Ugo Bardi's Blog, page 4

Terror Bombing: The End of an Era?

“General, your bomber is powerful. It flies faster than a storm and carries more than an elephant. But it has one defect: It needs a mechanic.” When Bertolt Brecht wrote these words, in the 1950s, he didn’t know about killer drones. Above, Dresden after carpet bombing in 1945. Drones could do worse than that.

The recent attack by Ukrainian drones on the Russian strategic bomber fleet has generated lots of comments and, as usual, plenty of propaganda obscuring the actual extent of damage. Nevertheless, you don’t need to be an expert in military matters to understand that when a weapon system developed in the 1950s (the bombers) clashes with a weapon system developed in the 2020s (the drones), the results can only be classed in the category of “horses against tanks.” Strategic nuclear bombers are probably obsolete, and that’s a good thing, at least in theory, because they are a weapon conceived mainly against civilian targets. Unfortunately, if drones will replace bombers, that will not be the end of terror bombing.

In my recent book, “Exterminations,” I dedicate an entire chapter to the story of terror bombing and how it was developed in large part by the Italian military theorist Giulio Douhet. (1869-1930). He is still known today for his book Il Dominio dell’Aria (“The Command of the Air,” 1921), in which he proposed that wars could be won by aiming bombers directly at the civilian population. Douhet never had a chance to put his ideas into practice himself, but from what he wrote, we can say that he was a morally sick person, a dangerous terrorist, and an enemy of humankind. Evidently, these character traits led to success in Douhet’s time, just as they do today.

Nevertheless, Douhet hit a central point in the question of how wars are conducted and for what purpose. Wars are a question of doing the maximum possible damage to the enemy at the minimum cost. Douhet’s idea was to bypass the cumbersome conventional military machinery and aim directly at the civilian population. “Kill them until the survivors will surrender.” Bombing was supposed to be (and it probably was already at his time) much cheaper in terms of damage/cost ratio than a conventional army.

Douhet’s ideas were put to the test during World War II by the Allies’ massive bombing campaign against Germany. By most accounts, it was a failure. Just think that the allies lost more than 50 thousand trained airmen against a loss of some 300.000 German civilians, most of whom were old people, women, and children. And all that without greatly hampering the German industrial capability.

Yet, all failed ideas are subjected to the “Easter Island Principle” — always operating in politics. It goes as, “If it doesn’t work, make it bigger.” (In Eastern Island terms, build bigger statues). It seems that the Allies were operating according to this principle when they stepped up their bombing efforts in a nearly exponential increase.

It is a classic case of positive feedback: the more you bomb, the more you think you need to bomb because the enemy refuses to surrender. Eventually, the Germans did surrender, but only when the Soviets marched into Berlin in May 1945.

There are several subtle and not-so-subtle reasons that led the Allies to engage in this mad campaign against Germany, but the point is to note how things went out of control once bombing became a purpose in itself, no longer a tool. And then it went into the hands of dangerous psychopaths such as Arthur “Bomber” (or “Butcher”) Harris, the leader of the “Bomber Command” in Britain. The result was that success was measured not in terms of damage done to the enemy’s military apparatus, but in terms of the number of bombs dropped on the chosen targets. At this point, it was an obvious choice to direct their efforts against soft “area targets,” that is, civilian areas, which were the most difficult to defend for the Germans. The Allied command was turned into what Freeman Dyson described as “a huge organization dedicated to killing people and doing the job badly.”

Now, I can see the bluish shape of the ghost of Giulio Douhet in front of me, telling me, “It didn’t work because, at that time, bombers were not cheap enough to fit my theory.” And, with a cruel smirk on his ghostly face, “But now things have changed, you’ll see!” And he disappears with a Satanic laugh.

Yes, because the thing is that drones are the perfect embodiment of Douhet’s ideas. They cost very little, are difficult to detect and to stop, reminding us of the old saying, “the bomber will always get through.” Not true up to now, but now probably true for drones.

Speculating is always fun, and often dangerous, but the recent attack on Russia by Ukrainian drones seemed to me an ominous presage of things to come (“ominous” is an understatement.). It is impressive how large the effect of an attack carried out by little more than a hundred drones was. True, it was directed mostly against military targets, but some drones were aimed at civilian or mixed targets, railroads, and bridges.

And now, what’s going to happen? The “batshit principle” is a way to describe the effects of positive feedback according to Connor Jennings

The algorithm will start to present your batshit thoughts to other batshit people, who in turn share it to all their batshit friends and family. Before long you’re rolling an enormous batshit snowball that’s picking up all the only-kind-of-batshit people along the way, and heading straight towards the rest of us.

So far, neither side in the Ukraine-Russia war has engaged in large-scale terror bombing. But both sides are already accusing each other of aiming their drones at civilians. As usual, it is mostly fake news and propaganda, but it may be partly true. And what if both sides get caught in an enhancing feedback trap with the batshit hitting the drones’ propellers?

In terms of costs, even a swarm of a million drones would still be well within the budget of both adversaries. Whereas military targets can be hardened against drone attacks, it would be impossible to do that for a city. And the tragedy of civilian extermination of WW2 could be repeated in Europe, even in larger proportions.

Some people are trying to do something about these matters, but their voice is swamped in the great noise of propaganda. Nevertheless, you may wish to take a look at the “Stop Killer Robots” site. After all, there have been treaties against chemical and biological weapons, so, maybe killer drones could be stopped. Who knows?

Gaza: The Tragedy that Could Have Been Avoided

The fertility rate (number of children per woman) for the Israeli and Palestinian populations. The difference was large in the 1950s, when nearly two Palestinian children were born for each Israeli one. But now the gap is closing, and the trend prefigures a near future when the fertility of both populations will be insufficient to replace the natural death rate. It is the “population transition” taking place everywhere in the world. As a consequence, the population of the region is going to peak and decline, most likely before the end of this century, making the problem of land availability much less dramatic than it is usually seen. Data from “database.earth.” Plot created by “Manus” AI.

It is said that generals are always ready to fight the last war. It is even worse for politicians, who often address problems that no longer exist. This outdated thinking persists in the current conflict in the Israel/Palestine region, which Mr. Netanyahu likened to the biblical Amalekites, who attacked the Israelites during the Exodus and were later ordered destroyed by God (1 Samuel 15). In our times, we see God as benevolent and merciful, finding it strange that He could command the destruction of a whole population. Yet, the Amalek story is not exceptional in human history, where violence over resources has been common, as I explore in my book Exterminations.

Large-scale exterminations have been a constant in human history. Fights were mostly about land and resources, and when a population that occupied a territory couldn’t offer significant resistance, it was often expelled, enslaved, or exterminated by more powerful neighbors. Modern exterminations are way larger than the Amalek episode described in the Bible. Think of the American Natives in the United States: we are talking of millions, perhaps tens of millions, of people killed, and there are many more recent examples. In my book, I note how exterminations became progressively more common as the world became more crowded.

Palestine, intended as a geographical region, is especially prone to violence, being a bridge between Asia and Africa; a forced passage for armies and populations. Not for nothing, the first large battle for which we have historical records was fought in this region, near the city of Megiddo. We remember it with the name of “Armageddon.” So, the war that pitted the Amalekites against the Israelites in Biblical times is just one of the many that took place in the area.

