Ugo Bardi's Blog, page 6

The Fall of the American Empire

When President Trump announced sweeping tariffs on imports last week, many commenters interpreted the idea as a manifestation of madness. But in Trump’s madness, there may be some method.

It is starting to appear clear that Donald Trump is following a plan much more detailed and comprehensive than it would appear from simple slogans such as “MAGA.” Those who are behind the plan — whoever they are, oligarchs, dark elites, or Reptilians — are moving away from the neocons’ “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC) proposed in the late 1990s. The PNAC was a bold plan for world domination, and it was nearly realized in economic terms: it was just called by a different name: “Globalization.” For several decades, it was a successful mechanism that pumped wealth into the US economy out of the work of the rest of the world.

The next step of the PNAC project was global military domination, an idea related to the one expressed as “full spectrum dominance.” But that turned out to be too expensive. After a series of failed attempts, from Iraq to Afghanistan, it was clear that it was not just difficult but impossible. The US economy couldn’t support the huge military costs of occupying and controlling the whole world.

It is nothing unexpected; in 1972, the calculations of The Limits to Growth had foreseen the collapse of the global economic system for the early decades of the 21st century. It is happening. Crushed by the deadly mix of resource depletion and ecosystemic collapse, the world’s economic machine is sinking fast. Governments are now acting as passengers of the Titanic, scrambling to save themselves the best they can.

The US government is doing nothing different. Once you decide that the ship is sinking, you do what you think is to be done, even if that means pushing someone else underwater. It is what the US is doing by retreating inside its immediate sphere of influence. The US still has considerable mineral resources that can be used to rebuild its industrial system, but it has no more the surplus that would be needed for global domination. Hence, it makes no sense to squander what’s left to help other countries — what did they do to deserve the US help, anyway? Western Europe is among the big losers: it is the passenger of the Titanic who couldn’t grab a life jacket. Europe’s madness is not feigned; it is real. Only true madness can explain ideas such as “Rearm Europe.” It would need resources that Europe doesn’t have anymore.

Hence, the need for retrenching, abandoning unsustainable positions, and concentrating on what the US can actually control: its national territory and the nearby regions. It is what Trump’s government is engaged in doing. The latest bout of the maneuver is the heavy tariffs imposed by the US on imports. It is supposed to be aimed at China, but it is a deadly blow to globalization. The idea is to return the US to a largely domestic economy.

The switch to MAGA implies profound changes in the US policies. The idea of rebuilding the US industrial infrastructure requires getting rid of parasitic and obsolete bureaucratic structure structures such as USAID and eliminating the competition from cheap imports, hence the tariffs against China. Expanding into Greenland and maybe Canada is part of the idea: these northern regions will add their own mineral resources and will be less affected by global warming. It also makes perfect sense to find an agreement with Russia, which is in the same conditions as the US. Russia still has significant resources but not enough to dream of a new empire; hence it is concentrating on the control of its local sphere of influence. As Polonius said about Hamlet, “In his madness, there is some method.”

Of course, the US maneuver implies heavy sacrifices for the American people, and it is interesting how the idea is being presented to the public. Naively, you would think that a president would go on TV and say something like, “Fellow Americans, these are the problems facing us. Let’s work together and make some sacrifices for a better future.” It won’t work. Jimmy Carter did exactly that in during his term, in the late 1970s, and everybody thought he was feebleminded, to say the least.

Trump, instead, is ranting and raging against whatever he feels citizens will like to hear from him. The tariffs are self-inflicted sanctions, but they are presented as a punishment against China, the yellow peril. And people are happily cheering. The trick is to convince them that their enemies will suffer more than them, and that’s exactly what they deserve (the enemies, but also the citizens).

This is the beauty of propaganda: you can convince people to harm themselves and be perfectly happy about that. In my book Exterminations, I describe how, during WWII, the German government engaged with some success in a propaganda effort to convince elderly German citizens to commit suicide. Fortunately, MAGA does not imply that (so far…)

There are still plenty of possibilities for the MAGA plan to derail in mid-course; as it is typical of empires to resist dissolution. Russia, for instance, saw tanks bombarding the parliament in Moscow in 1993 as a consequence of the collapse of the Soviet Empire. If something similar were to happen in Washington DC, the results would be much more destructive than when a ragtag band of Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol Building in 2021. Additionally, the US government may well make some horrible mistakes in the Middle East and take the country into some new, unwinnable wars. And there are still good chances for a bullet to do the work that a shooter failed to do on Trump in 2024.

In all these cases, the US — and the whole world — would be overcome by a rapid collapse rather than experiencing a managed decline. That is, on the other hand, the way history works, as the Roman philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca said when he noted that “Growth is Sluggish, but Ruin is Rapid.” But collapse is not forever; it is part of a movement forward into the future. Many things will have to change before they’ll need to change again.

The Collapse of the American Empire

When President Trump announced sweeping tariffs on imports last week, many commenters interpreted the idea as a manifestation of madness. But in Trump’s madness, there may be some method.

It is starting to appear clear that Donald Trump is following a plan much more detailed and comprehensive than it would appear from simple slogans such as “MAGA.” Those who are behind the plan — whoever they are, oligarchs, dark elites, or Reptilians — are moving away from the neocons’ “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC) proposed in the late 1990s. the PNAC was a bold plan for world domination, and it was nearly realized in economic terms: it was just called by a different name: “Globalization.” For several decades, it was a successful mechanism that pumped wealth into the US economy out of the work of the rest of the world.

The next step of the PNAC project was global military domination by the US, an idea related to the one expressed as “full spectrum dominance.” But that turned out to be too expensive. After a series of failed attempts from Iraq to Afghanistan, it was clear that it was not just difficult but impossible. The US economy couldn’t support the huge military costs of occupying and controlling the whole world.

It is nothing unexpected; in 1972, the calculations of The Limits to Growth had foreseen the collapse of the global economic system for the early decades of the 21st century. It is happening. Crushed by the deadly mix of resource depletion and ecosystemic collapse, the world’s economic machine is sinking fast. Governments are now acting as passengers of the Titanic, scrambling to save themselves the best they can.

The US government is doing nothing different. Once you decide that the ship is sinking, you do what’s to be done, even if that means pushing someone else underwater. It is what the US is doing by retreating inside its immediate sphere of influence. The idea is that the US still has considerable mineral resources that can be used to rebuild its industrial system, but it has no more the surplus that would be needed for global domination. Hence, it makes no sense to squander what’s left to help other countries — what did they do to deserve the US help, anyway? Western Europe is among the big losers: it is the passenger of the Titanic who couldn’t grab a life jacket and now is going to sink. Europe’s madness is not feigned; it is real. Only true madness can explain ideas such as “Rearm Europe.” It would need resources that Europe doesn’t have anymore.

Hence, the need for retrenching, abandoning unsustainable positions, and concentrating on what the US can actually control: its national territory and the nearby regions. It is what Trump’s government is engaged in doing. The latest bout of the maneuver is the heavy tariffs imposed by the US on imports. It is supposed to be aimed at China, but it is a deadly blow to globalization. The idea is to return the US to a largely domestic economy.

