Friday, November 8, 2019

Timescales

I am fascinated by time: by the relative time scales of human life and the evolution of Life on Earth and of the Universe. Here below I capture a summary of what I found in my searches to satisfy my fascination.


Timeline Summary
Notation:  yr=years, B=billion,  M=million, k=thousand,  CE=Current-Era, BCE= Before-Current-Era=Before-Christ.   Reference: now (2019)=2019CE = 0 years (we are at about one-half of our Solar system’s projected life).
The Universe was born (Big Bang): -13.8 Byr
Sun evolved: -4.6 Byr
Earth evolved: -4.5 Byr
Life evolved: -3.5 Byr
Apes evolved: -10 Myr
Hominid (Chimpanzees split) evolved: -5.5 Myr
Homo Sapiens evolved: -300 kyr
Agriculture, Social organization, Writing (evolved/invented globally): -10 to -3 kyr
Christianity, European Culture appeared: -2 kyr
Now: 0 yr
Human individual’s lifespan; 100 yr
Possible events to cause the end of Life: 0, 10, 100k yr
Definitive End of Life due to solar evolution: 1 Byr
Definitive End of Sun and solar system due to solar self-consumption: 5 Byr
End of solar evolution: Sun -> Red Giant (5 Byr) -> White dwarf (??) -> Black dwarf (10^15 yr)

End of contact between not-gravitationally-bound clusters, visible Universe shrunk to what is
gravitationally bound, "redding-out", due to not-gravitationally-bound objects receding
from each other in the dark-energy-driven expanding Universe at speeds greater than the
speed of light (cold and empty Universe): few-100 Byr ~ 10^12 yr
Proton half-life: 10^32 yr
End of the Universe: ?? (Never??)


Discussion
Dornbusch’s Law says that events take a long time to evolve, but then they happen faster than expected. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudi_Dornbusch) He formulated this law most likely regarding financial crises, but it applies to many easily observable major natural disasters, global and everyday events. For example, earthquakes, asteroids striking the Earth, bringing water to boil, etc., all obey this law. ( Note: all my repeated internet searches of Dornbusch’s Law, including the above shown Wikipedia reference, ended sending me back to Paul Krugman, who referred to this law in one of his columns. I could not find an original reference source; thus, this maybe Paul Krugman’s Dornbusch’s Law. In any case, whoever’s a law it may be, it is a good description of the evolution of most calamities.)

But what is (are) the timescale(s) of event evolution(s) that matter? It depends!

My love has evolved over the years, my children gestated for 9 months, and they were born over a few hours.

The Universe was born 14 billion years ago, right after The Big Bang. Where the Big Bang came from and how long it took to develop, we do not know. It is a fact accepted by scientific consensus that the Universe was born in a sudden event and has been evolving ever since. (What came before the Big Bang, or what caused it, currently has no definitive scientific understanding; religions are welcome to address the mystery of the Universe before the Big Bang.)
The age of our solar system is about 5 billion years. Thus, the Universe had been evolving for about 9 billion years before it gave birth to our Sun and its associated planetary system, including our Earth.

Life on Earth started about a billion years after the Earth formed. Thus, the Earth evolved for about 1 billion years before it gave birth to Life. It then took several billion more years before the genus Homo evolved.

Mammals appeared on Earth about 200 million years ago. Primates came 75 million, Homo (humans) 2.5 million, Human speech 1.75 million, Homo Sapiens about 0.5 million (or maybe more, if we include the Neanderthals with us) years ago.

Based on an analysis of the genes of 1,200 Sardinian males, we are all descendants of an Adam and an Eve, both the original Eve and the original Adam lived between -200 and -180 kyr. But they were not necessarily contemporaries and very unlikely did they produce us simply together. (https://www.nature.com/news/genetic-adam-and-eve-did-not-live-too-far-apart-in-time-1.13478) In any case, we all share some part of our genes that we inherited from both this Eve and this Adam.

We all have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, or m generations ago we had 2^m forebear. Assuming 4 generations/century, 1,000 years or 40 generations ago we, each of us living today, would have needed to have had 1 trillion forebears. There were not that many people alive 1000 years ago. In fact, in all of history, there were not that many of us humans.

The resolution of this apparent quandary is that our predecessors were interrelated, and we are all related and we all descended from all who lived and had surviving children (about 80 % of the people who lived then) at some point in the past. When was that?

