised into a structure that suits sodium ions. In time this could mean viable sodium-ion batteries replacing lithium ones. I very rarely post battery news, but… commercial batteries made of graphite and salt? That sound very promising, and the researchers even talk of “high-capacity energy storage” uses.

Enjoyed this post? There’s more at the ‘Something for the Weekend’ newsletter archive.

Toxic shock

In the gloomy dungeons of the therapeutic left, everything is oppression, all the time. There’s no escape from the toxicity and fear of being unwittingly politically incorrect. Even trying to be a bit cheerful about things is now to be frowned on, comrade. Because toxic positivity is their latest oppression-label…

Toxic positivity occurs when people use or demand positive emotion or optimism in an oppressive way…

Oppressive being defined by the beholder, of course. “It’s oppressive because… I say it is. And I rank higher in the oppression hierarchy than you do, comrade, so my word goes.” (I’ve been on the left, I know how that game works).

But I do see how being abruptly told to ‘snap out of it and cheer up’ could be very annoying, if you have just broken your leg or have a mental illness about which nothing can be done. So there’s something to be said for the idea. But medicalizing it as ‘toxic positivity’ sounds to me like a licence for depressives to continually dampen down the politically-correct into a slough of despond. Even more so than at present, when such groups are presumably depressed enough as they survey the leaky raft of non-issues on which their little bands now perilously float.

I’d suspect that “toxic positivity” also risks being expanded in scope, no matter how well-intentioned at the start, once it becomes a trendy shorthand bandied about in the media. We may see it used as a scare-phrase in attacks on rational optimism, as well as used to put down any optimist who dares to stray into a meeting of the therapeutic left.

I further idly wonder if this isn’t partly an aspect of the bitter civil-wars inside the left? A way to defend against a drift in such groups toward the left’s small but seductively optimistic and technocratic ‘post-capitalist abundance’ grouplets, of the sort that rather ludicrously promise ‘fully-automated luxury socialism’?

Crop a load of this…

Eco-worriers often claim that a suspiciously-rounded figure of ‘75% of crops are dependent on insect pollinators’. Now The World in Data has debunked this claim in a long new article…

“many of our largest producing crops (staples such as cereals) are not dependent on them at all. Very few crops are completely dependent. Most [crops] would see a decline in yields if pollinator insects disappeared, but […] studies suggest [total] crop production would decline by around 5% in higher income countries, and 8% at low-to-middle incomes if pollinator insects vanished.”

Yes, it can always be plausibly claimed that some pollinator populations are “in decline”. Because, as any entomologist will tell you, many flying insect populations have huge natural fluctuations from year to year. That has always been the case, since records began. Some insects are always “in decline” over the short term, while others boom. But only the declines get the ‘insect apocalypse’ headlines and the big fundraising ads. Semi-domesticated honey-bees are of course a case apart, being heavily dependent on human hive-keepers and hive transportation.

Anyway, this relative lack of dependence on crop pollinators seems like good news for other types of farming. Good for activities such as future bug-free underwater crop-growing, and for dome / underground farms on an insect-free Mars.