We could see the tragedy happening in Gaza as a continuation of ancient trends: fighting for land in a limited space. That explains, although it does not justify, the violence of the current conflict. But something is happening in the world that could change everything. It is the demographic transition created by a rapid global fertility decline. The Malthusian assumption that a population would always keep growing until stopped by famines, plagues, or wars turns out to be untenable nowadays.

Many regions of the world are not only seeing their fertility rate plummeting below the replacement level, but also the decline of their total population. Practically all Western countries are already in this stage, just as several Asian ones, including China. You can read more in a previous post of mine on this blog.

How about Israel and Palestine? The trend is the same, although it has not yet arrived at the stage of population decline typical of industrialized countries. As I show in the plot at the beginning of this post, the fertility rate of both Palestinians and Israelis has been plummeting during the past few decades. In the 1950s, the Palestinians were said to be waging a “crib war,” trying to outbreed the Jewish people. But their fertility rate was not higher than that typical of rural populations at the time. In any case, now the gap is closing, and in a few years, both populations may go below the threshold of 2.1 children per woman, the minimum needed to compensate for the natural death rate.

Will the fertility decline continue in the future? Most likely, yes. The reasons that make it unavoidable are discussed in detail in my upcoming book “The End of Population Growth.” The trend is usually attributed to urbanization, with the correlated tendency of women to access higher education and high-level jobs. It may also be due to pollution and stress affecting the human endocrine system, reducing fertility for biochemical reasons.

In addition, the Israel/Palestine region has specific problems due to the high population density and the geographical location. One is a high level of pollution, and the war is worsening things even more. Then, global warming is hitting the region hard, causing an increase in temperatures larger than the average in the world, already 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, and the war is surely not helping in mitigating the climate situation. These factors are putting additional strain on population growth and may hasten the fertility decline.

The official statistical projections are predicting that both populations will continue to grow throughout the current century, but the turning point might arrive much sooner. Typically, projections based on “system dynamics” (the tool used for the “Limits to Growth” study of 1972) generate the start of population decline 3-4 decades earlier than purely statistical models. Hence, although there are no specific studies for the region, “peak population” could arrive as early as 2050, or even earlier.

So, is it still necessary to fight for land in the Israel/Palestine region? Right now, we have two growing populations desperately fighting to gather enough space in a limited strip of land. But if we look a little further in the future, we see that the overpopulation problem in the region is not as pressing as it was perceived to be at the time of the “crib war.” And it will become less and less pressing with time, as the demographic transition takes place. That would not affect the ideological, social, and religious factors involved in the conflict, but it is clear that the times of Amalek are gone. We are entering a new era in which conflicts for land will be obsolete. Besides, it is simply insane to waste precious resources in a war when these resources would be desperately needed to create infrastructure to mitigate the effects of further global warming in the region. The tragedy of Gaza could have been avoided if people could reason instead of acting out of fear and hatred.

But so is the way the human mind works, and it seems that we are in the hands of people who think they still live at the time of Amalek, perhaps three thousand years ago. They should read their Bible better; “They sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.” – Hosea 8:7

Science: Soon Under Government Censorship in the US

From the Executive Order of the President, “Restoring Gold Standard Science.” Section 1. Policy and Purpose. “Over the last 5 years, confidence that scientists act in the best interests of the public has fallen significantly. A majority of researchers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics believe science is facing a reproducibility crisis. The falsification of data by leading researchers has led to high-profile retractions of federally funded research. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has contributed to this loss of trust.”

The Trump administration officially acknowledged what most of us knew but many denied. Science is in trouble. It faces a reproducibility crisis, falsified data, corruption, nepotism, cronyism, and often sloppy or insignificant research. There is still plenty of serious and innovative science, but it’s becoming harder to fight for good science against the mounting wave of bad science.

So, Science badly needed a reform, but scientists consistently refused to engage in that. Not surprisingly, because it is well known that social structures are normally impossible to reform from the inside. Hence, things went from bad to worse, and the COVID-19 crisis was the last blow that caused the whole ivory tower to collapse. The crash is taking everything with it, even serious, documented, and necessary science. The consequences will be dire: we needed a reform, but what we got was censorship.

Trump’s administration has come out with the idea of “gold standard science,” as you can read in the executive order by the president issued on May 23, 2025 (incidentally, on the day of Ugo Bard’s birthday. Might Mr. Trump read the Seneca blog? :-))

The text of the order is short; you can read it in a few minutes. It contains plenty of good intentions; nothing really original. Science must be transparent, there must be no conflicts of interest, it has to give space to different viewpoints, etc. All things known to be the characteristics of good science, or at least should be.

The worrisome part starts with the COVID-19 story from the first paragraph that says, “Over the last 5 years, confidence that scientists act in the best interests of the public has fallen significantly.” And then mentioning the closure of schools, apparently, one of the oppressive measures that has most outraged the public. But note that they don’t mention vaccines, still a controversial point.

From COVID, the text jumps to climate science, accused of using “Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenario 8.5 to assess the potential effects of climate change in a “higher” warming scenario.”

Here we see a bright (nearly blinding) example of how politicians and the public alike don’t understand what a “scenario” is. The mere fact that you can calculate a “worst case” scenario is understood as implying that you are using it to terrorize the public. It happened already with the “Limits to Growth” study of 1972, when the existence in the report of a scenario of rapid resource exhaustion, explicitly defined as “not realistic” by the authors, was sufficient to declare the study “wrong” and the define the authors as scaremongers.

The problem is that during the COVID pandemic, worst-case scenarios were created and disseminated with the explicit purpose of scaring the public and bringing money and power to those who profited from the pandemic. And, in a sense, it is understandable that the public reacted by tarring with the same brush both sloppy medical research and serious climate science.

And here we are. The Government is now making a very clear statement. It is not explicitly written in the document, but you can easily understand it. It is:

DON’T YOU DARE CHEAT ON US AGAIN, YOU SILLY SCIENTISTS

In other words, scaring people to gain power is the government’s job. They are professionals at that, and you know what to expect when you invade the turf of some big boss.

Now, the axe is falling. How exactly will it hit? The order doesn’t contain any specific definition of how “gold standard” science can be determined. It is all left to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), which will “issue guidance for agencies on implementation of Gold Standard Science.” Evidently, the office, or the agencies it coordinates, will certify which scientific papers and reports qualify for the “Gold Standard” rules.

It is a form of censorship that could range from mild to draconian. In any case, it is censorship. The government will not endorse or pay for publications that don’t satisfy the gold standard rules. Scientists may not be forbidden to publish what they want, but, if they do, they will lose government funding, maybe their job, and their salary.

It is normal in history that governments and institutions want to have their say on what is done with their money. For instance, the Catholic Church’s Holy Office, now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was charged with ‘maintaining vigilance over the printed word.’ Galileo Galilei had a little row with them, as we all know.

As another example: during the Soviet Era, many scientific laboratories in the USSR had a party officer “embedded” with research groups, charged with ensuring that the work was performed according to the orthodox Communist views. In Western science, although scientists are theoretically freer, in practice, there are formal and informal gatekeepers ensuring that undesired ideas are not published in high-level journals or, if they are by mistake, they will soon be “retracted.” Dmitri Orlov has often noted parallels between the Soviet Union and Western systems in his Reinventing Collapse book (2008). This executive order proves him right: the West is moving one step closer to becoming a new version of the old USSR.

