A few hundred years ago, leather was a critical commodity. Hides were processed in local tanneries, requiring noxious chemicals. Always dumped in local ponds and stinking to high heaven. Over time, the industrial processes were moved away from towns, isolated, and eventually even cleared up to the extent of not dumping untreated refuse into streams and rivers. 

The point is that it was a lot easier to eventually clean up the effluents from a few concentrated plants than it would have been to restrict millions of local businesses. That is the true impetus behind electrification of such things as cars and houses, for a few power plants can be cleaned up or replaced a lot more easily than billions of distributed customer pollution sources. 

Tanneries were so nasty they were an easy target. The effects of fossil fuel are more subtle: stronger more frequent storms, rising seas, heat waves, and drought. Until crop failures become widespread many will continue to believe there is no crisis at all. 

I’ve lived through too many apocalyptic projections to believe the worst about this one. But I am annoyed at industry apologists who think there is no problem at all. And at my neighbors who in the old days would have claimed that there is always cleaner water on the other side of the hill, and a lungful of stinking fumes helps clear the sinuses. 

Although the modern fairy tales spun by fossil fuel apologists can be morbidly entertaining. 

An effective military must be a little paranoid and clearly focused on goals. The ending of Dr Strangelove with the winners (top brass, friends and family, lots of girlfriends) living in a deep coal mine while the rest of the world is sterilized is pretty close to true. 

In real life there is the aggravating issue of definitions. What is a crime, who are the guilty (the individual, the tribe, the government, the whole society, the situation)? What is the government (legitimate, historic faction, fractional, de jure, de facto)? How are “crimes” committed? Who is not involved in the “war”? 

It’s all silly. The idea that populations are not legitimate targets of war became irrelevant during the American and French revolutions. The idea that there are limits to what must be done for victory was obliterated during world war I. Today, anything goes, and once again – “might makes right.” 

And yet, and yet. There has been in fact, a global civilization established, with instantaneous news and porous borders on land and ideals. If “war crimes” are to have any meaning, we must accept that the de facto legitimate government accepts those common limits or pays the price by being delegitimized by everyone else. Those “limits” always end up being pretty much close to the “golden rule.” 

The military mind? Ah that’s a different story. 

I’m not sure, in these days lacking absolute judgments of any kind, that this problem will ever be resolved.

We have become accustomed to a “mass production” world, in which vast amounts of identical goods are turned out endlessly. Even services such as “fast food” have traveled the route. It is familiar and comforting and mostly inexpensive – and sometimes infuriating in its planned sameness. 

If civilization holds together, we will discover that advances in technology (computers, automation and AI in particular) are about to change all that. Machines such as 3D printers can easily adjust anything. Algorithms can “remember” and guide everything about us. 

Good news. Every item of clothing we purchase will fit perfectly. Every bit of food we eat will be adjusted to exactly provide correct nutrition. Entertainment services will be pre-sorted by what you want already fully vetted. Your world becomes an aristocratic playground catering to your every desire. 

Bad news. There is no escape. Everything you do in public or private will be noted and taken into account. Your habits, your actions, your heroism or bad behavior. are applied. Each insurance bill, for example, will differ from everyone else’s based on fully known risks. Already in China you can be denied a railroad ticket if you have unpaid debt – and your taxes and opportunities go up or down depending on what the ubiquitous cameras and internet robots have observed. 

Worse. Computers can manufacture data that seems more real than reality and easily fool other computers. 

Truly, the best of times, the worst of times. 

The fairy tale goes that capitalism is the result of a belief in “free enterprise and competition.” The reality is that our economic system, for better or worse, is built on the concept of “limited liability.”

As a private tavern keeper, for example, if someone is poisoned by your beer you can be tried and convicted. But if you are merely a shareholder in the tavern, nothing can happen to you no matter how many people die. It’s a clever and useful way to put money to risky work. It actually may induce competition as others invest in other taverns. Although, in fact, the goal of any company is to be as monopolistic as possible. 

“Limited liability” is a strange partner with democracy. On the one hand, none of us as investors are to be held to account for the actions of the companies we own. On the other hand, collectively we are very responsible for what our government may do. 

Strange. I certainly have less control over “my” elected representative and the bureaucracy that he/she regulates than I do over what shares of stock I buy. Yet if things go wrong socially “I” and “we” are somehow to blame. 

It’s a very easy and slippery slope from not being liable, to simply being a “victim”. We seem, nevertheless, to handle all these contradictions adequately. Amazing brains. 

But don’t let “capitalism” apologists confuse the issue and claim that their form of corporate power is ethically moral. Convenient, yes. Useful, certainly. A way to guide life? Not at all.

Any lawyer knows “possession is nine tenths of the law”. Songs claim “the best things in life are free”. Neither are absolutes, and boundaries are fuzzy. 

In our culture of mass abundance, possession of many things is almost too easy. Yet, trained as we are to competition, owning something is regarded as much more important than merely appreciating it. After all, anyone can view the moon or gaze at the Mona Lisa. Peons! I want to be unique and have something nobody else does, even if it is merely my own rose bush or kitchen pot. 

Limits to ownership are also fuzzy. We’re not quite sure where the law line is drawn between temporary rental and complete control. If I own the Mona Lisa do I have the right to destroy it? If I “own” an ocean beach do I have the right to cover it with oil? On and on, a complicated dance of the ages and cultures. 

“Intangible property” is an increasingly dense legal fiction, in this era of easy reproduction of art, facts and ideas. “My” accepted ownership of a piece of land gets complicated if I produce noxious smells or loud noise or store radioactive materials or rent to terrorists or …

Obviously I have certain qualms about the magnificent and certain values of private property trumpeted these days. A useful concept, like many others, if applied in moderation. 