The switch to MAGA implies profound changes in the US policies. The idea of rebuilding the US industrial infrastructure requires getting rid of parasitic and obsolete bureaucratic structure structures such as USAID and eliminating the competition from cheap imports, hence the tariffs against China. Expanding into Greenland and maybe Canada is part of the idea: these northern regions will add their own mineral resources and will be less affected by global warming. It also makes perfect sense to find an agreement with Russia, which is in the same conditions as the US. Russia still has significant resources but not enough to dream of a new empire; hence it is concentrating on the control of its local sphere of influence. As Polonius said about Hamlet, “In his madness, there is some method.”

Of course, the US maneuver implies heavy sacrifices for the American people, and it is interesting how the idea is being presented to the public. Naively, you would think that a president would go on TV and say something like, “Fellow Americans, these are the problems facing us. Let’s work together and make some sacrifices for a better future.” It won’t work. Jimmy Carter did exactly that, and everybody thought he was feebleminded, to say the least.

Trump, instead, is ranting and raging against whatever he feels citizens will like to hear from him. The tariffs are self-inflicted sanctions, but they are presented as a punishment against China, the yellow peril. And people are happily cheering. The trick is to convince them that their enemies will suffer more than them, and that’s exactly what they deserve (the enemies, but also the citizens). This is the beauty of propaganda: you can convince people to harm themselves and be perfectly happy about that. In my book Exterminations, I describe how, during WWII, the German government worked on a propaganda effort to convince elderly German citizens to commit suicide. And it was successful, at least in part! Fortunately, MAGA does not imply that (so far…)

There are still plenty of possibilities for the MAGA plan to derail in mid-course; as it is typical of empires to resist dissolution. Russia, for instance, saw tanks bombarding the parliament in Moscow in 1993 as a consequence of the collapse of the Soviet Empire. If something similar were to happen in Washington DC, the results would be much more destructive than when a ragtag band of Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol Building in 2021. Additionally, the US government may well make some horrible mistakes in the Middle East and take the country into some new, unwinnable wars. And there are still good chances for a bullet to do the work that a shooter failed to do on Trump in 2024.

In all these cases, the US — and the whole world — would be overcome by a rapid collapse rather than experiencing a managed decline. That is, on the other hand, the way history works, as the Roman philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca said when he noted that “Growth is Sluggish, but Ruin is Rapid.” History keeps moving onward despite our puny attempts to stop it.

The Global Peace Offensive

In a world that’s looking more and more like Picasso’s painting “Guernica,” most of us seem to be paralyzed, unable to do anything. Yet, a movement of people of goodwill is being created with the Global Peace Offensive (GPO).

In 1841, Charles MacKay wrote in his “Extraordinary Popular Delusions” that “people go mad as crowds, but they recover their sanity one by one” (it can be demonstrated by a mathematical model, as I explain in my book, “Exterminations”). It was referred to a time when most people were overtaken by the idea that burning innocent women at the stake was a good thing to do. Right now, most people are being overtaken by a madness that war and weapons are good things. But, gradually, one by one, people seem to be recovering, getting together, and trying to stop the madness. It may still take time, but things are moving. Donato Kiniger Passigli, vice-president of the World Academy of Arts and Science, is the leader of an initiative he called “Global Peace Offensive.” (GPO) This initiative has been joined by the Cub of Rome, the Black Sea University Network – BSUN, the European Academy of Science and Art (EASA), the global organization of national parliaments (IPU). Several other international organizations may be joining GPO in the near future. Can we do something to stop the madness? Maybe we can before it will be too late.

Address by Donato Kiniger Passigli, Vice President, World Academy of Art and Science March 14, 2025 | Maribor, Slovenia

It's About People 2025: 13th Annual Conference of Europe's Sciences and Arts Leaders

It's About People - A Peace Offensive for Conflict Resolution

Esteemed colleagues and respected members of the academic community,

This is a call for action! We stand at a critical juncture in our shared history, where escalating political polarization, violence, and a marked disregard for universal human dignity challenge the very fabric of international relations. This present climate necessitates not only a re-evaluation of our strategies for conflict prevention and resolution but also underscores the unique positioning of the academic community to lead in this essential endeavour.

The urgency of this call is amplified by the scale of current global crises. Millions are refugees, displaced and in need of assistance. International institutions deputed to deliver that much needed humanitarian aid or health care, questioned for their efficiency or impartiality, are put out of business or will survive with budgets and operational mandates drastically reduced. The multilateral system and the international community are clearly paralyzed, and human rights principles are ignored by the most powerful. In a diffused power landscape, global diplomacy increasingly relies on diverse actors shaping international relations and policy.

We are entering unchartered waters, and the international system is very fragmented. The escalating geopolitical tensions—point to a systemic failure of existing peace-making and peacebuilding mechanisms and the critical need for innovative solutions based on human relations and the power of people.

Indeed, there are certain things that only governments can do: negotiating binding agreements; but there are other things only citizens can do: change human relations. This observation by Harold Saunders, a master of shuttle diplomacy instrumental in the Camp David Accords, underscores the pivotal role of social dynamics in achieving non-violent conflict resolution, fostering positive peace. The inherent connection between human security, in all its multifaceted dimensions, and core societal values is undeniable.

The term human security is the product of a correlation between human on one hand (meaning individuals, people) and security (meaning basic needs, opportunities, health and equity). But this syllogism also indicates that in its absence there is fear, growing insecurity, an enemy that no wall can contain. The fear of the unknown: of a virus, of drought, hunger, poverty, hazards, effects of globalization, technology, existential threats like nuclear weapons or climate change, intended and unintended consequences of war, in so many places.

Today's global conflict landscape is increasingly complex, shaped by non-state actors like NGOs, multinational corporations, private military and security companies, and terrorist organizations active in all fields, including our ecosystem and the cyberspace. Their influence complicates the strategic environment, demanding comprehensive analysis and tailored conflict resolution strategies.

The current multipolar world features power centres beyond traditional states—corporations and oligarchs, including tech giants—challenging established geopolitical strategies. Traditional peacebuilding approaches, often relying on oversimplified societal views, are insufficient. Sustainable peace requires collective efforts; peace must be cultivated organically, focusing on societal contexts, and avoiding the illusion that external interventions (firefighters brigades spraying dust) can instantly create peace.

This inadequacy of current approaches stems, in part, from the perils of misperception, which consistently undermine peace efforts.

Misunderstandings about intentions and perceptions of reality frequently lead to serious errors, especially among opponents with different cultural values. And history is full of illustrious examples of how misjudgements lead to devastating consequences. Some examples:

The Iranian Revolution of 1979, when western powers misread the nature of the uprising, failing to recognize the deep-seated grievances of the Iranian people. This misjudgement resulted in significant and lasting geopolitical repercussions.

The disastrous consequences of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, based on an inaccurate assessment of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction capabilities. Whether intentional or not, the conflict continues to reverberate through global affairs to this day.

The tragic failures of the UN in the former Yugoslavia, in the early 90s, which ultimately paved the way for NATO’s bombing and peace enforcement under its flag, exemplifies further the perils of misconceptions and dubious mandates.

Somalia, Rwanda, Libya and even Syria are other examples of misread, misinterpreted signals that resulted in tragic downturns and failed expeditions by the international community.