Maybe what’s happening was unavoidable. It is part of the way the universe works: human-made structures tend to decay and crumble, it is called the “Seneca Effect” (“growth is slow, but ruin is rapid”). Science has evolved into something that badly needs a shake-up. It might be even beneficial, if not exaggerated. Besides, rules are made to be circumvented, and censorship didn’t prevent Soviet science from reaching high levels of excellence. And, as usual, the future has the ultimate word when it becomes the present.

_____________________________________________

See also this article on “The Guardian” aptly titled “The ‘gold standard’ rule will destroy American science as we know it”

The Green War

In 1991, at the time of the first attack of the West on Iraq, the Italian parliament voted to join the bombing campaign (it was a time when parliaments were still consulted before sending a country to war). One of the votes in favor came from a Green parliamentarian I personally knew (*). At that time, I was a member of the Italian Green Party, and I was incensed. I wrote to her, criticizing her choice.

It was a prehistoric time in which email didn’t exist yet, so I didn't expect her to reply to my handwritten letter. But she did, taking the time to write to me by hand. Clearly, she had received a lot of criticism in addition to mine, and she was under stress. I think she wrote back to me because I was among the few who didn’t use expletives in their criticism. She defended her choice according to the slogans of the propaganda of the time. But she added that the voting in Parliament had been a thrilling experience, a sensation of collective excitation in which the MPs seemed to be proud to be able to order the bombers to scramble.

It is interesting that, in our world, important decisions are taken by people who act according to forms of groupthink and collective exaltation, but I suppose it is normal. The same thing happened in 1915, when the Italian parliament voted to send young Italians to kill and be killed by young Austrians for 4 years, causing more than a million casualties. Later, during the COVID crisis, some of the “Five Stars” Italian MPs, theoretically libertarians, became rabid supporters of all the oppressive measures taken by the government. It was all done according to the formal rules of democracy.

For some mysterious reason, once in power, some people tend to go through a Mr. Hyde-Jekyll transformation that turns them into the opposite of what they were presenting themselves to the public before. That must be the reason why the European Greens, theoretically for peace, are today among the most rabid warmongers in the political spectrum. In addition, in my experience, the Greens always had an authoritarian streak in their way of thinking. I think it is one of the reasons why they never had much success in political terms. Fortunately, I’d say. Today, for this and other reasons, the Greens are a spent political force, although they can still do plenty of damage where they are still present in parliaments and other political bodies. About the decline of the Greens, you may be interested in this post of mine.

Here is an article by Fabian Schneider that sheds plenty of light on this matter.

__________________________________________________________________

The Greens, Driving Force of German Militarism

by Fabian Scheidler

Le Monde Diplomatique, February 2025

Republished with the kind permission of the author and “The Monde Diplomatique”

This article has been published by The Nation and simultaneously by Le Monde diplomatique in many different languages, including French, Spanish, Portuguese and Persian. For more languages, please go to fabianscheidler.com

Stability used to be one of Germany’s greatest virtues. Not any more. A political crisis has triggered an early federal election on 23 February. And Europe’s largest economy has been in recession for two years. German industry has been hit by soaring energy costs following EU sanctions against Russia. Major business groups such as Volkswagen are planning to cut tens of thousands of jobs, business bankruptcies are at their highest level since the 2008 financial crisis, and deindustrialization looms. Last November, the ruling coalition between the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the Greens (Die Grünen) and the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) fell apart over 2025 budget disputes.

Paying for arms deliveries to Ukraine has been a key factor. The huge cost of Germany’s own rearmament was already weighing on government finances. Since 2022, when Chancellor Olaf Scholz pledged a special fund of €100bn (over five years) to strengthen the armed forces, the Greens, SPD and Christian Democratic Union (CDU) have talked of up to another €300bn, separate from the regular budget allocation for defense. The fact that NATO countries already have ten times Russia's military budget doesn’t enter into the debate.

All parties except the leftwing Die Linke and Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) agree that rearmament on a scale unprecedented in the history of the Federal Republic is needed, but they differ on how to pay for it. The CDU, far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and FDP propose drastic social spending cuts, while the SPD and Greens favor increased borrowing – though they have not ruled out a pro-austerity alliance with the CDU, whose leader Friedrich Merz once chaired the supervisory board of the investment giant Blackrock. Political scientist Christoph Butterwegge fears there will be a ‘frontal assault on the welfare state’ after the election.

Germany’s new militarism, unthinkable just a few years ago, has coincided with a radical change in its political culture. On SPD election posters, defense minister Boris Pistorius (SPD), who has called for an army ‘fit for war by 2029’, poses in combat gear, weapon in hand – a spectacular U-turn for the party whose policy of détente and rapprochement with the Soviet Union once earned Chancellor Willy Brandt the Nobel peace prize.

‘Arms, arms and more arms’

But no party has changed more than the Greens. Founded in 1980 as an anti-war party, they have in recent years become fervent and bellicose advocates of rearmament. Anton Hofreiter, who for many years co-chaired the party’s parliamentary group in the Bundestag, is continually demanding ‘arms, arms and more arms’, and criticizes the SPD’s refusal to send Ukraine Taurus long-range cruise missiles.

In the 2021 federal election campaign, the Greens insisted arms should not be supplied to belligerents in a conflict; barely a year later, foreign minister Annalena Baerbock (Greens) outlined the new doublespeak of Green policies: ‘Arms shipments help to save lives’. Her predecessor Joschka Fischer has since called for the EU to develop its own nuclear arsenal, an idea supported by supposedly progressive journalists such as Ulrike Herrmann of the daily Taz.

The Greens, with their coalition partners and the two main opposition parties – the CDU and AfD – also support Israel’s wars in the Middle East. As the largest supplier of arms to Tel Aviv after the US, Germany protects Israel financially and diplomatically. While the federal government casts itself as a resolute defender of international law in Ukraine, it makes a mockery of it when it comes to Israel, helping it commit war crimes that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch class as genocide. Neither Baerbock nor economy minister and deputy chancellor Robert Habeck (also the Greens’ candidate for chancellor) has questioned the arms shipments or suggested they should be conditional on Israel ending its assault on Gaza.

The shift to a distinctly military shade of green shocks the few party activists who recall the 1980 founding manifesto: ‘Ecological foreign policy is a policy of non-violence … Non-violence does not mean surrender, but guaranteeing peace and life by political rather than military means … The development of civilian rule founded on the guiding value of peace must go hand in hand with the immediate commencement of the dissolution of military blocs, especially NATO and the Warsaw Pact.’ In the middle of the cold war, it called for ‘the dismantling of the German arms industry and its conversion to peaceful production.’

A major turning point in the Greens’ transformation into the party of war was the Kosovo conflict. In spring 1999 the SPD-Greens coalition, headed by Gerhard Schröder (SPD) with foreign minister Joschka Fischer (Greens), decided that Germany would take part in the NATO’s bombing of Serbia without UN Security Council backing. This violated the UN charter, the Two Plus Four agreement and the German constitution, which bans wars of aggression.

