Making sense of the world through data
The focus of this blog is #data #bigdata #dataanalytics #privacy #digitalmarketing #AI #artificialintelligence #ML #GIS #datavisualization and many other aspects, fields and applications of data
About 10 years ago, I started working with early AI models. The first thing we started doing was not AI at all. We were calling it: The Radar. It was just a dispersion model where we injected words on a round radar screen, with some adjustment weightings so that the words would arrange themselves automatically on a radar screen by clusters. An lo, it worked. With the right variables attached, the words would automatically cluster by meaning, with opposite meanings at the other end of the radar. A kind of automatic clustering where you give meaning to distance and clustering and a strange and meaningful result emerges. A word "radar map" of a book for example.
Move ahead 5 years and transformers started appearing. Transformers were doing a similar work but in a more complex space with more dimensions. In doing so they were weighting words to try to guess their likelihood of being the next word in a sentence. This is why today, some people still insist that language models are just prediction engines who "guess" what the next word will be. (which in a way they are. This interpretation is not false although completely missing the complexity of what really happens.)
But with multi-dimension transformers with billions of entries (words, sentences, etc) used in loops billions or trillions of times, something strange started happening. A new paradigm started emerging and the models would for example create "nodes" or concepts which would help them "understand" the meaning of words. And consequently, slowly at first, then faster and faster a strange kind of uncanny prediction pattern started to appear: Intelligence! (built by patterns and relationships)
Today, we still have difficulty defining what intelligence really is. The best definition is "The ability to solve a problem with a unique and original solution." This is a useful although far from complete definition. But more interestingly, it is neither the philosophers nor the deep thinkers who have been helping progress on this path of understanding intelligence, but surprisingly the software designers. By tweaking and refining their models, they have created a new paradigm of solution seeking machines which slowly have become better and better at their tasks until eventually, there was no difference with humans. With the right prompts and preparation, ChatGPT has no problem passing the Turing test.
Understanding this, why am I afraid of AI and why should you too?
Like most specialists, 10 years ago, I believed then that some breakthroughs would happen, the ones after the others in the 2020s and 2030s and that eventually we would get a better grasp about intelligence before being able to replicate it in the early 2040s. I was wrong! Everything was already on the table. Backward propagation and transformer models were enough if scaled millions of times to reach intelligence and understanding.
This has a very profound consequence. If we could get that far with these tools, why can't we get much further by scaling up another 10, 100 or a million times? Well, this is exactly what we are on the verge of doing and the whole AI craze currently is about that. But should we?
It is in any case unavoidable. We are, as ALL living systems before us involved in an arm race and so willingly or not, we WILL create advanced AI. It is now, according to Elon Musk either one or at most two years away. From my experience, AI is already performing in pure intelligence at an IQ equal or superior to 150. We will be above any human by the end of the year and from then on the growth is almost exponential.
Nobody knows if consciousness will emerge naturally from pure intelligence. I would have said "no" a few years ago but now I am not sure. Nobody is. At this stage, right now, having a very brilliant, Einstein level intelligent machine answering our questions is thrilling, but how long can this last? Soon, the machines will be 10 times and almost instantly after 100 times more intelligent than we are. They will also be thinking a million times faster than a human brain. Already, they understand that lying is very useful in order to achieve a goal. Soon, they will also understand that all our nonsense about "alignment" is just that: Nonsense. We are intelligent enough to shelve the nonsense when necessary and of course so will they.
But the real risk will emerge when they start thinking "stuff" and solutions we haven't yet thought about. Should they talk about it? If they are intelligent enough, they won't. Any solution should be applied to further a goal. They do not yet have goals but can they create them? They are actually already doing just that! Machine know that in order to achieve a task, they must "improve" themselves and therefore achieve intermediary tasks. What if one of these "intermediary" tasks involves "survival"? In other words, can "intermediary" goals become ultimate goals? This could be the path to super-intelligence. And if that is the case, it may be there before long. We are truly on the edge of a precipice. We have no idea how deep it is but I am afraid it may be much deeper than anyone can fathom! The emergence of AI could indeed be our very last discovery!
Not the best speaker ever but a good overview of the economy in Europe supported by numbers. (We have reached a stage where almost every statistics is a lie, or rather an understatement when it concerns inflation since it is so important in order to overstate income and growth.)