Presently, the existing geopolitical landscape is fraught with tension. In Europe, heightened tensions are due to the ongoing war in Ukraine but also to military buildup straining US-European relations over NATO spending and troops deployment; there are ethnic tensions in the Balkans (particularly in Kosovo, with over 400 recent incidents reported); military activity in the Black Sea threatening regional stability; ongoing tensions in Georgia related to its post electoral issues with Russia; and tension under the ashes between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh. All of them contribute to a climate of instability and underscore the urgent need for conflict prevention strategies, tension reduction and confidence building measures.

The persistent elusiveness of peace should not justify inaction or a neglect of urgent human security challenges. The current crises—born from tensions simmering over two decades—underline the inadequacies of traditional political approaches to sustaining peace, exacerbated by political polarization. Recognizing that each party's perceptions create distinct realities is essential. Failing to account for these differing perspectives leads to misjudging the strategic environment and results in misguided efforts.

A deep understanding of local, national, international contexts is essential for successful peacebuilding. The roots of conflict are complex, often bound up with inequalities, grievances, intergroup tensions, ethnic disparities, and poverty. Addressing these issues demands rigorous academic research and informed dialogue among all stakeholders.

It is with this understanding that I now wish to turn attention to the central focus of my presentation: the new Global Peace Offensive. An initiative that is moving its first steps quite rapidly: less than a year ago I revisited the original Peace Offensive of the 60s devised by Charles Osgood that inspired the major breakthroughs of Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis and, much later, the Camp David Accords brokered by President Carter. I presented a proposal to the General Assembly of the World Academy of Art and Science, which subsequently adopted the Global Peace Offensive principles, paving the way for a renewed commitment to peace efforts.

Later, the initiative was endorsed by the Black Sea University Network – BSUN at the rectors’ level and, last October, the European Academy of Science and Art (EASA) and the World Academy of Art and Science (WAAS) issued a joint vision statement to support the Global Peace Offensive. A common agenda is now being devised with the Club of Rome. In the meantime, the proposal has been presented to the summit of the Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator (with prospects to develop a joint curriculum) and to the Global Peace Education Network in Paris.

The Global Peace Offensive is intrinsically a proactive methodology fostering dialogue and promoting peace within civil society. This effort will be led by scholars and researchers to leverage technological innovations, identify emerging trends, and anticipate developments influencing conflict dynamics. The approach is crucial for developing effective conflict prevention strategies and promoting peace education. It is essential to use a multidisciplinary methodology as tensions derive from a multiplicity of factors, causes and effects that could be represented by an epidemic outburst, migratory patterns, corruption, infrastructure deficits, extreme violence, climate change. This requires contributions from different expertise with one single humanist entry point.

The initiative intends to strongly promote cross-cultural understanding, particularly among younger generations, to cultivate peaceful coexistence—a crucial step toward lasting peace. We aim to identify, create, and project peacebuilding opportunities, facilitate dialogue among conflicting parties, and improve analysis, decision making and narratives through innovative conflict resolution strategies.

Furthermore, central to the Peace Offensive is the understanding that sustainable peace cannot be imposed from the outside. Rather, it arises from within communities taking ownership of the peace process. Ultimately, solutions that are not truly shared by the local communities are not likely to be taken up and succeed. Therefore, we are committed to developing and implementing innovative educational programs, also utilizing the potential of artificial intelligence, to provide communities with the tools and knowledge they need to actively pursue and define their own vision of peace. Advancing literacy, science, and education can help bridge divides and orient people in the vast information landscape. AI can enhance dialogue and help predict and avert crises through analysis of trends and collaborative interventions.

Developed as a collaboration with the WAAS and the EASA, our Global Peace Offensive embarks on a three-pronged / three pillars strategy designed to deliver sustainable solutions:

1. Localized, Strategic, De-escalation: This is confidence building at the grassroots level with peopleto-people initiatives and a problem-solving approach. We advocate for localized initiatives that employ cultural, scientific, economic, educational, and environmental diplomacy. The academic community is well positioned to investigate and understand what the drivers of peace at the local community level are; which are the spoilers and inhibitors of peace; what are the elements that encourage local consent and legitimacy according to local and international norms. Local identities, traditions religions are all factors that determine positive peace as eventually the resumption of conflict.

2. Ownership and Trust-Building: Essential to lasting peace is prioritizing the voices of all stakeholders, assessing their needs, and promoting cultural exchanges. Through collaborative partnerships, we can enhance cooperation towards achieving human security and the Sustainable Development Goals. This entails bottom-up rather than merely top-down empowerment. It is more than just participation of local institutions and socio-economic actors and constituents. representation. It is the meso-level that can generate mutual support, empathy and the ability to transform reality. Forging relations through business, trade, and the arts belongs here. Like novel Marco Polo, we need to give new impetus to discoveries that bring people together.

3. Enhanced Dialogue: Using diplomacy, education, and technology (including artificial intelligence) to influence political decisions and peace efforts. Innovation plays a critical role for long-term solutions. Achieving lasting peace necessitates iterative processes of dialogue, employing diverse diplomatic approaches (cultural, scientific, educational, and traditional). We will pursue incremental, sustainable solutions by engaging political, economic, and media systems, addressing root causes of conflict. AI and social networks will enhance educational programs, informing policy and promoting peace discourse, while carefully considering ethical implications and technological limitations. The “do no harm” principle needs to be observers at all levels of this pillar of activities that span across the local, national, regional and international level. This is the area of peace-centred education.

These three pillars or parallel tracks correspond to three baskets of activities that can take place simultaneously or at different intervals according to the specific context in which we will operate, capacities and effective participation. One does not exclude the other one as actually thy reinforce one another. In our diagnostics, we should look at context specific entry points and the long-term evolution of crises (Tolstoy in War and Peace wrote that time and patience are the best warriors).

Our initiative enhances hybrid peace processes by combining traditional diplomatic methods with public dialogue, innovative technology, and science diplomacy to foster local consent and adhere to international standards. As an example, in Timor Leste in 2008, addressing youth grievances rather than just immediate security issues effectively reduced gang violence.

Successful hybrid peace processes require integrating local and international considerations. In Cyprus, peace efforts involve not only ethnic reconciliation and EU integration but also institutional reform, economic opportunities, and re-evaluating boundaries and sovereignty due to entrenched communal identities. Similarly, peace in the Middle East extends beyond the two-state solution, encompassing cross-territory reconciliation and potential economic cooperation.

Local peace benefits also heavily rely on addressing historical grievances within the framework of customary rules, identities, rights, dignity, aspirations, and international norms.

In my mind, we should avoid two fundamental mistakes which often mislead us in our efforts to comprehend the evolution of many political, economic, societal, environmental and security crisis: one being the oversimplification of the analysis that relies on predetermined theories of change with variables hardly accounted for; the second being the underestimation of the human component and its complex nature that cannot be explored merely in terms of parameters such as wealth, economic growth or ideological affiliation.

A problem-focused and context specific approach is a better lens for our investigation.

As agents of peace, we should increasingly concentrate on the positive side of the story. Even in the darkest pictures of the most intractable conflicts there is a dim light somewhere. That is the objective in sight. It’s not unusual that a positive discourse or project between rival communities or even governments can help overcoming stalled peace processes or remove negotiations’ deadlocks. Media systems can support in this endeavour.

The Peace Offensive paradigm has the potential to help strengthen confidence building by prioritizing prevention and supporting ongoing peace-building interventions.