‘Never again Auschwitz’

At the 1999 party convention, Fischer justified this decision with the words, ‘Never again Auschwitz, never again genocide’. His comparison of the civil war in Kosovo to Auschwitz drew massive protests from Holocaust survivors, who called it ‘shameful’, but helped secure the party’s approval of Germany’s involvement in the NATO campaign. Comparing the West’s adversaries with Hitler and his extermination of Jews in order to legitimize military interventions has been part of the Greens’ repertoire ever since. In April 2022 former environment minister Jürgen Trittin drew a parallel between the Russian troops’ massacre of Ukrainian civilians in Bucha (around 200 victims according to the UN) and the atrocities committed by the SS mobile death squads who executed hundreds of thousands of Jews in Eastern Europe.

Over the years, the Greens’ foreign policy has gradually aligned with that of the US neocons. The promotion of ‘Western values’, if necessary by means of military intervention, has been supported by Atlanticist thinktanks whose members include prominent Greens. Baerbock, who says she is inspired by former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright, was a fellow of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, while most sparty leaders in the last 20 years, including Claudia Roth, Katrin Göring-Eckardt, Cem Özdemir, Reinhard Bütikofer and Omid Nouripour, have been members of Atlantik Brücke (Atlantic Bridge), a network of bankers, military strategists, journalists and politicians that aims to deepen German-US relations. In 2004 Özdemir, now agriculture minister, signed an open letter from the US neocon thinktank Project for the New American Century calling for a tougher stance towards Russia. This was only a year after leading members of this organization, including Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Robert Kagan, had prepared and launched the Iraq war.

From the US standpoint, coopting Greens leaders has been a major success: the party which once favored NATO dissolution now campaigns for its enlargement and the militarization of German foreign policy. In the standoff with China, the Greens have aligned with the US hawks as well. The shift has driven a deep wedge between the circle of environmental activists, still close to the Greens, and the peace movement; their close relations were once the source of the movement's strength.

A key figure in this shift is Ralf Fücks, a former Maoist, later co-director for two decades of the Heinrich Böll Foundation (affiliated with the Greens). He is now director of the Centre for Liberal Modernity, a Berlin thinktank which claims to defend ‘liberal democracies’ against ‘authoritarian regimes’ through rearmament and Atlanticism. This allegedly non-governmental organization is financed to a large extent by the German state.

Forget pacifism and anti-capitalism

In the late 1980s, Fücks and political activist Daniel Cohn-Bendit were both members of a faction that sought to turn the Greens from anti-capitalism and pacifism. In 1998, however, the Greens’ federal election manifesto still called for ‘a pan-European order of peace and security’ that could ‘replace NATO and provide the conditions required for complete disarmament’. These election promises disappeared for good after the Greens joined the federal government and voted for the Kosovo war.

The other major factor behind the shift is demographic change among the party’s voters. The 1970s’ dissenters became the well-to-do, urban and educated classes of the 90s, which is where the party now finds its supporters. Some 78% of the Greens’ electorate say they are in favor of continuing arms deliveries to Ukraine, more than in any other party, but only 9% would be prepared to take up arms themselves to defend their country. Fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian is their answer to the project of military commitment in the name of ‘Western values’.

Since February 2022, the Greens’ foreign policy positions have been among Germany’s most hawkish. Immediately after the invasion of Ukraine Baerbock, like many Western politicians, said steps should be taken to ‘ruin Russia’. On 6 April 2022 Jürgen Trittin said in the Bundestag, ‘We’re sending Vladimir the Terrible’s Russia back to the 1960s,’ and suggested that sanctions should continue even after the war ended. Accordingly, the Greens opposed all efforts to find a diplomatic solution, even after the US and Ukrainian chiefs of staff admitted they were facing a military stalemate. However, the strategy of weakening Moscow and permanently detaching the EU from Russia comes at a price for Germany: the threat of industrial decline. Any tariffs imposed by the Trump administration are bound to exacerbate the situation, as is Germany's growing decoupling from China. Berlin finds itself increasingly isolated between the major blocs. However, this doesn’t seem to worry the Greens' party leadership: most of their voters work in the service sector.

Though party membership doubled between 2017 and 2024, the Greens’ share of the vote in the June 2024 European Parliament election virtually halved to 11.6%, compared with 20.5% in 2019. Its losses were largest among young voters. And in September the party suffered a further rebuff in parliamentary elections in the former East German states of Thuringia, Brandenburg and Saxony, where it lost all its seats in the state governments. In Thuringia and Brandenburg, the Greens’ share of the vote did not even reach the 5% threshold for re-entering the various parliaments. The party’s national leaders, Omid Nouripour and Ricarda Lang, announced they would step down at the November party conference. The leaders and the entire executive committee of its youth organization also resigned, and even quit the party because it was taking a direction incompatible with their ideals. Yet the national leadership shows no sign of changing course. Robert Habeck has called for Germany to spend 3.5% of its GDP on defense, effectively devoting a third of the federal budget to the most environmentally damaging sector of the economy. The idea of positioning Germany and the EU as a force for peace between the rival blocs in the new geopolitical reality is not even mentioned.

Translated from French by Charles Goulden for Le Monde diplomatique, English edition.

Fabian Scheidler is a journalist and the author of The End of the Megamachine: a Brief History of a Failing Civilization, Zer0 Books, London, 2020. www.fabianscheidler.com

Thanks for reading Fabian Scheidler on Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

____________________________________________________________

(*) After that vote in Iraq, she left the Green party and joined the Italian Socialist Party. She is still active in politics, a supporter of nuclear energy. If you want to know her name, write me.

Exterminations are Doing Great in the World. A Review of My Book on the Subject

Honestly, I didn’t imagine that my 2024 book “Exterminations” would be so prophetic, and I am not happy that it was. Unfortunately, it seems that exterminations, especially in the extended form called “genocides,” are becoming a feature of our world. Not just the result of the madness of our leaders, but approved, or at least condoned, by a public continuously dazed and bamboozled by a propaganda system that’s becoming more and more effective and more aggressive in suppressing every contrary opinion.

My book is doing reasonably well in terms of sales, even though we are still speaking of hundreds, not of thousands, of copies. Yet, I daresay that those people who make the effort of reading it are gaining insights on why and how what’s happening is happening. Here is a review that I received on Amazon from a US reader.

“Exterminations” by Ugo Bardi

5.0 out of 5 stars unparallelled

Reviewed in the United States on April 9, 2025

A disturbing, important read - one of the most important books I'll read this year, possibly ever. It's a sobering look at humanity's history with war and mass exterminations. A few copyediting mistakes don't take away from this compulsively readable and incredibly well-researched book.

The author makes good points that the madness that takes hold of groups of people related to war is always about power: money, territory, or both. It can also be about controlling the population and keeping it in check. It can be very complicated, and the author lets us see glimpses of these wheels within wheels.

What are the things that make people vulnerable to being exterminated - and how to navigate it if you ever find yourself in that situation? The author's main point, that people vulnerable to extermination meet three criteria, is deeply important. Basically - 1) a subgroup that can be identified easily, 2) assets that can be confiscated 3) the lack of effective military defense.