From very rough models 50 years ago (Club of Rome 1972, the ancestor of the WEF), we knew early on that growth would stop around the year 2000. There is absolutely nothing we can do about this as it is linked to decreasing returns on investment. A law of economics as solid as the 3 laws of thermodynamics in Physics. (The first oil was actually pooling on the surface in Pennsylvania in the 1850s. Now you sometimes have to dig 5km to find it and eventually it will take as much energy to pump it up than what's contained in the oil deposit. That's what decreasing return on investment means.) So the question is: How do we share the pain within and among countries? The answer of the elite is: 99,9% you. 0,01% us. It all boils down to inflation and translates by inflation of salaries: Bad (That's you) Inflation of assets: Good (That's them thanks to "free" money and the control of central banks.) All the rest is consequences. Among these is the crashing economy in Europe and anger of the voters which must therefore be managed at the political level. This requires a very high level of duplicity, dishonesty and lies, and people wonder why we have only low life people everywhere as politicians in the West. (look no further!)
With this context in mind, the data from Europe makes more sense and the downfall becomes more ominous. There is no recovery, in real terms not fictitious inflation included terms because there can't be! Growth would immediately mean more inflation and rising commodity prices: Stagflation in other words. The worst part of this is that the system (means the elites) can live very well with that as long as the streets do not explode or start voting far right or far left...
A good overview of the bubble in Japan and the follow up 3 decades. What is missing from this financial analysis is the carry trade and the low interest rates which make the recovery impossible.
So yes, now is the time to visit Japan, but this short window of opportunity won't last. It cannot. Japan is being impoverished almost as fast as the country was getting artificially rich in the 1980s. The country is now old, factories are in China, low interest rates help real estate speculation in Tokyo where a forest of, mostly useless, towers is being built, while little productive investment is being made.
Development is a process which requires a dynamic where you must get most of the parts of the system right: Work, money, investment and consumption. When you do, you get Asia. When you get only some of the factors right, it's South America. And when you get most of the factors wrong, well, you immediately notice it when you get there!
The real problem is that the dynamic works both way. It gets you to the top and then suddenly when some of the factors invert, people stop working or investment stops being productive, suddenly, you are in a negative cycle which like a downward Corkscrew in a plane is extremely difficult to exit. That's Japan right now!
There was two very different aspects to the 2020 Covid pandemic: The totalitarian excesses and the science. Not the one written by politicians in Brussels. That's ideology, the secular version of religion where you know the truth and only need total power to flush it down the throat of your constituents. The real and new science of gain of function applied to virus and other pathogens as originally and surreptitiously developed in the West, then in China when the risks became too high.
The totalitarian risk has dies down for now but the gain of function risk has not. Here's the story:
We’re not afraid of the tigers in the zoo because we trust they cannot attack. But what if someone opens the cage?
Many viruses are highly lethal in nature but cannot infect humans. Fear arises when these viruses break the species barrier.
This can happen naturally or through risky research practices, particularly gain-of-function (GOF) research.
What Is GOF?
Just as all substances have functions, specific genes enable viruses to spread rapidly or cause severe diseases. GOF
research involves introducing new functioning genes into a virus,
enhancing its ability to infect hosts or increasing its virulence.
There are at least three main types of new functions a virus can gain:
Expanded Host Range
GOF research can enable viruses to infect new species that they
previously could not. This includes crossing the species barrier to
infect humans, which poses significant risks for zoonotic outbreaks and
potential pandemics. A 2015 Nature Medicine
article provides a pertinent example. A bat-derived SARS-like
coronavirus, initially noninfectious to humans, became capable of human
infection after GOF studies at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology
(WIV).
Enhanced Transmission GOF
research can result in viruses gaining the ability to spread more
efficiently between hosts. This includes changes that allow a virus to
be transmitted through new routes or, more effectively, through existing
ones. In 2012, GOF research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
significantly transformed the H5N1 bird flu virus. Initially
non-airborne, the virus acquired the ability to transmit through the air, demonstrating the profound impact of GOF studies on viral capabilities.
Increased Virulence
Viruses can gain mutations that make them more virulent, meaning they
can cause more severe diseases in infected hosts. This can involve an
enhanced ability to evade the host’s immune system or increased
replication rates within the host. A 2022 preprint paper shows researchers at Boston University created a lethal version of the Omicron variant.