The statistical estimate (Joseph T. Chang: ”Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals”, http://www.stat.yale.edu/~jtc5/papers/Ancestors.pdf) is that if there are n of us today (n=current population), then our most recent common ancestor (MRCA) lived lgn generations ago, where lgn is the base 2 logarithm of n (MRCA=lgn generations). There are about 8 billion of us now. Thus, according to the above formula, our MRCA lived about 33 generations, or about 800 years, ago. The statistical analysis also shows that at a generation 1.77 times MRCA everyone who lived then and reproduced, was our common ancestors (CA=1.77*MRCA generations). Thus, about 56 generations, or 14 centuries ago, or at about year 600, all who lived then and successfully reproduced were our common ancestors; all of us now alive are related, and we all are descendants of them. Of course, all who lived before the above-calculated CE (and had surviving off-springs) were also common ancestors of all of us now living.

Thus, we have scientific proof that we, all of us living today, are descendants of emperors and prophets, as well as of aristocrats, commoners, serfs, and slaves.

But the first Americans already split from their Siberian forebear about 25 thousand years ago. (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2018/11/ancient-dna-reveals-complex-migrations-first-americans/#close). Thus, they can only share common ancestors with Europeans, Asians, and Africans from before about -25 kyr. At that time the population of the Earth was likely to have been significantly less than 10 million, maybe even under 1 million. (https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/international-programs/historical-est-worldpop.html) If we assume that 10 million people lived at -25 kyr, then their CA lived 41 generations, or about 10 centuries (1000 years), before them. Thus, the common ancestors of all us, Europeans, Africans, and Asians together with the original Americans, lived about 26 thousand years ago.

We started growing food for ourselves, instead of simply hunting and gathering it, about 12 thousand years ago. Writing, to keep records and communicate, is 5 thousand years old. Once we knew how to grow our food and how to keep records and communicate, we were ready for social organization.

The earliest known organized societies were in the Nile and Tiger river valleys, they evolved about 5000 years ago.

The Indus Valley and Yellow River Valley civilizations, early India and China, came somewhat, maybe about a thousand years, later.

Mesoamerican civilization evolved on its own, somewhat later than the above four river civilizations. There was no known contact between the Indigenous early Americans and the rest of the world for many thousands of years, till the 15-th century Columbus voyage. Thus, the civilizations that the Conquistadores and pioneers found in the Americas obviously had to evolve on their own.

While in detail these early civilizations were very different from the modern civilization of our current times, in general outlines how we now live, our society, is a direct result of evolution from these early civilizations. If again we assume that in a century about 4 successive generations of humans follow each other, then our modern social organization spans about 2000 generations.

I personally, before I die, will have known 5 generations: I knew 3 of my 4 grandparents and probably I know already all my grandchildren. I am now 81 years old; I shared a snippet of my grandparents’ lives and will share most likely a snippet of my grandchildren’s lives. All my grandparents were born in the 19-th century and all my grandchildren in the 21-st. Thus 4 generations per century seem to be true for me too, even though I came from a family of late bloomers. (My paternal grandfather was close to 50 when my father was born, my father was 50 when I did, and I was 40 when my son was born; on maternal lines, we delayed less, my grandmothers and mother were all born to much younger mothers than were we men to our older fathers). Thus, I have lived already, and thus before I die I am likely to will have lived, for about 1/500-th, or close to 0.2% of all generations that lived since human communities evolved into organized societies, since the concept of society was formed, and ever since it existed.

The Industrial Revolution was started about 250 years ago by the steam engine of James Watts. About 100 years later the invention of the Otto engine initiated the widespread deployment of the internal combustion engine. These two inventions led to a rate of utilization of fossil fuels, coal and oil and later natural gas, that the Earth’s biosphere cannot support.

Currently, humanity’s ecological footprint significantly exceeds the biocapacity of our Earth. The last year when the Earth was able to meet humanity’s growing need was 1970, or -49yr. ( https://data.footprintnetwork.org )   For the past half-a-century, we have been consuming more than the Earth can support.

Carbon is the main culprit.  Fossil fuels produce more CO2 than the photosynthesis of all the Earth’s plants can recycle. Currently, we would need about 1.7-times the available biocapacity to support us, i.e., to continue living as we currently do, we would need a 1.7-times bigger Earth than the one we have. Without Carbon use, we would only need about 70 % of the available biocapacity to support us. However, for sustainable recycling of the Carbon we now use, we would need a full Earth; as if, we just stopped eating and living, then we could continue to burn all fossil fuels at the rate we now do. Since we can’t stop eating, we must cut back on fossil fuel use.