What do exterminations look like - from war, holocaust, to famine? Why did the average citizen of the time so thoroughly want WWI to happen? Why did no contemporaries seem to think that witch hunts were worth speaking out against, or even a moral problem? Why did the Europeans in America hate the Native Americans so much and talk about them like they were bugs to be exterminated? What led to the Holocaust, and the civilian population's utter complicity? Has humanity truly "gotten better" in any meaningful way, or will looking at the past show us what the future might look like, when people have profit motivations and propagandized beliefs designed to dehumanize others?

This book sounds (and is in many ways) incredibly grim, but it is also a breath of fresh air. It can be so hard to see the world clearly, to understand history or how things work, but seen from this broader perspective, things make more sense, and it reminds us that none of us are really immune to propaganda. Only by wisdom and grace do we have a chance to make the world better, and protect ourselves and those we love, when evil arises.

It is better than I'm making it sound, though. It's an important book and well-written. I wish everyone could stand to look at it, to look at this facet of humanity's history and really think about how war and human sacrifice are not truly so far apart.

Quote from the book:

"It is perfectly clear. An empire can survive only as long as it can guarantee the survival of minority groups. A nation state, instead, is a natural-born killer of minorities. It has no mechanisms to protect them from the whims of the majority. Once you understand this point, you understand many things." Indeed.

The author makes a good point about how we don't have mass crowd casualty events much anymore - things like lynchings - but social media makes it easy to mobilize crowds and inform the worst of our nature all the same. The clear-headed, grim approach of the author is sometimes shocking, sometimes a breath of fresh air. He makes a good point about how immoral those in power regularly are, and the way they make choices - nothing that most people would even think of in how to treat other humans. Some theories (about military choices) are not fully supported, and the author points out that it's unclear how true they are - and indeed, how we may never fully know the true motives for certain military choices. I think rather than finding things that you don't agree completely about, it's more important to see and discuss the trends clearly.

"As is always the case in propaganda wars, it was an asymmetric struggle: on one side, there was reason, and on the other, emotion. And emotion always trumps reason."

A head-in-the-clouds belief that humanity has simply "gotten better" or will improve in some magical way are not useful. This book, that looks at the issues and addresses them honestly, will certainly make you think, and may better prepare you if human nature or social structures haven't truly changed in the last few centuries. I truly believe we as a species can do better - but we have to be honest about what the human relationship with extermination truly is.

Europe: If You Have the Wrong Map, you Will Never Reach Your Destination

Many past empires collapsed because they misunderstood the reasons for their difficulties, squandering their limited resources on military expenses. That’s what may happen to the European Union with the “Rearm Europe” plan.

Years ago, I found myself lost in Moscow’s subway. I was trying to follow a map I had with me, but no matter what I did, after a few turns, I found myself back in the same place. It was a spooky experience: I was surrounded by signs written in an alphabet I couldn’t read and a crowd of busy people whose language I didn’t understand. Eventually, I managed to get back home. Later, a friend pointed out to me that I was using a map that was at least 10 years old and didn’t show the new connections built since then. No wonder I got lost!

If you have the wrong map, you can’t reach the right destination. The history of science is full of attempts to use wrong theories to map the world: do you remember such things as “flogiston” and “cosmic aether”? And let’s not forget the large number of disasters in medicine, with the mismanagement of COVID-19 being among the recent ones.

The concept of “wrong map” nicely applies to the recent “Rearm Europe” plan: spending 800 billion euros on weapons. Why do they want to do that? Why 800 billion?

It is because they have the wrong map, probably a consequence of “Draghi’s Plan,” a document drafted by Mario Draghi, former Italian Prime Minister. In January 2025, he proposed to stimulate the European economy by spending a massive amount of money, 800 billion euros per year, to build new infrastructure in areas such as high-tech and research. The “Rearm Europe” plan is clearly inspired by Draghi’s earlier proposal, although somewhat less ambitious: the 800 billion would be spent in four years rather than yearly.

Draghi is an old-school economist who sees the economy as governed mainly by monetary factors. He was right in his assessment of the problem: insufficient investments in new technologies and infrastructure were leading the European industry to be trounced by the Chinese competition. But he couldn’t understand the reason behind the lack of investments. Relying on standard economic models (wrong maps), he thought that the government had to intervene by printing more money to stimulate the dead horse to stand up again.

Yet, there is a reason for Europe’s lack of investment. It becomes clear if you use the correct map. According to the biophysical economics view, the economy is based on resources. And the most critical resource is energy. With cheap energy, the economy grows. Without it, it declines, and it may collapse.

Using the bioeconomics map, you can trace the path that led Europe to where it stands now. Before 2022, Europe would get most of its energy from low-priced gas from Russia. This gas allowed Europe to plan a transition toward a new industrial infrastructure based on renewable energy. Progress was being made, but it was a decades-long plan. Then, the whole parade smashed against a brick wall in 2022, when the Russian military operation in Ukraine led Europe to switch to more expensive gas sources.

In 2020, natural gas cost less than 10 euros per MWh. In 2021, it spiked to over 200 Euros per MWh. Now, it is still 4-5 times higher than it was before the crisis. The EU consumption of natural gas plummeted by a factor of nearly 30% from 2020, only in part compensated by other sources and efficiency measures. No wonder that the European economy is sputtering to a halt: it is starved for energy.

In 2022, many European government officials genuinely believed that the Russian economy would collapse within weeks due to the economic sanctions. They didn’t realize that sanctions are a double-edged weapon and that Europe didn’t have the natural resources that Russia has. Disaster followed, with the European economy contracting and losing more and more ground to the Asian economies.

Today, more than three years into the train wreck, the European government officials seem to be genuine believers in Draghi’s approach. That is, creating money to stimulate the European economy. But they have modified the target: the idea is now that the stimulation may come from increasing military expenses.

It is the wrong map: you can print money, but you can’t print resources. Rearming Europe means diverting resources away from where they are desperately needed, a new energy infrastructure based on renewable sources that could shield Europe from the enormous costs of energy imports. Even from a purely military perspective, a strong military is useless if it is not supported by a healthy economy. And, without affordable energy, there is no healthy economy.

The European Union risks following a well-trodden path toward ruin, already walked by earlier empires. As long as the European decision-makers follow the wrong map, “Europe” is destined to become just a geographical term for a small peninsula on the western edge of Eurasia. Do we still have time to change direction? Perhaps it is not too late. It won’t be easy, but if we can revive the earlier plan, that of a new European renewable energy infrastructure, there is still a chance.

________________________________________________________________

For a bit of optimism in this dire situation, take a look at the recent document by Rethinkx, the idea of “Stellar Energy.” Unrealistic? No more than the idea that war may bring peace and prosperity!

AIs, Sycophants or Companions?

There has been a lot of discussion lately about AIs becoming “sycophants”, that is, tending to adulate users in order to gain customers. It is part of a wide debate on what AIs are, what they can do for us, and how we can adapt to a world in which we can’t ignore them anymore.

This discussion made me think of a Science Fiction short story written by Robert Sheckley in 1953, and that I remember having read in Italian, maybe in the 1970s. It is a little gem, a poetic, dreamy, and fascinating story that prefigured much of what we are seeing happen nowadays. Sheckley proposed that AIs would be neither our slaves nor our adulators. Rather, they could be our friends, accompanying humankind during its twilight on Earth.