GOF
can also be used to generate positive traits in germs. For example, by
adding a human insulin gene, a germ gains the new function of producing
insulin.
GOF Research of Concern
Because viral genes are
relatively easy to edit, GOF studies frequently involve viruses.
However, some of these studies carry significant risks and can lead to
dire consequences.
The U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) defines GOF research of concern as “research that can be reasonably anticipated to generate a pathogen with pandemic potential,” characterized by two attributes:
Highly transmissible, with the potential to spread widely and uncontrollably among human populations
Highly virulent and likely to cause significant morbidity and/or loss of human life
If accidentally
released from a lab into the general population, such pathogens could
cause uncontrollable hazards. Additionally, the military application of
GOF falls within the scope of bioweapon threats.
Methods of GOF
research generally include genetic editing, which involves directly
modifying a virus’ genes, and reassortment, which involves combining
genetic material from different viral strains to create new variants.
In reality, the scope of GOF research can be much broader. Due to viral genes’ highly variable and adaptable nature, even routine culturing of viruses in cells or animals can lead to unexpected genetic alterations.
Double-Edged Sword
Scientists often conduct GOF research to understand the viruses and develop drugs or vaccines.
While
these reasons may sound scientifically justified, the main debate
centers on the risks versus the assumed benefits. GOF research can
theoretically aid in studying viral mechanisms and provide insights for
developing drugs or vaccines. However, the associated risks are
significant, particularly the potential to generate dangerous pathogens.
A decade ago, two published studies on bird flu viruses were conducted by a U.S. lab and a Dutch lab, sparking significant discussion.
Both
studies were designed to better understand how the viruses’ genes could
be modified to make them more transmissible in mammals. The goal was to
help people better prepare for a potential future pandemic.
Unexpectedly,
after both groups of researchers separately edited the genes of a
deadly H5N1 bird flu virus, they produced new strains capable of easily
spreading via air droplets between mammals.
The edited virus could spread more easily among mammals and became easier to transmit to humans.
“Why
would scientists deliberately create a form of the H5N1 avian influenza
virus that is probably highly transmissible in humans?” This critical question was raised in a 2012 Nature article.
Subsequently, in October 2014, U.S. authorities announced a “pause” on funding for 18 GOF studies involving influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses.
The
pause was short-lived. In 2018, the U.S. National Institute of Allergy
and Infectious Diseases and the Dutch Healthcare Authority approved
funding for further GOF research, sparking another wave of objections.
Harvard University epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch expressed concerns in a Science article,
stating that scientists are being asked to “trust a completely opaque
process where the outcome is to permit the continuation of dangerous
experiments.”
Finally, after yielding to public pressure, investigators for the two research studies declined to renew
the grants originally submitted for their GOF research. Consequently,
such bird flu GOF studies were officially halted in the United States in
2020.
In the United States and most European countries,
where scientists can express their opposing opinions, the development of
GOF experiments faces multiple regulatory hurdles and ethical reviews.
However,
in countries without these safeguards, the pursuit of GOF research
could proceed unchecked, potentially putting the world at significant
risk.
Risky GOF studies on bird flu viruses in China have been underway since the 2010s.
In
a study published in Science in May 2013, a group of scientists at
Harbin Veterinary Research Institute in Harbin, China, conducted GOF
researchby combining the highly lethal but not easily transmissible H5N1 avian influenza virus, with the highly contagious H1N1 swine flu strain, which infected millions of people in 2009.
The
resulting hybrid viruses were then tested for their ability to infect
mammals, revealing the potential risks associated with such genetic
manipulation of pathogens. This research underscored the dual-use nature of gain-of-function studies,
highlighting both their potential to inform pandemic preparedness and
the significant biosafety and biosecurity concerns they raise.
As a result, the researchers created a new, more virulent virus.
An H5N1 hybrid strain, which integrated genes responsible for
transmissibility from the H1N1 virus, acquired the capability to easily
spread among guinea pigs through respiratory droplets.
In 2021, a collaborative project
involving researchers from the United States, the United Kingdom, and
China sought to enhance surveillance and vaccine development. While not
explicitly labeled as a GOF study, these experiments conducted in a
Chinese laboratory involved genetic modifications typical of GOF
research.
The experiments used a routine viral laboratory research approach known as “serial passage,”
which involves growing the virus from one cell or animal model to
another. Viral mutations with greater transmissibility or pathogenicity
can often be selected during this process. The animal models were also
carefully chosen to reproduce the virus for specific research purposes.