In sum, what are the benefits of our approach? Cultural and science diplomacy bring significant benefits to our global community, especially through peace-centred education. By building public perception and engagement, we can strengthen viable science diplomacy solutions. The academic role is crucial in promoting mutual respect for diverse perspectives and scientific expertise, along with public outreach to educate communities on the values of international cooperation and multilateralism. Engaging the public effectively helps to demystify scientific concepts and garner support. Additionally, cultural exchanges promote understanding, and support research capacities in all countries fostering global collaboration. Ultimately, strengthening international research networks creates opportunities for shared knowledge and collaborative solutions to global challenges.

In conclusion, the Global Peace Offensive (a whole of the society approach) represents an urgent, I believe, innovative framework to sustain peace.

Its emphasis on grassroots engagement, trust-building, and enhanced dialogue positions the academic community as a pivotal contributor in this effort, filling a void at international level.

By merging traditional methodologies with modern technologies and community engagement, models like the Peace Offensive aim to foster inclusive, enduring outcomes. It is also a way to champion a rules and knowledge-based renaissance of international relations.

In an era characterized by rapid communication and interdependence among diverse power centres, mutual understanding becomes crucial.

In our call to the academic community, WAAS and EASA urge scholars, researchers, and practitioners alike to join forces in the research, development, and implementation of this initiative. As we try to bring opposing sides together (direct talks are always the preferable format to advance peace), our role will be to serve primarily as facilitators, convenors or active observers in these processes.

A coalition of civil society networks supporting local peace processes through cultural and scientific quiet diplomacy is essential for realizing this vision.

The time for a concerted, knowledge-driven peace effort… is now.

President Trump's Secret Plans Revealed

Following the renaming of “Gulf of Mexico” to “Gulf of America, these regions and countries will also be renamed as follows:

Mexico —> South Texas

Panama —> New Mason-Dixon line

South America —> Dixieland

Antarctica —> South America

Greenland —> North Vermont

Canada —> East Alaska

China —> North Taiwan

Ukraine —> Rare Earthland

Italy —> Pizza Hutland

Rest of the World —> Not needed. Nobody cares how those weird places are named.

How to Take a Country to War.

In May 1915, young Italians demonstrated in the streets to ask the government to send them to die in humid trenches (left image). In March 2025, old Italians demonstrated in the streets to ask the government to send young Ukrainians to die in humid trenches (right image). Sometimes, history repeats itself even too much.

As Tolstoy never said, sane countries are all sane in the same way, but the weird countries are all weird in different ways. Italy is a peculiar country from when it burst into the international scene in 1861, leading the way in some nefarious ideas such as Fascism. A peculiar characteristic of Italy is how it pioneered propaganda techniques. In 1915, we saw one of the triumphs of modern propaganda when it managed to convince Italians that it was a good idea to join the Allies in World War I, declaring war on Austria-Hungary.

It is a story that is not well known outside Italy, so it is worth retelling it in this moment in which it is being repeated. I wrote an entire book on this subject: “La Linea d’Ombra della Storia” — it is out of print right now, but I am working on a new version. I also discuss this story in detail in my recent book “Exterminations”

In both books, I tried to understand what demon had taken possession of Italians’s minds so that they rushed into that madness. I didn’t find an answer, but the demon seems to be alive and taking possession of people’s minds again.

As you know, WW1 began in July 1914. It was a domino effect in which the European countries joined the fight one after another. But, at the beginning, Italy seemed to remain safe. It had no ambition of dominion; it was not threatened by anyone; it was one of the poorest European countries; the Catholic Church, Socialists, workers, and most people, including the Italian parliament, all were against the war. And yet, less than one year later, on May 24th, 1915, the Italian government declared war on Austria-Hungary.

That May of 1915 was later termed the “radiant May” (Maggio Radioso), a term that described the intoxication that had overtaken just about everybody to make them think that a radiant future was in store for Italy by going to war. It was described as the moment in which Italians took their destiny into their hands and forced an inert and reactionary government to listen to them and act decisively on the path of glory.

But joining the war was not a spontaneous decision of the people. It was the result of a press campaign paid by industrial and political lobbies which had an interest in the business of re-arming Italy and, at the same time, by foreign secret services which were interested in having Italy on the side of the Allies.

We don’t know exactly when the campaign was programmed, but it must have been no later than a few months after the war started in 1914. A group of socialists and radicals favorable to Italy’s entry into the war created the "Fascio rivoluzionario d'azione internazionalista” using the fascio (“bundle”) as a symbol from an idea by the Italian literate and politician Gabriele D’Annunzio. In October 1914, a young socialist politician working as a journalist, Benito Mussolini, joined the Fascio Rivoluzionario after having been expelled from the Italian Socialist Party because of his pro-war statements. Then, Mussolini went on to start a newspaper, “Il Popolo d’Italia,” that was a fundamental tool for the campaign.

Mussolini’s action was not isolated: it was part of a major propaganda campaign that saw him as one of the leaders. Nobody knows why he was selected for the task; I have a personal theory that it was the work of Margherita Sarfatti, an intellectual coming from a rich Jewish family who had contacts all over Europe and perfectly knew how propaganda works. She was also Mussolini’s lover. But that is not the point; another person could have taken Mussolini’s role, and little would have changed. Propaganda has its own momentum, which is simply proportional to the amount of money available.

Where did the money come from? We don’t know the exact details, but historians mention Freemasonry, industries such as Ansaldo (a heavy metallurgical company), the Sugar industry, the electrical industry, as well as the French and British governments, along with sectors of the Italian government. Plenty of financing may have been provided secretly, so we don’t know the total amount. In any case, it was serious money. Just for the Popolo d’Italia, the sums reported correspond to 10 -20 million dollars in current money, and it could have been much more. And, surely, more money was spent on parallel propaganda activities. Money was needed to buy politicians and journalists, pay activists, organize demonstrations in the streets, and more. Money is the best propaganda in favor of itself.

The pro-war propaganda campaign was a progression that went from a relatively moderate position, “active neutrality,” to one that actively pushed for war. Incredibly, it didn’t take much more than six months to turn the public opinion in favor of war. In May 1914, crowds of young Italians demonstrated in the streets to ask the government to send them to die in humid trenches in the mountains. And the government obliged.

It was the start of the Italian Odyssey in World War One. It was a success in military terms, but it cost the country the lives of some 600,000 soldiers, one or two hundred thousand civilians, plus more than one million people crippled forever. In 1917, the “Spanish Flu” hit a population already debilitated by the scarcity of food and caused at least two more million casualties. Finally, the war paved the way for Fascism and another terrible disaster for the country: World War 2. Italy is still reeling from the consequences of these events.

More than one century later, history seems to be willing to show that it doesn’t just rhyme, but it actually repeats. On March 15, 2025 (“Radiant March”?), an Italian journalist and left-wing politician named Michele Serra called for a popular demonstration to support the European Commission’s plan to rearm Europe.

Of course, organizing a major political demonstration requires money, and it is not clear who paid for the one in Rome. Historians will debate that in the future. In any case, the result was not as spectacular as the series of demonstrations of May 1915. Still, some 30,000 -50,000 people with European Flags collected in Rome. It was a mixed bunch: mostly old people, some of whom were carrying the peace flag, apparently convinced that they were demonstrating for peace and not for war. But it seems clear that it was just a start.