Variable pricing, like inflation, is disconcerting to us older people. We like to think we know, at least approximately, the cost of a loaf of bread. And, although we are used to sales and “special promotions”, we like to use the “normal static” information to budget our time and money wisely. 

The onslaught of variable pricing is a computer driven phenomenon, and no human brain can keep up. The fee for services like getting a ride goes up and down literally by the second. Nobody knows the true cost of a hotel or show ticket now until the exact moment of payment. It only gets worse, as restaurants and utilities and roads gleefully pile on. Mandatory tips add to the confusion.

It’s easy to understand, of course. Higher demand at certain times means _ in pure economic theory where all parties have full knowledge of everything all the time _ more efficient utilization of resources. We all understand that some of this is clearly socially beneficial. 

But at some point, in a human real world, the fractal finangling becomes self-defeating. You and I do not have full knowledge always. Our tolerance becomes frayed. We cannot then use prices to wisely adjust our behavior.

Oh, I know it will only get worse. And maybe I just pine for older practices out of nostalgia. Yet I wonder if at some point the “full information” of computers becomes “full obscurity” for the humanity it is supposedly serving.

To properly consider appropriate punishment for a crime, we need to make several Utopian assumptions. These are that the law is moral and logical and protects society. That the criminal is actually guilty. that the punishment is applied relatively quickly. Perhaps a few more other considerations, but it is already clear that problems exist. 

The main purpose of laws should be to protect society. So the best punishment is simply to remove the criminal from that society. This also acts as a deterrent to other possible criminals. But creeping around the edges are the need for “justice” or revenge, particularly by victims, but also by other citizens. And opposed to that, at least in “modern civilization,” the need to keep punishment in bounds so it does not become an end in itself or a form of entertainment. 

At one end of the punishment scale is “mass murder” _ the slaughter of random people. Of course this is rarely “mass murder” if carried out by military or police, so even that is fuzzy. At the other end is the poor starving mother stealing a loaf of bread to feed her family. And a whole range of shadow crimes _ usually financial but also ecological, “moral”, and so on _ with dispersed and often vaporous victims. 

In ideal societies, all this is fair, transparent, and supported by the community. And laws remain up to date, punishment proportionate to damage. 

How far we have drifted into impossible dreamland already.  

Fear can be useful. It is good to be afraid of a tiger in the jungle, a snake in the grass, an onrushing car, or a wild surf. Fear helps us avoid many common everyday threats, and imagining fear can help us lead our lives better. 

Unfortunately, fear can also be nothing but imagination, especially about the more distant future. “In the long run we are all dead” should not prevent us from living, doing, and enjoying the short run. The future is always unknown, the far future even more so, and its imagined fears usually turn out to be superseded by different _ if equally frightening _ ones.

I just read two nearly side by side articles. One claims that scientists who study climate are having no more children because they think the Earth will soon be in disastrous chaos. Another claimed there would soon be no children to worry about. The seers have a long history of predicting “the end” .

Okay, the end may come. It may not. It may come in a totally different way than most expect. The real question is “so what, Jack?” All those gloomy gloomsayers are in effect claiming that the present moment has little value. A happy day is worth nothing, a sunset is valueless, a smile on a kid’s face is of no interest. In an eon, or sooner, they will all be gone and forgotten. Alas! Woe!

The worst fears do not prepare for the future. The worst fears poison the present and prevent us from doing anything sensible and missing the enchantment of consciousness. 

I ran distance track and cross country back in the ’60s, when a lonely jogger on roads or open fields was regarded as either a freak or a criminal. For about a decade I kept it up afterwards. Then I began transitioning to long walks and never looked back. I’ve had no desire to get into the current competitive mania of training and races. 

For the last 50 years, I’ve constantly walked for long distances. Not mountain trekking or overnight excursions, but a nice comfortable 4 to 10 miles off and on, 2 miles or so a day usually. Admittedly I have slowed down some now and 5 miles or so is a long distance. With pauses. 

Never, in all that time, have I tried “power walking” or ” “brisk” as my wife keeps claiming we need. I move comfortably steadily thinking and seeing, amazed at how good it all feels and how rapidly ground can be covered by an easy human exercise. 

Generally, I admit to “exercise,” but the real reason is to calm my soul. I do usually feel better physically, when I return, I usually sleep better, digestion improves. But it’s my mind, senses, memory, imagination I am exercising even more. I glory in existence as I rarely do sitting on a couch. 

No abs of steel, bunched biceps, or infinite endurance. Just a little old walk for little old me. One of the best habits I ever acquired. 

Some are born with a silver spoon, blessed with perfection in body and intelligence, fortunate in every chance they ever take. Others are delivered into hopeless poverty, crippled in body, dumber than a post, and everything always goes wrong. An unfortunate few of the former are tragically cut down in youth or in their prime. A tiny group of the latter somehow rise in the maelstrom of life. 

All of us recognize the extreme poles of luck in our own lives. We hope that hard work will make the most of whatever comes our way. Unfortunately, hard work is often overcome by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just as being in the right place at the right time can be the real difference between success and failure. Those who claim to know how to recognize the right place and time are liars. 

Hard work matters. But the real control we have is adjusting our attitude – “making a heaven of hell.” That is truly available to all of us. And, of course, continuing to hope as we cope. Real stability is only available within social groups. 

The worst people today are “winning” loners. They think there is no chance in their lives. They know they alone are responsible for all they have, anyone else could have done the same with a little hard work. They are wrong, dangerous, and corrosive to civilization. 

The world has always had heroes. Today’s financial giants are no different. And, like those heroes, many have feet of clay.