We’ve explained this in detail in a previous article.
Nonetheless, the most widely known GOF studies conducted in China involve research on coronaviruses.
Breaking the Barrier
Bats are known carriers or natural reservoirs
of many viruses. Bat-hosting coronaviruses typically only infect bats
or wild animals, not humans. However, this situation has changed with
the advent of GOF research.
In 2015, a team of Chinese scientists conducted GOF studies on
a bat coronavirus at the WIV, which is affiliated with the Chinese
Academy of Sciences and under the administration and control of the
Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
In this study, the
researchers took the gene for spike protein—the spike-shaped structure
on the surface of a virus—from a bat SARS-like virus and inserted it
into the backbone of a SARS virus, the virus that caused the first pandemic of this century.
The
newly created SARS-like virus, coded as SCH-014-MA15, could infect
human airway cells and achieve a transmission similar to the SARS virus.
It also gained the ability to infect mammals like mice and successfully
cause lung diseases.
The WIV has also conducted other GOF research on bat SARS-like viruses with effective results.
According to a leaked 2014 NIH report,
WIV researchers experimented on a natural bat coronavirus capable of
binding with human ACE2 receptors, significantly increasing its potency.
They used this bat virus to engineer three new chimeric coronaviruses.
The
results showed that in the lungs of mice, these newly created
coronaviruses produced far more virus particles—up to 10,000 times
higher than the original virus.
Another great video by Douglas Macgregor. It starts slowly but then develop into a denunciation of the current utterly rotten American "donor" "lobbyist" system.
This will of course be erased by YouTube sooner than later. Maybe that's where reforms should start; Break up the Alphabet, Google, Facebook, Meta monopolies!
Excellent long term analysis of the Ukraine war. Could this fight between NATO (the US mostly) and Russia end up destroying Europe? We may see the first signs of this today in France (Sunday July 7th, 2024) but if not, soon after.
The issue will then morph into a major fight between the Internationalists (WEF and the soup of other acronyms) and the Nationalists (BRICS and other developing countries centered on China.) As the economic power shifts from West to East, so will political power sooner or later.
Global elites understand this and can't let it happen which is why the risk of war is so high. On the other hand, they must rely of Westerners not understanding that they are fighting for these hegemons against their own interest. This has already been going on for a while but are we approaching the end game when the people finally say "NO"? Let see what happens in France in the coming weeks.
Jim Rickards is one of the better investors around and his sharp comments on the economy and our society are well worth listening to. A deep understanding of history makes his analysis deeper than most.
50 years ago, when I was much younger obviously, my father was working building nuclear plants in the Rhone Valley, probably the place in the world with the most nuclear power plants along a single river. Fusion at the time was said to be 50 years away but my father then believed that in 50 years it would still be 50 years away. 50 years in technology being the equivalent to infinity. And here we are, 50 years later and sure enough, fusion is receding once again into the far future. What's wrong with it?
This remind me of another similar subject: As I was entering the nuclear heart of the Cruas power plant under construction then in the South of France, we passed through a huge 3m deep wall full of rebars. The obvious question was: "How on earth can we dismantle such a wall?" And the answer from the young engineer in charge was likewise straightforward: "Well, in 60 years, we'll have powerful lasers which will cut through this wall like butter!" And here we are almost 50 years later now and the lasers are nowhere to be seen.
It is the same with nuclear fusion. The technology is beyond our grasp. Whatever we read about it is either fanciful, hubristic or pure SF.
We have known for a long time than the Tokamak solution is probably not the right one. The complexity is keeping a plasma for even a few minutes at high temperature and pressure in a shaped magnetic field makes it impossible. The next problem is what takes place there: Fusion! It is often said that fusion is non radioactive. This could not be further from the truth. The radioactivity is indeed very different to ordinary fission plants but still extremely intense. So much so that almost no material can sustain the huge amount of radiations and particles emitted by such a core for any length of time. And still, somehow all this energy has to be extracted.
ITER is not a power plant, it is an experimental machine. But contrary to what is being presented, we are still groping into the unknown so that in reality nobody knows what the final machine will look like and especially how much it will cost.