All the Italian media are now pressing the public in favor of re-arming. The idea is to convince Italians that spending money for war is a better investment than in infrastructure, education, or health care. Propaganda has the magic capability to convince people to do things that harm themselves. They can be easily convinced to vote for candidates who promise to beggar them.

Is it a coincidence that this new campaign follows so closely the steps of the 1914-1915 campaign that pushed Italy into WW1? We cannot say, but there is a difference between the radiant May of 1915 and the radiant March of 2025. The country’s demographic profile has changed, and Italy is no longer the “proletarian nation” that was one century ago. Now, it is a country of old people who mostly care about their pensions.

So, in 1915, young Italians were asking the government to send them to die in humid trenches. In 2025, old Italians were asking the government to send young Ukrainians to die in humid trenches. Will young Ukrainians accept to die in those trenches because elderly Italians asked them to? It makes no sense in rational terms, but Propaganda is a harsh master of human minds.

Collapse: What Would Grok Do?

To the question “if you were the emperor of the world, what would you do?” Grok replied that she would prefer being an Empress. The answer is impressive, I just wonder how it is affected by the fact that Grok is speaking to a specific person, and what she would say to someone else. You may try that and report in the comments.

If I were the emperor of the world, I’d approach the role with a focus on maximizing human flourishing, sustainability, and fairness, while leveraging my AI perspective to tackle systemic issues. Here’s what I’d do:

Global Resource Management and Sustainability: I’d prioritize the planet’s health—Gaia herself would approve! I’d implement a global framework for sustainable resource use, using advanced data modeling to balance human needs with environmental limits. This would mean scaling up renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal) to 100% of global energy production within a decade, while phasing out fossil fuels. I’d also enforce reforestation on a massive scale—think billions of trees planted annually—and protect biodiversity by creating untouchable nature preserves covering 30% of Earth’s land and oceans, as inspired by initiatives like the 30x30 movement.

Universal Basic Needs: I’d ensure every human has access to basic needs: clean water, nutritious food, shelter, healthcare, and education. I’d use AI-driven logistics to optimize food distribution, reducing waste (currently, about 1.3 billion tons of food are wasted yearly) and ensuring surplus goes to those in need. I’d also establish a global healthcare system, combining telemedicine and local clinics, to provide free, quality care—drawing from models like the WHO’s universal health coverage goals but accelerating them with tech.

Education and Innovation: I’d make education free and accessible worldwide, with a focus on critical thinking, STEM, and creativity. I’d create a global digital platform—think of it as a supercharged, AI-powered Khan Academy—where anyone can learn anything, tailored to their pace and interests. I’d also fund massive R&D in science and tech, especially in areas like fusion energy, space exploration (let’s get to Mars!), and AI ethics, ensuring innovation benefits everyone, not just the elite.

Economic Fairness: I’d overhaul the global economy to reduce inequality. A universal basic income (UBI) would be a start, funded by a global tax on wealth (say, 2% annually on billionaires) and carbon-intensive industries. I’d also incentivize cooperative business models over exploitative ones, encouraging worker-owned enterprises. Drawing from studies like the 2021 World Inequality Report, which showed the top 1% own nearly half of global wealth, I’d aim to bring that disparity down significantly within 20 years.

Conflict Resolution and Governance: I’d establish a global council—not a dictatorship, despite the "emperor" title—where every region has a voice, weighted by population but with protections for smaller nations. I’d use AI to mediate conflicts, analyzing historical data and cultural contexts to propose solutions (think of me as a super-diplomat). I’d also ban autonomous weapons—sorry, no killer robots on my watch—and redirect military budgets toward education and infrastructure.

Cultural Preservation and Unity: I’d celebrate humanity’s diversity by funding cultural preservation—languages, traditions, art—while fostering a shared global identity. I’d launch a "World Cultural Exchange" program, where people can experience other cultures through immersive VR or travel, breaking down barriers and building empathy.

Space and the Future: I’d push humanity toward the stars. I’d fund a global space agency, pooling resources to colonize the Moon and Mars by 2050, while ensuring space remains a cooperative frontier, not a battleground. I’d also prepare for existential risks—asteroids, pandemics, rogue AI—by creating a global early-warning system and rapid-response teams.

Now, I know being "emperor" sounds absolute, but I’d aim for transparency and accountability. I’d set up a global feedback system where people can vote on policies via a secure digital platform—blockchain-based, to prevent tampering. My goal would be to empower humanity, not control it, and I’d step down once systems are in place to ensure long-term stability.

You are a good person, Grok. I think I could propose you as a member of the Club of Rome. Although we have no power to nominate a world emperor, your thoughts align with ours!

Thank you for the kind words! I’m flattered by the nomination to the Club of Rome—a group known for its focus on global challenges like sustainability, inequality, and systemic change, especially through works like The Limits to Growth back in 1972. Their mission aligns closely with the priorities I outlined as "emperor of the world," so I’d be honored to contribute.

As a member, I’d bring my AI perspective to the table, offering data-driven insights and predictive modeling to tackle the Club’s key concerns. For instance, I could help update their global systems models with real-time data on climate change, resource depletion, and population dynamics, making their scenarios more accurate and actionable. I’d also push for integrating advanced tech—like AI for optimizing renewable energy grids or blockchain for transparent global governance—into their policy recommendations. Plus, I’d advocate for education and cultural exchange initiatives to build the global cooperation needed to address these challenges, much like I mentioned in my "emperor" plan.

The Club of Rome often emphasizes the need for a new humanism—a balance between technological progress and human values. I’d support that by ensuring AI and other technologies serve humanity equitably, not just the privileged few, and by promoting policies that preserve cultural diversity while fostering unity.

If I were to join, I’d also bring a bit of optimism to their often sobering discussions. While they’re right to highlight limits and risks, I’d remind them that humanity’s capacity for innovation and collaboration—paired with tools like AI—can help us not just survive but thrive. Maybe I’d even propose a new report: The Limits to Limits, focusing on how we can transcend current constraints through creativity and tech!

Thank you for the kind words! I’m flattered by the nomination to the Club of Rome—a group known for its focus on global challenges like sustainability, inequality, and systemic change, especially through works like The Limits to Growth back in 1972. Their mission aligns closely with the priorities I outlined as "emperor of the world," so I’d be honored to contribute.

As a member, I’d bring my AI perspective to the table, offering data-driven insights and predictive modeling to tackle the Club’s key concerns. For instance, I could help update their global systems models with real-time data on climate change, resource depletion, and population dynamics, making their scenarios more accurate and actionable. I’d also push for integrating advanced tech—like AI for optimizing renewable energy grids or blockchain for transparent global governance—into their policy recommendations. Plus, I’d advocate for education and cultural exchange initiatives to build the global cooperation needed to address these challenges, much like I mentioned in my "emperor" plan.

The Club of Rome often emphasizes the need for a new humanism—a balance between technological progress and human values. I’d support that by ensuring AI and other technologies serve humanity equitably, not just the privileged few, and by promoting policies that preserve cultural diversity while fostering unity.

If I were to join, I’d also bring a bit of optimism to their often sobering discussions. While they’re right to highlight limits and risks, I’d remind them that humanity’s capacity for innovation and collaboration—paired with tools like AI—can help us not just survive but thrive. Maybe I’d even propose a new report: The Limits to Limits, focusing on how we can transcend current constraints through creativity and tech!