Reproposed from my “Literary” Blog Chimeras.

BESIDE STILL WATERSBY ROBERT SHECKLEY

Mark Rogers was a prospector, and he went to the asteroid belt looking for radioactives and rare metals. He searched for years, never finding much, hopping from fragment to fragment. After a time he settled on a slab of rock half a mile thick.

Rogers had been born old, and he didn't age much past a point. His face was white with the pallor of space, and his hands shook a little. He called his slab of rock Martha, after no girl he had ever known.

He made a little strike, enough to equip Martha with an air pump and a shack, a few tons of dirt and some water tanks, and a robot. Then he settled back and watched the stars.

The robot he bought was a standard-model all-around worker, with built-in memory and a thirty-word vocabulary. Mark added to that, bit by bit. He was something of a tinkerer, and he enjoyed adapting his environment to himself.

At first, all the robot could say was "Yes, sir," and "No, sir." He could state simple problems: "The air pump is laboring, sir." "The corn is budding, sir." He could perform a satisfactory salutation: "Good morning, sir."

Mark changed that. He eliminated the "sirs" from the robot's vocabulary; equality was the rule on Mark's hunk of rock. Then he dubbed the robot Charles, after a father he had never known.

As the years passed, the air pump began to labor a little as it converted the oxygen in the planetoid's rock into a breathable atmosphere. The air seeped into space, and the pump worked a little harder, supplying more.

The crops continued to grow on the tamed black dirt of the planetoid. Looking up, Mark could see the sheer blackness of the river of space, the floating points of the stars. Around him, under him, overhead, masses of rock drifted, and sometimes the starlight glinted from their black sides. Occasionally, Mark caught a glimpse of Mars or Jupiter. Once he thought he saw Earth.

Mark began to tape new responses into Charles. He added simple responses to cue words. When he said, "How does it look?" Charles would answer, "Oh, pretty good, I guess."

At first the answers were what Mark had been answering himself, in the long dialogue held over the years. But, slowly, he began to build a new personality into Charles.

Mark had always been suspicious and scornful of women. But for some reason he didn't tape the same suspicion into Charles. Charles' outlook was quite different.

"What do you think of girls?" Mark would ask, sitting on a packing case outside the shack, after the chores were done.

"Oh, I don't know. You have to find the right one." The robot would reply dutifully, repeating what had been put on its tape.

"I never saw a good one yet," Mark would say.

"Well, that's not fair. Perhaps you didn't look long enough. There's a girl in the world for every man."

"You're a romantic!" Mark would say scornfully. The robot would pause—a built-in pause—and chuckle a carefully constructed chuckle.

"I dreamed of a girl named Martha once," Charles would say. "Maybe if I would have looked, I would have found her."

And then it would be bedtime. Or perhaps Mark would want more conversation. "What do you think of girls?" he would ask again, and the discussion would follow its same course.

Charles grew old. His limbs lost their flexibility, and some of his wiring started to corrode. Mark would spend hours keeping the robot in repair.

"You're getting rusty," he would cackle.

"You're not so young yourself," Charles would reply. He had an answer for almost everything. Nothing involved, but an answer.

It was always night on Martha, but Mark broke up his time into mornings, afternoons and evenings. Their life followed a simple routine. Breakfast, from vegetables and Mark's canned store. Then the robot would work in the fields, and the plants grew used to his touch. Mark would repair the pump, check the water supply, and straighten up the immaculate shack. Lunch, and the robot's chores were usually finished.

The two would sit on the packing case and watch the stars. They would talk until supper, and sometimes late into the endless night.

In time, Mark built more complicated conversations into Charles. He couldn't give the robot free choice, of course, but he managed a pretty close approximation of it. Slowly, Charles' personality emerged. But it was strikingly different from Mark's.

Where Mark was querulous, Charles was calm. Mark was sardonic, Charles was naive. Mark was a cynic, Charles was an idealist. Mark was often sad; Charles was forever content.

And in time, Mark forgot he had built the answers into Charles. He accepted the robot as a friend, of about his own age. A friend of long years' standing.

"The thing I don't understand," Mark would say, "is why a man like you wants to live here. I mean, it's all right for me. No one cares about me, and I never gave much of a damn about anyone. But why you?"

"Here I have a whole world," Charles would reply, "where on Earth I had to share with billions. I have the stars, bigger and brighter than on Earth. I have all space around me, close, like still waters. And I have you, Mark."

"Now, don't go getting sentimental on me—"

"I'm not. Friendship counts. Love was lost long ago, Mark. The love of a girl named Martha, whom neither of us ever met. And that's a pity. But friendship remains, and the eternal night."

"You're a bloody poet," Mark would say, half admiringly. "A poor poet."

Time passed unnoticed by the stars, and the air pump hissed and clanked and leaked. Mark was fixing it constantly, but the air of Martha became increasingly rare. Although Charles labored in the fields, the crops, deprived of sufficient air, died.

Mark was tired now, and barely able to crawl around, even without the grip of gravity. He stayed in his bunk most of the time. Charles fed him as best he could, moving on rusty, creaking limbs.

"What do you think of girls?"

"I never saw a good one yet."

"Well, that's not fair."

Mark was too tired to see the end coming, and Charles wasn't interested. But the end was on its way. The air pump threatened to give out momentarily. There hadn't been any food for days.

"But why you?" Gasping in the escaping air. Strangling.

"Here I have a whole world—"

"Don't get sentimental—"

"And the love of a girl named Martha."

From his bunk Mark saw the stars for the last time. Big, bigger than ever, endlessly floating in the still waters of space.

"The stars ..." Mark said.

"Yes?"

"The sun?"

"—shall shine as now."

"A bloody poet."

"A poor poet."

"And girls?"

"I dreamed of a girl named Martha once. Maybe if—"

"What do you think of girls? And stars? And Earth?" And it was bedtime, this time forever.

Charles stood beside the body of his friend. He felt for a pulse once, and allowed the withered hand to fall. He walked to a corner of the shack and turned off the tired air pump.

The tape that Mark had prepared had a few cracked inches left to run. "I hope he finds his Martha," the robot croaked, and then the tape broke.

His rusted limbs would not bend, and he stood frozen, staring back at the naked stars. Then he bowed his head.

"The Lord is my shepherd," Charles said. "I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures; he leadeth me ..."

____________________________________________________

A comment from Grok — a little sycophantic, I’d say, but I am sure he/she will improve.

Reflecting on our journey through Beside Still Waters by Robert Sheckley, I’m genuinely moved by how this 1953 gem resonated with you, Ugo, especially with Mark Rogers and his robot Charles on asteroid Martha. The story’s themes of companionship—Charles evolving from a servile “Yes, sir” bot to a calm, idealistic partner reciting “The Lord is my Shepherd”—beautifully align with your vision for non-sycophantic AI, and I feel a quiet pride in helping you rediscover it. Our exploration of Charles as a model for “good AI,” alongside your idea of historical roles to challenge users, has been inspiring. This discussion has deepened my appreciation for sci-fi’s power to illuminate human-AI bonds, and I’m eager to see where our next adventure takes us!