This excessive fossil use results in an accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere that results in a greenhouse effect, that leads to global warming. Global warming leads to environmental changes that bring disasters to human habitats globally. Unless we rapidly convert to renewable energy sources, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and/or deploy large-scale CO2 sequestration, major disasters are expected within the next few decades, certainly within the next century. Starting with melting glaciers and rising sea levels, followed by food shortages and massive population displacements, Life on Earth will massively change for the worse. Our species, much diminished in numbers and with a much-changed lifestyle, may survive, but not society as we know it.

Let us not kill ourselves, not with environmental disasters, not by violent means. We, humans, can kill ourselves totally today. Using our nuclear weapons capability, we have the means to extinguish ourselves. Our ultimate destiny on Earth is our extinction due to predictable natural causes, but we do not need to hurry up the process.

The Sun will exhaust its Hydrogen energy supply and expand into a Red Giant in about 5 billion years. At that time, it will envelop the Earth, but the Earth is likely to become uninhabitable by humans much earlier. Assuming no man-made, or nature induced catastrophic events, human Life is expected to end on Earth (and on any nearby planet, should their colonization occur) in less than 1 billion years due to the natural life-cycle of the Sun and its solar system. That is a definitive and unstoppable “end of our World” event. Other, man-made or natural Life-extinguishing events may occur sooner, such as massive tectonic plate movements and earthquakes, or asteroid collisions, maybe within this century or within a few millennia. But the definite end of our solar system is predictable, and this prediction stands on no weaker foundation than the well-substantiated most-fundamental law of conservation of energy.

All physical processes either consume or produce energy. Life is a physical process that consumes energy.  Energy is needed to sustain all Life and this energy is provided by the Sun. Life on Earth depends on the steady insolation of about 1 kW/m^2 reaching the surface of the Earth; much less than this, we would freeze, much more, we would boil or burn.

In the process of producing energy, inexorably the Sun consumes itself. It consumes continuously its Hydrogen, in which its energy is stored. In this consumption, the stored energy is released by Hydrogen fusion. This fusion energy is converted into radiation (Sunshine) that is radiated out and lost into space; some of this radiation reaches Earth and this is our Life-sustaining insolation. Eventually, all the Sun’s stored energy will be consumed, radiated away, and there will be no energy to support Life on Earth.

It is a curious fact that in this process before everything goes cold, the Sun’s heating of Earth will increase. It is this heating that will kill all Life on Earth in less than 1 billion years from now. As the Sun consumes itself, its gravitational force decreases. Because the decreased gravitational force the radius (size/volume) of the still-hot Sun grows and this results in increased insolation on Earth. This will increase the surface temperature on Earth to a level where Life will not be sustainable. (Note: now our comfort zone is around a temperature of 300 degrees K, at 373 K water boils; at boiling temperature no Life as we know it survives.) The temperature of our Earth is expected to rise much above boiling.

Long after Life has ended, in about 3.5 billion years from now, before our Sun completely disappears, this growth leads to its evolution into a Red Giant that will embrace our Earth. This Red Giant then will morph into a hot White Dwarf, which will be followed by a cold Black Dwarf in the evolving Universe.

The ultimate end of the Universe is not known. Clearly, every star, like our Sun, progressively consumes itself. The very big ones turn into giant Black Holes, the smaller ones into Black Dwarfs.

According to some theories, ultimately even elementary particles, like protons, and also electrons, decay. Black holes also evaporate eventually. What will be left then? TBD.

Sunday, October 6, 2019

Changing "isms"


Notes on changing “isms”


I was born into semi feudalism, was a small child in fascism, grew up in communism, and then studied and worked and raised a family and retired in capitalism.

Fascism ended by starting and then losing the Second World War. Communism of the Soviet-type lost and died by not being able to compete with American capitalism. A new version of communism is practiced in China and it is currently gaining more and more momentum. They practice the totalitarian political authority of the Communist Party much like the Soviet Union did, but pursue an economy much like American capitalism. In fact,  China now mostly looks like crony capitalism, probably beyond that what is practiced in the USA.  Thus, the Chinese version of capitalism, or capitalistic communism, or communistic capitalism, is still growing. But it still has a way to grow before it catches up with American capitalism, according to the traditional measures of progress based on a nation's wealth, military power, and technical innovations. In many ways, China is still copying the USA, but it is rapidly moving forward and can be expected to catch up in the not very distant future. 