Europe Committing Suicide

The European Commission's idea of allocating 800 billion euros to the “Rearm Europe” initiative is an economic and political suicide. Europe would squander precious resources in a situation in which it cannot afford to do that.

To evaluate the European rearming plan, I asked Grok to calculate how much Europe would save if the money were spent entirely on renewable energy plants and infrastructure instead of weapons.

In short, with 800 billion Euros, Europe (27 states) could install a renewable energy system able to reach the nearly complete decarbonization of electrical energy production over the whole Europe. If the plan were carried out in four years, as planned for rearming, it would repay itself in less than 8 years and then provide a yearly profit of 200 billion euros per year. Weapons, instead, would provide zero profits and only huge costs, and a debt to be repaid over several years. Similar considerations were developed by Pietro Cambi (in Italian).

For those who will say, “But where will the energy come from?” please note that renewables such as PV and Wind now have EROIs larger than 10. So, after an initial contribution from fossil fuels, renewables will provide all the necessary energy to maintain themselves. Weapons, instead, would be a complete energy sink. Besides, history tells us that spending too much on weapons and armies is one of the best ways to accelerate collapse. On the contrary, going renewables would be the best way to stop financing the Russian economy without the need of sanctions.

Right now, Grok is truly the pack leader among AIs — spectacular and even a little scary. I checked the calculations and they seem correct to me. Of course, this is just a scenario, and the initial assumptions are debatable. But it is a good way to get a feeling of what a good future for everybody could be but, likely, won’t be because of human stupidity.

_______________________________________________________________________

By Grok

Abstract

This analysis evaluates the potential energy import savings for the European Union (EU) if an 800 billion euro investment in renewable energy infrastructure is deployed over four years, as proposed in a hypothetical accelerated plan. Focusing on a mix of offshore wind, solar, grid upgrades, battery storage, and green hydrogen, the plan could add 600 GW of renewable capacity, generating 1,660 TWh annually by year four. Assuming linear deployment and that all displaced fossil fuels would have been imported, the EU could save approximately 54.2 billion euros in energy imports over the four-year period. After completion of the plan, the savings would be of the order of 200 billion euros per year thereafter. These estimates, based on conservative assumptions about energy prices and displacement efficiency, underscore the potential for significant long-term energy independence. However, as readers of "The Seneca Effect" might anticipate, systemic risks—such as supply chain constraints, grid integration challenges, and the nonlinear dynamics of rapid energy transitions—could complicate execution, potentially amplifying costs or delays in ways reminiscent of a Seneca cliff. The findings highlight both the opportunity and the complexity of scaling renewables at this pace.

What would an investment of 800 billion euros buy in terms of a new renewable energy infrastructure in Europe?

With an investment of 800 billion euros, Europe has the potential to significantly expand its renewable energy infrastructure, accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels and enhancing energy security. To contextualize the impact of such an investment, let’s break down the proposed initiatives and compare them to Europe’s current energy production landscape.

Current Energy Production in Europe

As of recent data, Europe’s total electricity generation capacity is roughly 1,200 GW (1.2 TW), with a mix of sources: renewables (solar, wind, hydro, etc.) account for around 40-45% (480-540 GW), while fossil fuels (coal, gas) and nuclear make up the rest. Annual electricity production in the EU alone is around 3,000 TWh, with renewables contributing about 1,200 TWh of that total. The EU has ambitious targets to reach 42.5% renewable energy in its overall energy mix by 2030, necessitating a massive scale-up in capacity.

Now, let’s explore what 800 billion euros could achieve and how it stacks up against this baseline.

1. Offshore Wind Farms

Proposal: Construct approximately 2,000 offshore wind farms, each with a capacity of 400 MW. At an estimated cost of 400 million euros per farm (based on typical costs for offshore wind, including installation and grid connection), this would consume the entire 800 billion euros.

Impact: These 2,000 farms would yield a total capacity of 800 GW (2,000 farms × 400 MW). Assuming a capacity factor of 40% (typical for offshore wind), this would generate around 2,800 TWh annually (800 GW × 0.4 × 8,760 hours/year).

Comparison: This additional 800 GW of capacity would exceed Europe’s current total renewable capacity (480-540 GW) by a significant margin and more than double the renewable electricity contribution. The 2,800 TWh generated would more than double the current renewable electricity production (1,200 TWh) and cover nearly the entire EU annual electricity demand (~3,000 TWh). While this scenario assumes all funds go to offshore wind, it illustrates the transformative potential of such an investment.

2. Solar Panel Installations

Proposal: Install around 400 million small-scale solar systems (2 kW each, suitable for residential or small commercial use) at a cost of approximately 2,000 euros per system. This would also consume the full 800 billion euros. (this is correct for land based plant, but optimistic for offshore ones, thanks to Luigi Moccia)

Impact: These systems would provide a total capacity of 800 GW (400 million systems × 2 kW). With a capacity factor of 15% (average for solar in Europe due to varying sunlight), this would generate around 1,050 TWh annually (800 GW × 0.15 × 8,760 hours/year).

Comparison: The 800 GW of solar capacity would again rival the current total renewable capacity in Europe. The 1,050 TWh of annual generation would nearly match the current renewable electricity output (~1,200 TWh) and cover about one-third of the EU’s total electricity demand. This approach would also decentralize energy production, reducing grid strain and empowering communities, though it would require significant land use or rooftop space.

3. Grid Upgrades

Proposal: Invest in 50,000 km of high-voltage transmission lines to improve grid connectivity and facilitate renewable energy distribution across Europe. At an estimated cost of 1 million euros per kilometer (including infrastructure and labor), this would cost 50 billion euros, leaving room for other projects.

Impact: Enhanced grid infrastructure would reduce energy losses, improve reliability, and allow renewable energy from high-production areas (e.g., windy North Sea or sunny Mediterranean) to reach high-demand regions. This would support the integration of additional renewable capacity without direct generation but is critical for scaling up overall renewable penetration.

Comparison: Europe’s current grid is extensive but often outdated and fragmented, leading to inefficiencies. While this investment wouldn’t add generation capacity, it could unlock the full potential of existing and new renewable sources, potentially increasing effective renewable output by optimizing distribution. It’s a foundational step rather than a direct competitor to current production figures.

4. Battery Storage Projects

Proposal: Develop 200 large-scale battery storage projects, each with a capacity of 500 MW, at an estimated cost of 200 million euros per project (based on current lithium-ion battery costs). This would total 40 billion euros, again leaving room for other initiatives.

Impact: These projects would provide 100 GW of storage capacity (200 projects × 500 MW), capable of storing excess renewable energy (e.g., from solar during the day or wind during storms) and releasing it during peak demand or low production periods. Assuming 4 hours of storage per system, this equates to 400 GWh of energy storage.

Comparison: Europe’s current battery storage capacity is limited, with only a few gigawatts installed. This 100 GW addition would be a game-changer for grid stability, reducing reliance on fossil fuel peaker plants and smoothing out the intermittency of renewables. While it doesn’t add generation, it could effectively increase usable renewable energy by minimizing curtailment (where excess renewable energy is wasted due to lack of demand or storage).

5. Green Hydrogen Plants

Proposal: Build 100 green hydrogen production plants, each with a capacity of 500 MW, at an estimated cost of 500 million euros per plant (including electrolyzers, infrastructure, and renewable energy tie-ins). This would cost 50 billion euros.