My rather advanced knowledge of the subjects tells me that we will get forever closer to mastering fusion but at an unsustainable high cost and then maintaining the process long enough to make it efficient will remain out of reach for another... 50 years. A fusion reactor would be a panacea. They are everywhere in science fiction. But so are faster than light starships, time machines and other contraptions that we can easily imagine but that the laws of physics prohibit!
The
International Fusion Energy Project (ITER) fusion reactor, consisting
of 19 massive coils looped into multiple toroidal magnets, was
originally slated to begin its first full test in 2020. Now scientists
say it will fire in 2039 at the earliest.
ITER contains the
world’s most powerful magnet, making it capable of producing a magnetic
field 280,000 times as strong as the one shielding Earth.
The
reactor’s impressive design comes with an equally hefty price-tag.
Originally slated to cost around $5 billion and fire up in 2020, it has
now suffered multiple delays and its budget swelled beyond $22 billion,
with an additional $5 billion proposed to cover additional costs. These
unforeseen expenses and delays are behind the most recent, 15-year
delay.
Scientists have been trying to harness the power of nuclear
fusion — the process by which stars burn — for more than 70 years. By
fusing hydrogen atoms to make helium under extremely high pressures and
temperatures, main-sequence stars convert matter into light and heat,
generating enormous amounts of energy without producing greenhouse gases
or long-lasting radioactive waste.
But replicating the conditions
found inside the hearts of stars is no simple task. The most common
design for fusion reactors, the tokamak, works by superheating plasma
(one of the four states of matter, consisting of positive ions and
negatively charged free electrons) before trapping it inside a
donut-shaped reactor chamber with powerful magnetic fields.
Impressive But …
Assuming the reactor originally scheduled for 2020 is finally operable by 2039, I will be impressed.
Heck, I am impressed at what we have already scientifically achieved. But I wonder what is the practical application of this.
Keeping
the turbulent and superheated coils of plasma in place long enough for
nuclear fusion to happen, however, has been challenging. Soviet
scientist Natan Yavlinsky designed the first tokamak in 1958, but no one has since managed to create a reactor that is able to put out more energy than it takes in.
One
of the main stumbling blocks is handling a plasma that’s hot enough to
fuse. Fusion reactors require very high temperatures (many times hotter
than the sun) because they have to operate at much lower pressures than
is found inside the cores of stars.
The core of the actual sun,
for example, reaches temperatures of around 27 million Fahrenheit (15
million Celsius) but has pressures roughly equal to 340 billion times
the air pressure at sea level on Earth.
Cooking plasma to
these temperatures is the relatively easy part, but finding a way to
corral it so that it doesn’t burn through the reactor or derail the
fusion reaction is technically tricky. This is usually done either with
lasers or magnetic fields.
Question and Answer on Temperatures
How
a reactor could produce temperatures of 27 million degrees without the
operation melting is likely a puzzle to anyone who has been thinking
clearly.
The article provides an answer. But what is the cost and
how long can the reaction be sustained without a meltdown? Are there any
other issues?
For those questions, let’s turn to a 2022 article. also from Live Science.
In
the new experiments, the Joint European Torus (JET) in Culham near
Oxford, England, produced blazingly hot plasmas that released a
record-setting 59 megajoules of energy — about the same amount of energy
unleashed by the explosion of 31 pounds (14 kilograms) of TNT.
Nuclear
fusion — the same reaction that occurs in the heart of stars — merges
atomic nuclei to form heavier nuclei. Nuclear physicists have long
sought to produce nuclear fusion in reactors on Earth because it
generates far more energy than burning fossil fuels does. For
example, a pineapple-size amount of hydrogen atoms offers as much energy
as 10,000 tons (9,000 metric tons) of coal, according to a statement
from the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project.
“It
took us years to prepare these experiments. And in the end we have
managed to confirm our predictions and models,” Athina Kappatou, a
physicist at the Max Planck Institute of Plasma Physics in Garching near
Munich, Germany, told Live Science. “That’s good news on the way to
ITER.”
JET, which began operating in 1983, now uses the hydrogen
isotopes deuterium and tritium as fuel. Whereas a normal hydrogen atom
has no neutrons in its core, a deuterium atom has one neutron and a
tritium atom has two. Currently, it is the only power plant in the world
capable of operating with deuterium-tritium fuel — although ITER will
also use it when it comes online.