America is still the number one Global power. It is still the leader in global innovation and provides its citizens with one of the highest living standards available anywhere on the Globe. Nevertheless, there are significant signs that not everything is well.  In the course of the last quarter of a century, and possibly even somewhat longer, significant income inequality has developed. Unprecedented wealth has been accumulated by the richest members of society, while the median income has not moved, and the lower-income members of American society have seen their incomes progressively decline. 

The growing inequality is not a purely American phenomenon. As China's economy grew, equality in China has been growing too, and as measured by the Gini index, it now exceeds that in the USA. (https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SI.POV.GINI/rankings)

In all societies of traditional “isms” labor was essential, the social-economic system recognized its importance and at various times it rewarded it, sometimes well. Possibly the best period for labor in America, and probably anywhere in all human history, was the first two decades, or so, after the Second World War in the USA.* In the post-war years traditional industries in America operated in full swing. Coal mining, steel, construction, and pretty much all traditional industries were doing well, and labor enjoyed the benefits accorded them for their efforts. Much of the income and job security that labor enjoyed during that period may have been the result of strong unions representing them. In any case, during that post-war period, American society recognized the value of labor. Then things began to change. First globalization, supported and driven by new developments in transportation and communications, moved much of the labor needed to make things offshore from America. Then technological changes started to obviate much of the traditional need for labor. Much needed environmental mandates and the cost-effective evolution of renewable energy resources are rendering coal mining part of history fulfilling no economic need. Automation and AI are progressively replacing labor in most manufacturing industries. Construction is also changing. I met an SW programmer, someone who studied in a junior college and first became a master welder in the building industries. Then one day his boss called him in and told him that he either goes back to school and learns how to program automated welders or he can go off on unemployment to look for opportunities elsewhere. Obviously, he accepted the offer to go back to school and became a programmer. First, he programmed welders welding steel-reinforced structures, then eventually left the building industries and when I met him, he was programming for a publisher.

Currently, people studying the STEM professions (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), are faring reasonably well. Especially with advanced degrees and working in the areas of high current demand, these professionals can earn a very good living and become part of the upper few percent on the income scale. Also, individuals who by lucky coincidence think of a breakthrough idea, are in the right place and have the right contacts, and the needed capabilities fare extremely well and in fact, they are the ones who occupy the upper fractional percent on the income and wealth scale. As the well-known founders of well-known tech companies have shown, it is nowadays possible to earn not only millions of dollars but also a billion per year, year after year. In this ongoing process that rewards a few winners, most members of society are left behind, and their services become superfluous more and more.

Thus, we are now moving in a direction of historical social evolution where traditional labor is progressively becoming unnecessary, and thus it is unlikely to be rewarded.

With continuous technological development, especially that of robotics and AI, what is now true for labor will likely be true also for most professions. Thus no one will be safe for a lifetime holding onto and deploying learned useful skills. What is already true for most people in our society, will be true for all of us soon.

We must, need to, invent new social concepts such that human dignity and the right to life and well-being are still recognized and guaranteed when no one's skills and commitment to hard work can be assumed to be needed for a lifetime. With our automated activities we will be able to produce enough to feed, house, and in general maintain all humans who may be living close to a full century, without most people participating in activities that provide the means for meeting these needs.

Of course, I assume that we will have managed successfully the evolving environmental crisis of our own creation. While solving the environmental problems is very difficult, we do have a reasonably good idea of how to do it. We need the political will and society’s commitment to complete this task. The social restructuring that is necessary to establish a new more egalitarian society is a different story. How to organize a new “labor-less” society, and how to share and distribute the goods that are produced by this automated society is something nobody yet knows, and certainly, I do not have any clear idea even how to approach it. But it must be done. Unless we do it the world will face cataclysmic events that we have never seen before in our history.  And these cataclysmic events will certainly lead to the end of history as we know it, if not to the end of mankind.