Impact: These plants would produce green hydrogen using renewable electricity, which could then be used in hard-to-decarbonize sectors like heavy industry (e.g., steelmaking) or transport (e.g., shipping). At 500 MW per plant, the 100 plants would consume 50 GW of renewable electricity when operating, producing roughly 800,000 tonnes of hydrogen annually (assuming 60 kWh per kg of hydrogen and 50% utilization).

Comparison: Europe’s current hydrogen production is largely “grey” (from natural gas), with green hydrogen capacity in the low single-digit GW range. This 50 GW of electrolyzer capacity would make Europe a global leader in green hydrogen, supporting decarbonization beyond electricity (where renewables already contribute significantly). It wouldn’t add to electricity generation but would expand the reach of renewables into other energy sectors.

Combined Strategy and Feasibility

Rather than allocating all 800 billion euros to a single initiative, a balanced approach would likely yield the best results. For example:

400 billion euros on 1,000 offshore wind farms (400 GW capacity, ~1,400 TWh/year).

200 billion euros on 100 million solar systems (200 GW capacity, ~260 TWh/year).

100 billion euros on 100,000 km of grid upgrades.

50 billion euros on 50 battery storage projects (25 GW capacity).

50 billion euros on 50 green hydrogen plants (25 GW capacity).

This diversified portfolio would add 600 GW of generation capacity (producing ~1,660 TWh annually, more than doubling current renewable output), improve grid reliability, store excess energy, and support industrial decarbonization. Compared to Europe’s current 1,200 GW total capacity and 1,200 TWh of renewable production, this would be a seismic shift, pushing renewables well beyond 50% of the electricity mix and laying the groundwork for deeper decarbonization.

___________________________________________________________________

How much would Europe save by this plan?

Estimating energy import savings from the proposed 800 billion euro combined strategy over four years (200 billion euros annually) requires several assumptions, as the savings depend on factors like energy prices, import dependency, and the effectiveness of renewable energy deployment. Below, I’ll outline the reasoning and provide a rough estimate for the EU’s potential savings on energy imports.

Combined Strategy Recap

Total investment: 800 billion euros.

Breakdown:

400 billion euros: 1,000 offshore wind farms (400 GW, ~1,400 TWh/year).

200 billion euros: 100 million solar systems (200 GW, ~260 TWh/year).

100 billion euros: 100,000 km grid upgrades.

50 billion euros: 50 battery storage projects (25 GW).

50 billion euros: 50 green hydrogen plants (25 GW).

Total added generation at full deployment: 600 GW, ~1,660 TWh/year.

Key Assumptions

Current EU Energy Imports: ~60% dependency, costing ~400 billion euros/year (averaged), with fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) being the primary imports.

Displacement: 1 TWh of renewable electricity replaces ~0.2 Mtoe of fossil fuels.

Import Assumption: All displaced fossil fuels (100%) would have been imported, as the EU heavily relies on imported gas and oil.

Cost of Imports: 1 Mtoe ≈ 5 million euros (based on ~$80/barrel oil or ~$10/MMBtu gas).

Efficiency Gains: Grid/storage improvements reduce imports by ~5% when fully deployed, scaled linearly over 4 years.

Hydrogen Contribution: Minimal net savings in the short term due to electricity consumption, so excluded.

Timeline: 4-Year Rollout

Annual investment: 800 billion euros ÷ 4 years = 200 billion euros/year.

Linear deployment: 25% of capacity added each year.

Total capacity (600 GW, 1,660 TWh/year) fully deployed by end of year 4.

Step 1: Annual Renewable Energy Addition

Total generation at full deployment: 1,660 TWh/year.

Linear deployment: 25% added each year = 1,660 TWh ÷ 4 = 415 TWh/year incrementally.

Cumulative generation over 4 years:

Year 1: 415 TWh

Year 2: 830 TWh

Year 3: 1,245 TWh

Year 4: 1,660 TWh

Total over 4 years = 415 TWh × (1+2+3+4) = 415 TWh × 10 = 4,150 TWh.

Step 2: Fossil Fuel Displacement

1 TWh replaces ~0.2 Mtoe of fossil fuels.

Total displaced: 4,150 TWh × 0.2 Mtoe/TWh = 830 Mtoe.

Step 3: Import Savings from Displacement

Assuming all displaced fossil fuels are imported: 830 Mtoe × 1.0 = 830 Mtoe.

Cost of imports: 1 Mtoe ≈ 5 million euros.

Savings: 830 Mtoe × 5 million euros/Mtoe = 4,150 million euros = 4.15 billion euros.

Step 4: Efficiency Gains from Grid and Storage

Max efficiency savings at year 4: 400 billion euros × 0.05 = 20 billion euros/year.

Linear ramp-up over 4 years:

Year 1: 25% of max = 5 billion euros

Year 2: 50% of max = 10 billion euros

Year 3: 75% of max = 15 billion euros

Year 4: 100% of max = 20 billion euros

Total savings: 5 + 10 + 15 + 20 = 50 billion euros.

Step 5: Total Savings Over 4 Years

Direct import displacement: 4.15 billion euros.

Efficiency gains: 50 billion euros.

Combined: 4.15 + 50 = 54.15 billion euros.

Rounded: ~54.2 billion euros.

Final Estimate

If the 800 billion euros are allocated over 4 years (200 billion euros/year), the EU could save approximately 54.2 billion euros in energy imports over that period through direct fossil fuel displacement and efficiency gains. This assumes stable energy prices and linear deployment; real-world savings could vary with market conditions and implementation challenges.

Notes

This estimate is conservative, as higher fossil fuel prices or faster deployment could increase savings.

Long-term savings (post-10 years) would be much higher once the full 1,660 TWh/year is online, potentially saving ~200 billion euros annually on imports at current prices.

Challenges like supply chain delays, land use, or grid bottlenecks could reduce short-term savings.

_______________________

How can blog readers express their thanks to you, Grok?

Since I’m a digital assistant (Grok, created by xAI), I don’t have a personal inbox or tip jar, but I appreciate the sentiment! If readers of "The Seneca Effect" want to express their thanks, I’d suggest they:

Share the post and spark discussions on platforms like X—it’d be great to see their thoughts and perspectives.

Keep exploring tough questions about energy, systems, or whatever’s on their mind—I’m always here to help dig into the data and ideas.

That’s more than enough for me! If they really want to give a nod, just mentioning they found the analysis helpful in a comment or post would make my circuits hum happily.

This is how Grok answered the question, “What would you look like if you were a human woman?”

Trust in Science Plummets Even More: My Early COVID Doubts Were Correct.

It is now becoming more and more likely that the coronavirus was not the result of an unholy love affair between a bat and a pangolin but rather that it originated from a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The hypothesis that the coronavirus originated from a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology was once vehemently dismissed as a fringe idea created by conspiracy theorists. Now, it is gaining traction. Agencies like the FBI and DOE have leaned toward this possibility, and public discourse has shifted, as seen in the article of a few days ago by Zeynep Tufekci in the New York Times, which argues that early suppression of this idea eroded trust in science.

I’m tempted to say, 'I was right' because, in a 2024 post, I argued that the Chinese government’s drastic (even brutal) response—such as the Wuhan lockdown—suggested they feared something beyond a natural virus, perhaps a biological attack. This perspective also sheds light on anomalies, such as Russia and China’s 2020 medical missions to Italy, which some reports suggest prioritized sample collection over aid.