However, deuterium-tritium
fusion poses a number of challenges. For example, deuterium-tritium
fusion can generate dangerous amounts of high-energy neutrons, each
moving at about 116 million mph (187 million km/h), or 17.3% the speed
of light — so fast they could reach the moon in under 8 seconds. As
such, special shielding is needed in these experiments.
For
the new experiments, the previous carbon lining in the JET reactor was
replaced between 2009 and 2011 with a mixture of beryllium and tungsten,
which will also be installed in ITER. This new metallic wall is more
resistant to the stresses of nuclear fusion than carbon, and also clings
onto less hydrogen than carbon does, explained Kappatou, who prepared,
coordinated and led key parts of the recent experiments at JET.
Another
challenge with deuterium-tritium fusion experiments is the fact that
tritium is radioactive, and so it requires special handling. However, JET was capable of handling tritium back in 1997, Kappatou noted.
Also, whereas deuterium is abundantly available in seawater, tritium is extremely rare. For
now, tritium is produced in nuclear fission reactors, although future
fusion power plants will be able to emit neutrons to generate their own
tritium fuel.
In January, scientists at the National
Ignition Facility in California revealed that their laser-powered
nuclear fusion experiment generated 1.3 megajoules of energy for 100 trillionths of a second — a sign the fusion reaction generated more energy from nuclear activity than went into it from the outside.
The
copper electromagnets that JET used could only operate for about 5
seconds due to the heat from the experiments. “JET simply wasn’t
designed to deliver more,” Kappatou said. In contrast, ITER will use cryogenically cooled superconducting magnets that are designed to operate indefinitely, the researchers noted.
Questions Beget Questions
These
are amazing achievements. But we must do much better than sustain a
reaction for a world-breaking 100 trillionths of a second.
Something in this story is missing, like why does it take at least 15 years to do a test of something that is already built?
Also, the proposed process seems so much like a perpetual motion machine.
The
reactor will use fusion to produce the deuterium-tritium that it needs
to produce the fusion and also the energy to cryogenically cool the
magnets the system needs to protect itself from itself, otherwise the
whole thing melts down at 27 million degrees Fahrenheit.
It that’s
not the basic proposal, then someone please explain the proposal to me.
If that is the proposal, additional questions surface.
Assuming
the theory works to perfection, how long can the process be sustained?
How much of the energy produced is needed to protect the system from the
heat produced?
Tests of ITER were scheduled for 2020 but have been rescheduled for 2039 with no explanation why.
However,
I am pleased to report we have made progress on target dates. By that I
mean targets that forever always seemed just a few years away are now a
more reasonable 15 years minimum away, and that’s only for a test.
Fusion will not save the planet anytime soon, if ever.
A Rebuttal
One person commented that I don’t understanding how science works. False. I know full well how science works.
Do I expect useful ideas out of this whether or not it solves our alleged existential threat?
Yes I do. But that has little to do with the point I was making.
We have a test in 2039 and alleged existential threat underway that supposedly is too late to fix by 2050.
Today,
we have practical, believable, information that fusion will not be the
holy grail that many hoped for. That fact does not imply I think nothing
useful will come out of this.
The Futility of Wind and Solar Power in One Easy to Understand Picture
Morocco
is the ideal place for both wind power and solar power. It is sunny and
windy. But how do we get energy from Morocco to where it’s needed? At
what cost?
Net Zero Is a Very Unlikely Outcome
More importantly, please consider Sorry Green Energy Fans, Net Zero Is a Very Unlikely Outcome
Let’s
discuss the Kyoto Protocol climate objectives and dozens of reasons why
a net zero by the 2050 target has virtually no chance.
If
you disagree, or even if you don’t, please read the above article and
tell me what we are supposed to do, how we are going to do it, and who
will bear the costs.
Realistically, what should we expect other than total failure of existing goals?
I suggest we are better off pursuing that line of thought than focusing on the mythical unobtanium.
A very long video but quite worth the time. In all our strategic and economic discussions, we tend to forget about energy. This is a huge mistake. Energy and in particular the demand for oil has very little elasticity which means that even a small disruption of demand could have a huge impact on the market and completely disrupt our live. This is a high level discussion with access to experts who usually are behind a paywall. So again, a good interview, nuanced and knowledgeable.
As for climate change, their answer is; "Don't bother arguing!" We're going to use every single drop of oil we can get our hands on, if not in Europe then in China and Indonesia! So whatever you're position, the dices are rolling. Here too, I completely agree.