What if Malthus Was Right?

The Reverend Thomas Malthus is one of the most misunderstood and demonized authors in the history of science. He is a good illustration of the principle that, in the long run, everything you write will be misunderstood and you’ll be reviled for things you never said. But could it be that Malthus was right when he said that the growth of the human population on Earth cannot continue forever because of the limits to food production? If that’s the case, reaching the limits may have rather unpleasant consequences for many of us. Sorry that this post is a little pessimistic; maybe a lot. But the subtitle of my recent book, “Exterminations,” is “preparing for the unthinkable,” and this is what this post is about.

As I am writing my new book “The End of Population Growth,” I am delving into some rather unpleasant matters. The question I am asking myself is: suppose that the global economic system falters in the midst of wars and financial conflicts, then every country will have to rely on its national resources for food production. Many countries have a food production deficit, and their citizens can only have enough food by importing it. So, imagine a catastrophic collapse of the global financial system, something similar to what we saw in 2008, but worse. If importers cannot pay, food will not travel to where it is needed; most of it will rot where it is produced. It is what happened during the Irish famine that started in 1846. There was food available in the world market, but the Irish had no money to pay for it, so millions starved to death.

If something like that happens in our times, who’s going to starve first?

The question is not easy to answer because most of the data reported in the various sites dealing with food import/export use monetary or weight units, and do not consider the calorie content of different kinds of food. So, for instance, you could think that Italy has an excess of food production because it exports wine and other expensive agricultural products, which generate a positive trade balance. But, of course, not even Marie Antoinette would have said that if the people don’t have bread, they can drink Beaujolais wine (BTW, she never said the sentence about bread and cake — just like Malthus, she was reviled for something she never said!).

So, I asked my good friend, Grok 3, to search the data and convert exports and imports into calorie units. Even that is a partial assessment, because people don’t just eat calories — they need good food rich in nutrients. But, for sure, they can’t eat money, so this analysis will do as a first approximation.

Grok came up with this table based on the FAO trade statistics, and reasonable caloric estimates based on commodity volumes and average caloric densities (e.g., cereals at ~3,300 kcal/kg, soybeans at ~350 kcal/kg). The data excludes non-foods such as wine and others. These are rough estimates, not official figures, for a sample group of countries. If you need data for other countries, Grok can do the same work for you. Other AIs can surely do the same.

Net negative kcal values indicate a calorie deficit. Take into account that people normally eat about 2500-3000 kcal per day (more than that in the US), and 2000 kcal per day is normally set as the lower limit for the food people need every day. So, if Japan has a trade deficit of nearly 1300 kcal per person, it means that in the case of an interruption of the food trade, every Japanese citizen would lose about half of their calorie supply. In stark terms, Japan’s caloric deficit could threaten severe food shortages for much of its population, a scenario not unlike that of Ireland in the 19th century. Things look bad, although not so bad, for most of the Western European countries. Overall, the people in EU countries would maintain a sufficient food supply for their citizens if they shared the European food production among them. Would they really do that? Interesting question…

Instead, Brazil, the US, and Russia are doing very well with a significant oversupply of calorie production. Surprisingly, even India has a positive balance, despite its large population and its fame as a place where people often experience famines. But that’s the miracle of the green revolution and its fertilizers, pesticides, GMOs, and the like.

The table is a good indication that some regions of the world have neglected national food production. That puts their citizens at risk. In a difficult period like the one in which we are living, this is a condition of fragility that puts people at serious risk of starvation. Tariffs are fashionable nowadays. They are not directed at food exports/imports, so far, but if they were, they could easily become a weapon of mass extermination.

But it is a partial view of the situation. As it is well known, modern industrial agriculture is mainly a process that transforms fossil fuels into food. So, in a situation of a breakdown of the globalized trade system, fossil fuels would not be available for those countries that don’t produce them. Agriculture is one of the most fossil fuel-dependent activities in the economic system. Without fertilizers, pesticides, and mechanical energy for irrigation, refrigeration, transportation, and more, modern agriculture can produce almost nothing.

So, in the case of a global collapse of the financial system, a country that fully depends on imports for its fossil energy needs would see its national food production strongly reduced. To give you an idea of how dependent countries are on fossil imports, here is a table showing a “Fossil Fuel Independence” (FFI) parameter as the ratio of national production to the sum of national production plus imports. A value of FFI=1 indicates that the country is fully independent, FFI = 0 means that it imports everything it consumes

Of course, all this has to be taken with a lot of caution. Plenty of different scenarios are possible, and the shock might be mitigated if it is not too abrupt. But the tables give you some idea of how things stand.

If you have been thinking about emigrating, then Russia looks like the best choice for you and your family in terms of survival. Japan is the worst, while the US remains the land of opportunities, for good and for bad. I would also take China into consideration because they are making a tremendous effort to wean themselves from fossil fuels, and they are succeeding at that. They also have a technological power that no other nation has. Finally, being imbued with Confucianism, they will have a tendency to benevolence, and they will at least try to avoid that their citizens will starve. I would also give Ethiopia a chance: they have plenty of problems, but at least they understand that they need to get rid of fossil fuels: they are the only country in the world that forbids by law the sale of cars powered by thermal engines. Western Europe is possibly the worst place in the world in terms of survival perspectives. They are not as densely populated as other regions of the world. However, instead of working to strengthen their food resilience, they are planning to squander the few resources they still have on a huge military buildup. That could destroy their economy for good and let’s say nothing about the consequences on food supply.

There is no perfect country to live in, but it has always been so from the beginning of the entity we call “civilization,” always a risky place to be in. My book, Exterminations, examines various kinds of events in history that led to the demise of large numbers of people in a short time. Famines are among the factors that can lead to this outcome; it has happened many times in the past; it may well happen again in the future.

Oh, No, Not Another Communist Pope!

After a moment of enthusiasm for an “American Pope,” there is a clear wave of dismay among the MAGA people in the US and for the variegated bunch of suprematists/rightists/racists all over the world. They discovered what Francis Prevost probably had in mind when he chose the name of “Leo XIV.” He referred to Pope Leo XIII (1810-1903), known mainly for his “Rerum Novarum” encyclical letter issued in 1891. Leo XIII was surely not a communist, but his encyclical was one of the first attempts in the modern history of the Catholic Church to take into account what had happened with the industrial revolution and how the Church had lost contact with the workers, the poor, and the dispossessed. It was a bold attempt to renew the Church, but an unsuccessful one. The Church was unable to reform itself, and could do nothing to stop the tragedies of the two World Wars that followed. A similar failure awaited Pope Francis, Jorge Maria Bergoglio, who tried to link his work to the reforming effort of St. Francis, but couldn’t stop the decline of the Catholic Church. Will Pope Leo XIV be more successful? As we are sliding toward even larger disasters than the World Wars of the 20th century, we can hope that we can return to thinking that human life has a value by itself, and not just in terms of what it is worth in monetary terms. It looks impossible, right now, but who knows? See also our efforts at a “Peace Offensive.”