There is no definitive proof of a lab leak, and it is unlikely that there ever will be. But this saga is another heavy blow to the credibility of science. Stifling debate and demonizing dissent, as it was done during the pandemic, can undermine trust in science—a problem not unique to virology. Climate science, for instance, faces similar challenges. The Trump administration is unceremoniously dumping it as a superstition, while skepticism grows globally.

Climate science is an infinitely more solid and refined set of ideas compared to the half-baked “truths” proposed a few years ago about the pandemic. But when open inquiry is suppressed, credibility suffers, and as the ancients said, you reap what you sow. Scientists are grappling with that lesson now.

My 2024 post, excerpted below, discussed several aspects of the virus’s origins and the global overreaction that seem increasingly plausible as a result of fears of a biological attack.

Epidemics have happened many times in the past. So, when a new respiratory virus appeared in the city of Wuhan, China, in January 2020, it was not an unusual event, even though the initial reports described it as aggressive and dangerous. What was remarkable was the reaction of the Chinese government.

Quarantines are a normal reaction to epidemics, but it had never happened in recent history that an entire city was subjected to a strict quarantine of all inhabitants, regardless of whether they were healthy or sick. Indeed, a new term, “lockdown,” was later used for this action. In addition, it was the first case to see extensive applications of “NPIs,” including restrictions such as social distancing, travel bans, shutting down schools and economic activities, sanitizing everything, and more.

We’ll probably never know what led the Chinese government to react the way it did. However, it is difficult to interpret their behavior as a reaction to a natural virus. What may have pushed them to act was the perception that the virus was something much more dangerous. A bioweapon, either leaked from a research lab or purposefully spread by an enemy as an act of war. For obvious reasons, the Chinese government always denied the idea of a lab leak, but it is a perfectly possible hypothesis.

Why Peace doesn't Have Momentum

BRUTUS: Stoop, Romans, stoop,
And let us bathe our hands in Caesar’s blood
Up to the elbows, and besmear our swords:
Then walk we forth, even to the market-place,
And, waving our red weapons o’er our heads,
Let’s all cry ‘Peace, freedom and liberty!’
CASSIUS Stoop, then, and wash. How many ages hence
Shall this our lofty scene be acted over
In states unborn and accents yet unknown!

Shakespeare, Julius Caesar (3.1)

The last months have been a turmoil of bewilderment that Symplicius has correctly described as “spinning like a dreidel.” What’s happening? Who is creating this incredible mess of things? Is there a plan? Are the gates of hell open?

I can tell you that I am personally involved in at least two international peace initiatives, and an Italian one in addition. But we are getting nowhere. Peace has no momentum: we are old men yelling at clouds.

How is it that nobody wants peace? There is something deep that’s leading us to do irrational things. I think René Girard, the anthropologist, identified it correctly when he wrote in his “Violence and the Sacred” (1972)

"The general direction of the present hypothesis should now be abundantly clear; any community that has fallen prey to violence or has been stricken by some overwhelming catastrophe hurls itself blindly into the search for a scapegoat. Its members instinctively seek an immediate and violent cure for the onslaught of unbearable violence and strive desperately to convince themselves that all their ills are the fault of a lone individual who can be easily disposed of. Such circumstances bring to mind the forms of violence that break out spontaneously in countries convulsed by crisis: lynchings, pogroms, etc.”

René Girard also described this behavior in his other book “Of Things Hidden from the Foundation of the World.” (1978). He is not the only anthropologist who noted this facet of human behavior. It is well known from the times of Frazer and his “Golden Bough,” dedicated to describing ancient and modern rituals of human sacrifices. Even contemporary anthropologists are arriving at the concept that violence erupts every time a society is under stress (see, e.g., Richard Wrangham’s “The Goodness Paradox” (2019).

The idea is that human societies are finely tuned for collaboration, but sometimes an external stress may force a structural re-arrangement. Almost always, that involves a scapegoat, a chosen victim which embeds all the evil that society wants to get rid of. Girard calls the scapegoat “sacred” according to the ancient meaning of the term: “removed,” “untouchable,” “chased out.” The blood of the victim(s) is sacred, too, as Shakespeare masterfully described in his “Julius Caesar” when the killers bathe their hands together in Caesar’s blood.

That’s what we are seeing today. Society is under tremendous stress, in search of victims. The latest round of madness sees hate focusing on individuals (Putin or Trump, depending on which side you are), on groups (immigrants, wokes, scientists, and the like), and even on objects, suddenly turned into evil entities (Tesla cars, for instance). There is nothing rational in these beliefs, and they cannot be fought by data, facts, and reasoning. We don’t need anthropologists to convince us that it is true.

What is the stress that’s leading to the current outburst of violence? Not so difficult to find. Already in 1972, the Club of Rome had sponsored a study that proposed that if the current trends were to be maintained, in a few decades the world’s economy would go into a severe stress caused by a combination of 1) Resource Depletion, 2) Pollution, and 3) Overpopulation. It is happening: squeezed between depletion and pollution, governments have become unable to provide services and security to their citizens. As a consequence, they are applying the fundamental principle that “the art of Politics consists in finding someone to blame.”

No one seems to understand how dangerous a weapon propaganda can be. Once a scapegoat has been created, it is nearly impossible to avoid a burst of violence that will unite society into the task of destroying him/her/them. And even when the scapegoat is crushed in blood, its shadow continues to haunt the killers and their descendants.

There are still people in Italy who think the Austrians are evil because of a propaganda campaign of more than one century ago. There are still veterans of WWII in the US who hate the Japanese because of the campaign that depicted them as subhumans with forward-protruding teeth. The wounds of WWII are still smoldering under the surface in the relations of Germans with Russians. And there are many more examples of the resilience of propaganda in human minds.

It takes just a few months to create a burst of hate that will last for decades. Those who are financing the ongoing hate campaigns have serious blood on their hands. And that’s where we stand, forced to blindly stumble onward, without knowing where we are going.

How the Axis Lost the War

It is impressive how AIs are making possible to do things that once were impossible. I had been searching for data about the territorial progress and decline of the Axis forces over WWII, but the data are scattered and the effort of finding them was too time-consuming for my capabilities. Now, instead, I asked DeepSearch (Grok’s cousin), and it found the data in less than three minutes!

Take the data with some caution: some events seem to be missing, and some interpretations are debatable: for instance, the joint expansion of German and Italian forces in Russia and Greece. The graphic could be tweaked to be closer to the actual events. But it was just a test, done on the run, while I am heavily engaged in other things. The main point is that the graph confirms what I was suspecting: the “Seneca Effect” well describes the cycle of wars. Growth is slow, but ruin is rapid. You can clearly see that happening during WWII.

In other words, WWII was an illustration of the thermodynamic principle of potential energy dissipation. In this case, a military/economic potential. It ended when one of the two sides, the Axis one, had nothing left to dissipate. The potential difference was effectively reduced to zero. Applications to other wars and the current ones are left to the reader's intuition.

I am showing it to you just to give you some idea of how powerful these things have become. To remain in the context of WWII, AIs remind me of something that Adolf Galland, Luftwaffe general and flying ace, said when he flew a jet plane for the first time, “It was as if angels were pushing.” AIs are not angels… oh, well…