*Note
While for labor the decades following the Second World War may have been the best, ever and anywhere, American society did not practice integrated inclusivity then. Strong and at times very violent discrimination according to race and gender preferences was practiced. In the 1950s and 60s, it would have been inconceivable to elect an African American to be president. In 2008 that is exactly what happened when Barack Obama was elected to be the first African American president of the United States. The first black Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall was appointed to the Supreme Court 22 years after the end of World War 2, in the same year that the first black senator since Reconstruction was elected to the US Congress.  Currently, we have four African Americans serving in the US Senate. The explicit discriminatory practices in the 1950s and early 60s (up until the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), widely practiced nationwide but especially in some of the southern states, e.g. Alabama and Mississippi, would be inconceivable and are bordering on the incomprehensible today. We now have officeholders and candidates for the highest offices in the country who are Hispanics, Blacks, Asian Americans, as well as Whites. We also have openly gay and transgender candidates and high officeholders.  - -  It is a surprising fact that as labor lost out and income inequality exploded, American society has become more inclusive. Is this a law of human behavior, is it part of our nature? I do not know, and I do not think that it matters much. It is an observable fact. But it is also an observable fact that as society has become more inclusive, populism (another “ism”), drawing on our discriminatory lower instincts, has become a recognizable significant force in our political theater. As most of us enjoy giving and receiving greater inclusivity, some of us feel left out and focus on excluding those who we feel are responsible for us being left out.

Saturday, October 5, 2019

Some Reflections


 San Francisco, CA  July 25 and October 5, 2019
SOME REFLECTIONS THE DAY AFTER
AND THEN SOME LATER

Major takeaways from the Robert Mueller, Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice, overseeing the investigation into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and related matters, Congressional testimony on July 24th, 2019:
  • Following the Department of Justice instructions, there were no investigations related to indictment.
  • The investigation did not find the president innocent of Obstruction of Justice.
  • Accepting aid from a foreign power to gain an advantage in an election is not only unethical, but it is also a crime.
  • Even though a sitting president cannot be indicted, after leaving office an individual who was previously president can be indicted. 
  • The Russians did interfere in the 2016 presidential elections and they continue their attempts to influence our political process. This should be a major concern do all Americans, so stated special counsel Mueller in his testimony. (Note that following shortly this Congressional testimony, majority leader Mitch McConnell did not even allow to bring to vote in the Senate a bill proposed to address the Russian interference problem.)

Also noteworthy:

Following the testimony, the authors of news items posted on the web appear to have heard two different versions of the same event. Some, mostly Fox and others aligning on the right, indicate that in their opinion the testimony was a major failure for the Democrats, it exonerated the President and nothing new was said. Yet others tend to align themselves more with the Democrats and the left, emphasizing the takeaway elements I listed above. While political persuasion may have dominated some of this perception split, a media component may have had a significant role too.

According to a news analysis I saw on the Internet, the Mueller testimony had certainly similarities to the Nixon-Kennedy debates that took place prior to the 1960 presidential elections. In both cases what people heard depended on the media through which they received the message. Back in 1960, some listened to the debate on the radio, while others watched it on television. Those who listened to the radio felt for sure that Nixon won. They heard Dick Nixon's clear voice that had none of the strong regional accent that so strongly characterized Jack Kennedy's way of speaking. Those watching television were convinced that Kennedy was the doubtless winner. They saw the youthful relaxed Kennedy standing against a sweaty Nixon exhibiting a nervous body language.  In the aftermath of the Mueller Congressional testimony, there also appear to be two camps of perception. Those who watched the entire 5-hour testimony appear to have focused on Mueller‘s style that lacked charisma, and on his unwillingness to answer questions close to 200 times. Those who watched only the highlights presented on some TV news channels after the debates were over, or read articles published on the web, tend to consider the testimony a major historical event and credit the Democrats with significant gains.

And then some notes two-and-a-half months later:
And then in September, about two-and-a-half months after the Mueller testimony, we find out that the day after that testimony (the very same day I wrote the above “takeaways”) Trump was engaged in trying to pressure a newly elected president of Ukraine to start an investigation against Joe Biden, Trump’s front running Democrat opponent in the forthcoming 2020 elections. This now triggered an impeachment inquiry in the Democratic Party-controlled House and an impeachment is highly likely to follow. Will the Republican Party-controlled Senate then find him guilty? Not likely. Though Trump’s strange behavior gets more bizarre daily (House of Representatives member Adam Schiff should be tried for treason, Chine should investigate Joe Biden, Mitt Romney should be impeached, etc...), his base (close to half the country) still has not abandoned him. But nothing is for sure, things evolve slowly and then happen faster than expected.

Saturday, July 13, 2019

What to do with symbols of shame?


Reflections on some public discussions ongoing  in San Francisco in the Summer of 2019.