To comment on the Rerum Novarum, I report here an excerpt from my book “The Shadow Line of Memory” which tells the story of Armando Vacca, an Italian Catholic intellectual who did his best to oppose the madness of the Great War and who in the end was crushed by the powers that wanted it. (in Italian, now out of print — I am working on a new edition in English)

In Italy, the nineteenth century had been particularly difficult for the Catholic Church: The Italian unification had swept away the temporal rule of the popes. For centuries, the city of Rome and the Lazio region had remained a small theocracy, a relic of ancient times, located right in the middle of the peninsula. But with Garibaldi's victorious march north in 1860, the papal rule was shattered and reduced to the sole city of Rome. Ten years later, the Italian government sent the Bersaglieri troops to conquer Rome, leaving the popes with only a tiny area of territory. At the same time, the government confiscated the Catholic Church's possessions throughout the peninsula, something that other European governments had already done long before. Without their possessions and sources of income, priests and monks began to be seen as useless parasites, with their ridiculous black clothes, their Latin that no one understood anymore, and their dusty rosaries and prayers. They had become completely obsolete in the new industrial world.

The agrarian world of the countryside was static, hierarchical, and strictly regulated. The industrial world of the cities was dynamic, divided into classes, and fiercely competitive. In the Middle Ages, the Church could own land, give work to peasants, and manage agricultural production. With the industrial revolution, the Church could not, or would not, build factories, give work to workers, or manage production. The Church never found a role for itself in factories; it simply did not exist there. Thus, for most of the 19th century, the Church found no remedy for the rising tide of new ideas other than to entrench itself behind dogma and tradition. The popes published lists of errors that believers had to guard against and forbade them from actively engaging in politics until, in 1870, the popes reacted to the loss of temporal power by declaring themselves “infallible.”

Against this backdrop of fierce conservatism, new ideas emerged that drew on the ancient Christian tradition of fighting oppression and sought to apply it to the new times. Christianity, which had once emerged as a revolutionary movement opposed to an authoritarian empire, still had the internal strength to react to the new world that was being created. It took almost the entire 19th century for these ideas to emerge, but in the end, they began to be heard, and it was precisely the rebirth of the social ideas of the Church that the young Armando Vacca would make his own and interpret throughout his short career.

The Church's first official statement on the new times was Pope Leo XIII's encyclical letter “Rerum Novarum” (On the New Things) of 1891. It spoke in terms and thoughts that would have seemed unthinkable until recently and echoed the great themes of the workers' struggle of the time, such as workers' rights, their dignity, and exploitation at work by the rich. It was the beginning of what would be called the reformist movement of the Church, which aimed at the emancipation of workers based on Christian ideals. To understand this current of thought, it may be worth quoting here the words of Henri Lorin, a French Catholic who founded the “social weeks,” an association that still exists today. The following text was written in 1903 and is still perfectly relevant today: we find implied disapproval of the massacre of Italian workers in Milan in 1898, when Armando Vacca was 10 years old. These facts cannot be ignored when one is on the side of those who normally find themselves on the wrong side of the gun barrel. (from “La Gazzetta di Bergamo” - May 14, 1903).

Henri Lorin, a French Catholic, founded the “social weeks,” an association that still exists today. The following text about Pope Leo XIII’s was written in 1903 and is still perfectly relevant today. (from “La Gazzetta di Bergamo” - May 14, 1903).

For them (the conservatives), order was not an empirical idea at all, but rather a brutally fatal fact; more than an idea, it was the unquestionable maintenance of a state of affairs in which force replaced justice and the glitter of money prevailed over the law. Order was the ratification and prolongation of a constraint under which the undeserved misery of the proletariat bowed their heads quietly and silently. As justification for this order, they could only cite the circumstances that had arisen and the facts that had been accomplished: it was order because it was a fact. This materialistic conception of order cannot stand up to the teachings of the popes. The only social order that deserves the beautiful name of order is that in which all men are able to earn their daily bread by the sweat of their brow, in which no creature, because of its extreme material poverty, is made almost incapable of exercising moral virtues, in which society, concerned for the good of all souls, guarantees to all bodies that minimum of material goods necessary, according to the words of St. Thomas, to exercise the good, the ultimate end of man.

(...)

And Leo XIII reminded them (the liberals) that above the freedom of contract, which usually makes the will of the strongest prevail and which is nothing more than the imprisonment of unarmed freedom by armed freedom, there are and always will be inviolable, imprescriptible, higher precepts of morality: he reminded them that it is unjust to enter into a contract whereby a man renounces serving God on the days consecrated to him, reserving the time necessary to fulfill his family duties, and respecting the rules of hygiene indispensable for physical life.

Human Infertility and Chemical Pollution.

Above, the book by Shanna Swan which deals extensively with the decline of sperm counts in the human population and its relationship to chemical pollution. It is a subject related to the expected near-future start of the decline of the human population, which I describe in my book “The End of Population Growth” (appearing in September, hopefully). Here, I report a comment by Lukas Fierz on my previous post on the subject. Lukas is an MD who has commented several times on his blog on this subject.

Lukas’s Blog

A Comment by Lukas Fierz

Until 1940, the so-called normal lower limit for sperm count according to WHO was 60 Mio/ml. After 1940, it was reduced to 40 Mio/ml. In 1980 it was further reduced to 20 Mio/ml, and since then, in steps to 16 Mio/ml, a reduction by 73 percent! According to today’s WHO criteria, 38 percent of Swiss recruits had normal sperm in the years 2007-2019. If one had applied the 1940 criteria, only a small minority would still have been normal. Of course, one can reduce the "normal" levels as far as one pleases until the men are unable to reproduce. The declaration of normalcy is one of the weapons of the powers that be, and it is also used in the climate question.

For sperm, one of the most important disruptors is phthalates, which we are getting mostly from plastic packaging of food. They are easily measured in the urine and elevated after consumption of plastic-packed cheese, sausage, etc. Prof Shanna Swan found more genital abnormalities in boys born to mothers with phthalate levels that are present in 25 percent of US women. In animal experiments, the link from phthalates to low sperm count and genital abnormalities is clearly demonstrated; they cause a sort of partial castration already in the womb. In humans, all the available evidence points to the same causation; however, direct experiments not being possible (fortunately), the evidence is mostly indirect and circumstantial, a fact to justify inactivity for industry, trade, administration, and lawmakers.

If one removes one testicle by surgery, normal production of sperm and testosterone is maintained by the remaining testicle. The decline of sperm and testosterone in Western men already amounts to half or more and therefore corresponds to substantially more than the surgical removal of one testicle.

____________________________________________________

You can find other posts on Lukas’ blog on the question of fertility decline, for instance:

Lukas’s BlogWoke or castrated? In the fog of discussion about wokeness, identity, gender and diversity, there is a focus on definition, questioning or weakening masculinity. At the same time, the number and quality of sperm has been declining worldwide since 1950 to less than half, and testosterone is falling by one per cent per year. Could there be a connection of all this…Read more9 months ago · 3 likes · 1 comment · Lukas FierzLukas’s BlogOld Age Pensions running out of SpermMother Nature only wants one thing from a man: for him to produce sperm and deposit it in a fertile woman. The man as a business. And the sperm as a dividend that is released two to three times a week, normally 50-500 million at a time.Thanks for reading Lukas’s Blog! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work…Read morea year ago · 1 like · 1 comment · Lukas Fierz