Academia

Over at Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall has been making the case that the states are critical sites of resistance to Trump’s lawless power grabs on the road to authoritarianism. He was challenged today by a reader who asked him what, specifically, the Blue states can do. Marshall tossed out some ideas: Secure the vote, sure. But we should already expect this, and it’s still a very defensive move, not chipping away at Trump’s expanding power. Withholding taxes collected from state employees from the Federal Government. I am not keen on this, as it is probably illegal. And why wouldn’t Trump retaliate by stopping all Federal payments to California? Arresting masked and out-of-uniform ICE agents who refuse to identify themselves. Maybe, but this could get dangerous very fast.

Strategizing like this is not really my thing. But I have an idea. And I think it could be significant. Over at Vox, Dylan Matthews argues that Trump’s 15% tax on Nvidia’s and AMD’s chip exports to China is flagrantly unconstitutional. It’s not just that Trump lacks any authority from Congress to impose this tax. It’s that Article I, Section 9, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution says, “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.” Trump is imposing a duty on a major export from the State of California. This looks like an open-and-shut case, easy to understand.

The difficulty is that Nvidia and AMD have caved on this, because Trump has so many other ways to get back at tech companies if he wants. He could, after all, simply prohibit chip exports to China, which would be perfectly legal. So this is extortion. Nvidia and AMD, although they have legal standing to object to Trump’s illegal tax, and would likely win their case if they filed one, would lose financially from Trump’s retaliation if they filed.

So here’s my idea: Governor Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta should sue the Trump administration to stop the 15% export tax on Nvidia’s and AMD’s chip exports to China. I know, I know, neither China nor the big tech companies are popular. But hear me out.

[click to continue…]

Human beings are creatures who can describe their actions at various levels. Elizabeth Anscombe has famously introduced the example of a man who moves his arm, to pump water, to poison the inhabitants of a house, to overthrow a regime, to bring peace.* You can play with this case, or others, to create all kinds of variations: which of these descriptions does a person know of? Which elements could be outsourced to others, who might not know other descriptions? This is the stuff of comedies, tragedies, and detective stories. And arguably, it matters immensely when it comes to the introduction of AI and other digital technologies into our work.

I was reminded of this basic insight from the philosophy of action, about the multiple descriptions under which our actions can fall, when, the other day, I had to do the proofs for a paper. In the past, I had seen proofing as an act of care – a loving gaze that spots the last mistakes and makes the last improvements before a text goes out into the world. Not the most exciting part of academic work – the arguments have been made, after all – but a meaningful closure of the sometimes bumpy road to publication. I’m the generation who always got pdfs; generations before me did it on paper.

[click to continue…]

A book review from Inside Story: After The Spike by Spears and Geruso

The most striking observation in Dean Spears and Michael Geruso’s new book, After the Spike, is summed up by the cover illustration, which shows a world population rising rapidly to its current eight billion before declining to pre-modern levels and eventually to zero. As the authors observe, this is the inevitable implication of the hypothesis that fertility levels will remain below replacement level indefinitely into the future.

[click to continue…]

The Economist, having surveyed the current state of European higher education, has decided that the most significant problem is that the specialized graduate school where I work is insufficiently “relevant.”

[click to continue…]

The latest podcast produced by the Center for Ethics and Education focuses on political disclosure in the classroom. I think a lot of CTers will find it interesting. Several students were interviewed, and they are quite insightful. For what it is worth, my view is that, in general, when teaching about controversial politically and morally-valenced issues it is usually pedagogically better for most of us not to disclose our substantive views about the issues we are trying to get the students to investigate (I can think of examples of people who do disclose where I think what they are doing is pedagogically superior to withholding in the way I do — Jerry Cohen springs to mind — but I think they are the exceptions). In the podcast my co-director Tony Laden expresses sensible disagreement. Well worth listening to, if I say so myself.

(By the way although I suggested the topic after discussing it with a couple of the students who are featured, as with all our podcasts I take no credit for its excellent quality (both in terms of production values and intellectual content), except in that I suggested to our program manager that she might make podcasts, having no idea quite how good she would turn out to be at doing it. A leading podcaster told me how excellent she thought one of them was, and then was horrified to find out just how much of a shoestring we have been operating on!)).

At the Sydney Gleebooks launch of Graeme Turner’s new book Broken, an audience member said:

I raised the microphone to my mouth to say ‘that is because of moral deskilling’. But it was not my gig, so I didn’t. It would have been very inappropriate. Look at how I’ve grown. Well. Sometimes.

Before I explain, let us go back a few years.

It was one of those Covid lockdowns. Like many others, we built nice rituals. Checking on the garden. De-slugging, by hand in the evenings (ok that was less nice). Bushwalks with such silence that the swishing of the trees seemed very loud. A drink while watching the sunset after a day of zoom meetings – sometimes from the empty outdoor cafe at the eerily abandoned theme park called Scenic World1.

And I was writing Virtue Capitalists.

[click to continue…]

Tech regulation raises some of the thorniest questions of our time — about free speech versus hate speech, copyright versus fair use, truth versus manipulation. Yet these debates are increasingly irrelevant unless states can first establish digital sovereignty. Without the will to enforce laws on multinational corporations, “tech regulation” is a dead letter.

Both the EU and the Commonwealth countries have been trying to use regulation to chart a third path between the “laissez faire” of the US and the explicit state control of authoritarian regimes like China. But the shakedowns occasioned by Trump’s unilateral “reciprocal” tariffs demonstrates the pointlessness of these laws without the will to enforce them.

[click to continue…]

… as long as they are healthy, well fed and well educated

Much of the panic about falling birth rates can be dispelled once we realise that (barring catastrophe) there will almost certainly be more people alive in 2100 than there were in 2000. But what about the distant future? Dean Spears, co-author of After the Spike has kindly provided me with projections showing that with likely declines in fertility the world population will decline by half each century after 2100, reaching one billion around 2400. Would that be too few to sustain a modern civilisation ?

We can answer this pretty easily from past experience. In the second half of 20th century, the modern economy consisted of the member countries of the Organization For Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). Originally including the countries of Western Europe and North America, and soon extended to include Australia and Japan, the OECD countries were responsible for the great majority of the global industrial economy, including manufacturing, modern services, and technological innovation.

Except for some purchases of raw materials from the “Global South”, produced by a relatively small part of the labour force, the OECD, taken as a whole, was self-sufficient in nearly everything required for a modern economy. So, the population of the OECD in the second half of last century provides an upper bound to the number of humans needed to sustain such an economy. That number did not reach one billion until 1980.

[click to continue…]

The New York Times recently published a letter from me responding to a guest essay (op-ed) by Michael Geruso and Dean Spears, with whom I’ve been engaging on the question of pro-natalism. As a colleague who had such a letter published a few years ago observed, this will probably get more readers than any journal article I’ve ever written. The text is over the fold

[click to continue…]