Most societies commit shameful acts, including enslavement and colonization. Some societies, sometimes glorify their shameful acts, capturing them in paintings as victorious activities of their hallowed leaders, maybe showing perpetrators and victims together. As new generation replace the old ones, such objects of remembrance can serve useful purpose: they remind us of the sins and the pains of our forebear and could help us to avoid new age cruelties.

Some who identify with the victims may find these objects very offensive, others who identify as descendants of the perpetrators may find them very upsetting. Neither group wants regular exposure to such memorabilia.

This problem gets especially complicated when perpetrators and heroes may be the same people, or pride and shame appear together in valued documents and/or artifacts. For instance, the Declaration of Independence refers to Native Americans in a derogatory manner. It contains: “the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions”.  The Declaration of Independence is probably the most honored historic document in the USA; nevertheless, such language is totally unacceptable in the 21st century. Furthermore, most of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence were slave owners, including Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, both heroic figures by most accounts. Recently there was much discussion about a large mural in a San Francisco high school that depicts George Washington together with some Native Americans and slaves; both the Native Americans and the slaves are represented in a manner that today most people find objectionable and offensive.

How do we avoid offending and upsetting the current generation with the images of the sins of the past, but retaining their useful purpose (and their possible artistic value)? The answer is simple: retain the objects under appropriately guarded and described conditions and show them publicly for appropriate educational and artistic purposes.

There are some successful examples where shames of the past were successfully saved and are being used to remind us of the past that has not always been happy or to be proud of. In Budapest, Hungary in 1956 there was a popular uprising that started with an angry mob dismantling a large statue of the much-despised Soviet dictator Stalin. That uprising failed and all over the city of Budapest many statues of communist heroes disliked by the population remained and many more were still erected between 1956 and the collapse of the evil empire in 1990. These much-hated symbols of an unhappy and painful past were collected into an outdoor exhibit, named Memento Park, located on the outskirt of Budapest and are now available to be visited as historic reminders of the sad, painful and hateful past most are happy to see gone. Likewise, there is a Holocaust memorial outside the Legion of Honor museum in San Francisco and this memorial includes a display listing all the Nazi camps where Jews were interned and murdered over the shameful period that lasted more than a decade, from 1933 to 1945. On a typical day one may see people from all over the world standing in front of this display and reading slowly the names of one horror place after the other; the readers are clearly not rejoicing, nor celebrating, but deeply reflecting.

History cannot be rewritten. The shames of the past cannot be erased, nor totally hidden. They must be preserved as reminders of a part of history that is never to be repeated. 




Friday, June 14, 2019

European Reflections, Spring 2019.


Where to? Reflections on Europe, Spring 2019.

The European Union (EU) is holding EU parliamentary elections every 5 years in all member states and 2019 is election year. The elections are held in late May. This Spring I spent nearly two months in Budapest, Hungary, where I was born, the city I left as a migrant refugee more than sixty years ago. Hungary is an EU member state. In Budapest there was a feverish electioneering pitch, much of it driven by spokesmen for the ruling FIDESZ party of the populist prime-minister Orban. This pitch dominated the press, TV, and posted public space advertisements.


In summary: the Hungarian government and ruling party are pro-Trump and are Eurosceptics. They proudly proclaim illiberal democracy and rail against progressive liberals. They view everything that the Obama administration did in Washington, and all the EU administration thus far has done in Brussels, as failures, damaging a Christian European tradition that the good try to protect (mostly against migrants and all ills that progressive ideas may lead to).
One daily paper is Magyar Nemzet, which during my stay in Budapest I digested  daily to gain a better understanding of local trends and feelings.Two articles caught my attention. One appeared on May 10, p.12, and the other on May 11, p.10. The first one addressed global food production concerns, it contained detailed data on the agricultural productivity of all EU member states. The second one expressed an opinion that the progressively ascending Eastern-Europe (referred to in the locally  preferred style as Central-Europe) will defend the weakening West even “against itself”.

Having read these thought-provoking articles, I got interested in collecting some economics facts that would allow me a comparative assessment of the EU countries for a better understanding of the well-being in the EU of East vs. West, and also ot the EU vs. the rest of the World. Some of my quantitative findings are in Tables 1, 2, and 3.

The first table presents some details on the agriculture, budgets, and human development levels of the individual EU states. Here the budget refers to the EU “common” budget, into which all EU states contribute and from which they receive funding for specific purposes. This common EU budget is about 1 % of the EU GDP and about 2 % of its aggregate public spending. The measure for human development I use here is the Human Development Index (HDI) published by the UN. It is a metric that combines life expectancy, education, and income.

Table 2 provides basic GDP and ecological performance comparisons of the major global contenders, plus Hungary’s own standing by the same measures. The ecological indicator I employ here is the percentage surplus or (deficit) of the space that is needed to support each country’s activity (food, industry, etc.); it is obtained from the ratio of the space needed (known as the ecological footprint) divided by the sustainably available space (biocapacity). When this ratio equals 1 (0 % ecological footprint overshoot), life is marginally sustainable; when it is <1, life is sustainable (positive % overshoot); when it is >1 (negative % overshoot), more natural resources are consumed than are available renewably from the biosphere and life in the current style in the long run is not sustainable. For example in Table 1, the USA is shown with -131 % overshoot, meaning that to accommodate sustainably the current human activities of the USA would require an area 131 % larger than what is available for such activities from the biosphere located in the USA.

Table 3 focuses on the economic performance (GDP) of the 11 Eastern European member states of the EU that were formerly communist states, either as part of the Soviet Union or as satellites thereof. This table also provides GDP data for the EU as well as the Global total.

From the data in Table 1 we conclude that the supposedly “weakened” West does provide direct financial support to the “ascending” Eastern Europe. Specifically, from the available 2017 budget data, the Eastern European states paid 8.7 Be (Billion euros) into the EU budget and received 31.2 Be from it. Specifically Hungary paid in about 0.8 Be and received over 4 Be, thus it net benefitted over 3 Be from the ”weakened” West’s largess. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that in 2017 the Hungarian GDP was 125 Be and its Government budget was about 60 Be. Thus the Western EU states subsidized Hungary to the tune of about 3 % of its GDP and 5 % of its Government activities.

Table 1 also suggests significant agricultural shortfalls in Eastern vs. Western Europe. Using the data from the above referenced May 10 Hungarian newspaper article, the table shows for each of the 28 EU countries their total agri-cultivated area (measured in kH, where 1 kH = 1,000 Hectares) and its percentage contribution to the total EU agricultural production. From this it is easy to calculate an EU agricultural productivity index, kH/1%, that measures the average area in each country that would be required to produce 1 % of the EU’s total. From this we see that in Eastern Europe about 3,000 kH (3 million Hectares) is needed to produce 1 % of the EU’s total, while in Western Europe less than half of that is sufficient.

Furthermore, It is interesting to note from Table 1 that while 15 Western states (out of the 17) have higher HDI than 10 (out of the 11) Eastern ones (Slovenia is ahead of Italy and Greece), from a global perspective all 28 EU states are closely clustered. Even though Russia’s exceeds the HDI of the least developed EU states (Romania and Bulgaria), out of 189 countries listed in the 2018 UN report, more than 150 have HDIs below that of the lowest in the EU.

Analysis of the data presented in Table 3 shows that the 11 Eastern European (ex-Communist) states have 20 % of the population, produce 8 % of the nominal and 14 % of the PPP GDP of the EU. Furthermore, these 11 countries on the average show 42 % nominal and 71 % PPP GDP/Cap of the average overall EU levels. But globally they are above average: their PPP based GDP/Cap is close to twice that of the Global average. Thus, they are poor by EU standards, but well off with respect to the rest of the World.

The problem of Global Warming is well documented and is recognized to be caused by human activities. While climate deniers ( most notably President Trump of the USA and some of his followers) do exist, the scientific consensus is that this is anthropogenic and is a major threat to humanity and to life on Earth in general. The analysis based on ecological footprint calculations shows that since the late 1960s mankind has used more of the Earth’s biocapacity than is available. Man’s use now exceeds Earth’s biocapacity by 64 %. The growing dominant factor is the insufficient biocapacity to sustainably recycle Carbon. Carbon now represents over 60% of the total human ecological footprint and is the principal driver of Global Warming. As Table 2 indicates, all major economies (except Russia with its mostly empty Siberia) have significant negative overshoots. The current situation is bad and it is likely to get worse. There are several reasons for this: 1) the ongoing shortfall causes a progressive reduction of available biocapacity; 2) as developing countries progress, they tend to use more natural resources; 3) by 2100 the global population is expected to grow by 3.5 Billion people, a 45 % increase.

There is no greater technical priority for humankind than ending our dependence for energy on Carbon. No efforts should be spared from making the transition from Carbon to sustainable energy resources, which today are solar PV and wind, backed up by nuclear. These are well established technologies; switching to them requires commitment and investment. Major research and development efforts should be initiated in energy storage technologies. With sufficient commitment the impending anthropogenic environmental disaster can be mitigated, and possibly even prevented.

Much has been discussed about migration.Some predicted that the 2019 European Parliamentary elections are a referendum on how to deal with migration. Some want to build walls, others want to offer welcoming subsidies. Both of these may provide solutions for locally specific problems of today, but are not likely to provide solutions to Europe’s long term migration problem. A fence at Hungary’s Southern border forced migrants who did not want to stay, to pass by and not through. An open arms German policy welcoming Turks and others helped to solve a labor shortage problem. But what has happened thus far is nothing in comparison to what can be expected in the remainder of this century and in the next one. Immigration (and thus emigration) are driven by politics, demographics, economics, and environmental changes. They are accelerated/retarded by geographic relationships. All of these observable forces and factors indicate that Europe is likely to face an onslaught that had not been seen in millennia. By year 2100 Africa’s population is predicted to increase by more than 3 billion people (to 4.5 billion) whose life’s sustainability is highly uncertain; while affluent Europe’s population is forecast to decrease by about 100 million (to 650 million). None of the currently discussed, and mostly mutually opposing ideas, are likely to resolve this major demographic issue to everyone’s satisfaction. (As a wise optimist recently told me: “we humans have always invented our way out from problems that faced us, we will do so again, this time we may lose a billion people here, another billion there…”.)

Today we may argue, but the generations following us will have to face the problems: environmental sustainability and migration. In fact, they are not separable problems.

Who is weakening: mankind?


Appendix: Some closing thoughts and surprising realities

Much of the publicly displayed venom in the pre-election political advertisements of the Hungarian ruling party was directed at the “unelected” EU functionaries in Brussels. In fact, these functionaries are led by the European Commission. The Commission has 28 members and one member comes from each of the 28 member states of the EU. They are individually proposed by the Council of the European Union (popularly elected representatives of the  member states) and as a group are approved by the European Parliament (also elected directly by the citizens of the member states). The Commission and the associated cabinets function much like the executive branch of a government responsible for the common affairs of the EU.

A recent ECFR survey revealed some surprising public attitudes.
Hungarians (and also Romanians and Poles) see their European identity overwhelmingly  more important than their own nationality (Scandinavians have a more balanced view of their identity).
Hungarians (and also Romanians and Poles) are more worried about emigration than about immigration (Scandinavians are the other way around).
In Hungary, 43% of the people feel that their country is broken and only 22% feels that both the EU and their own country works (in Romania and Poland the numbers are different, but the trend is the same; in Scandinavia the trend is the opposite, there more people feel that both work than those who feel that their country is broken).

The European parliamentary elections are over and contrary some prediction, it was not a referendum on migration; migration was not the overwhelming deciding issue. The results show an increasing polarization and shallowing of the center. In Hungary the governing FIDESZ party got majority, but its position (and that of its leader, Prime-minister Victor Orban) weakened in the EU.


TABLE1

TABLE 2

TABLE 3


Sources:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/external/html/budgetataglance/default_en.html#denmark The EU budget at a glance  (payments to and from the EU)  - - From Wikipedia on May 14, 2019: The European Union has a budget to finance for policies carried out at European level (such as agriculture, regional development, space, trans-European networks, research and innovation, health, education and culture, migration, border protection and humanitarian aid).
https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/glossary/#biocapacity    Glossary of terms related to biocapacity
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6583e.pdf   The future of food and agriculture: Trends and challenges   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint    List of countries by ecological footprint
http://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/     Ecological Footprint Explorer (footprint and biocapacity by country, per person, plus related data and explanation)
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/7/3/58/htm  Article Ecological Footprint Accounting for Countries: Updates and Results of the National Footprint Accounts, 2012–201
https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth  World Population Growth, by Max Roser, Hannah Ritchie and Esteban Ortiz-Ospina, First published in 2013; most recent substantial revision in May 2019.
statisticstimes.com/economy/european-countries-by-gdp.php  European GDPs 2018 https://www.ecfr.eu/specials/what_europeans_really_want_five_myths_debunked European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), report dated April 2019, “What Europeans Really Want….”