Monday, July 6, 2020

The Energy Transition: Who has the right to speak?

Italy is not a windy country and it relies mainly on the sun for its renewable energy. Nevertheless, some spots of the Appennini mountains are swept by enough wind to make it possible to build wind plants. In the picture, you see the wind farm of Montemignaio, not far from Florence, where one of the first large wind plants in Italy was built, already in 2001. It has been working beautifully for nearly 20 years. Other wind plants are planned in Italy, but a strong local opposition and a lack of long-term vision at the national level make their construction difficult and slow.

While the ecosystem starts showing signs of collapse, we desperately need to do something to promote the renewable energy transition. But we seem to be stuck: blocked by science denial, political polarization, sheer ignorance, and slick propaganda. Mostly, what we need seems to be a new way of seeing priorities in a world dominated by financial profits only. But, as the situation becomes worse, we seem to be retreating more and more into obsolete views where everyone sees nothing but their personal short-term interests. In the text below, you can find the transcription of a speech given by Professor Andrea Pase of the University of Padua in an ongoing debate on the advisability of building a wind power plant on the Apennines, in Italy.
Pase masterfully identified a key element in the question: scale, both spatial and temporal. The same concept applies to many other public utilities. Who has the right to speak about a new, planned infrastructure? It often happens that the inhabitants of the affected territories engage in defending what they see as "their" land. But does this mean that the other Italian citizens, engaged in promoting what they think is good for the whole society should not have a say in the matter? Here, Pase broadens his vision to include even those who are not yet born, as well as polar bears, raptors, and salamanders, threatened by global warming that will wipe them out, as it will wipe us all out if we do not find a way to stop burning fossil fuels. 

A beautiful speech, enjoy reading it! (UB)

Translated from the Italian text that appeared on the "Effetto Cassandra" blog

Good evening, Mr. President. Good evening to all of you.

My name is Andrea Pase. I am a geographer of the University of Padua. I deal mainly with Sub-Saharan Africa, I do research in the Sahel: from Senegal to Sudan, through Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Nigeria, Chad.

You will rightly wonder why I participate in this public inquiry, what I have to do with Mount Giogo.

I'm here to try to explain.

I start by expressing a dissenting opinion with regard to what was said in the last debate, if I understood correctly, by a political scientist, Professor Donatella Della Porta, when she said that the telematic mode undermines this public inquiry because it allows many people, perhaps too many, who are not inhabitants of the area, to express their opinion. And that is seen as a profound distortion of the debate. The real problem was thus put on the table: who really has the right to express their opinion on this project?

On the other hand, I fully agree with what my colleague said: the ridge is a "commons". But what border does that commons have? How far does the community we are talking about extend? Is it only about the people who live in Mugello, or in the two municipalities of Vicchio and Dicomano, or does it include only the inhabitants of Villore and Corella?

Whose wind is the wind blowing across the ridge? To whom does the water falling on the Apennine slopes belong?

There is a problem and the problem is that of scale: a classic geographical theme.

The scale actually creates the phenomena: the choice of the scale, first of all the spatial one, is fundamental to identify different aspects of an issue: what is to be included or excluded from the calculation of costs and benefits? One thing to think only in terms of the local scale, another is to think on a national scale and another about the global scale.

The communities convened change depending on the scale chosen. And it is a political and ethical choice, as well as cognitive.

Then there is also the time scale to consider: to whom do we turn? Only to those who live today or even to those who will live tomorrow?

A Nigerian leader questioned in 1912 claimed that the earth belongs to a community of which many members have died, few are alive, and infinite numbers have yet to be born.

I would like to call into this inquiry many voices that have not yet been heard, at different spatial and temporal scales.

I would like to call on the inhabitants of the small oceanic islands that the rise of the sea due to climate warming puts at the risk of disappearance. Not many people, you tell me. Well, then I summon the inhabitants of the great river deltas of the world: the Nile, the Ganges, the Mississippi, the Yangtse, hundreds of millions of people, who are also exposed to more and more frequent floods. Then I call to witness the people of the Sahel, whose faces I have met many times. Climate change multiplies extreme weather events, violent rains, and droughts, complicating their already not simple life.

But then I also summon the non-humans, and not just the raptors and salamanders of the Apennines, I summon the polar bears, I summon the hundreds of animal and plant species at risk of extinction, because of the impact of climate change. I also call to witness the inanimate world, the glaciers that are disappearing.

I would like, again, to summon our grandchildren, those who are small and those who have not yet been born, to ask them what they expect from us.

Everything is connected, we cannot cut out a single place from the world in which it is inserted, from the time it starts, we must assume awareness and responsibility that every choice, however small, has repercussions on other scales. And also the choice we are talking about today: please bear in mind all those we have called to testify tonight. To keep in mind the different spatial and temporal scales involved.

"Scale conflicts", as anthropologist Eriksen says, are inevitable in a globalized world: each solution has different outcomes at different scales. It is not simple, but it is essential to try to make dialogue between the different scales: global emergencies and local situations, the rights of the living, and of those who still have to arrive on our land.

I close by telling you where I'm talking from, that is, by explaining to you that one and a half kilometers from my house, there is one of the largest plants for the treatment of the wet part of the waste of the whole Po Valley. I assure you that it is not pleasant, especially in the summer. But managing waste is another major environmental challenge. It is not convenient for me to have this implant within reach of my nose. I have to tell you, I'd rather have a wind farm. Everyone, however, can only do his part.

I am available to any deepening, gladly coming in person to Vicchio and Dicomano, or even better to Villore and Corella, maybe guest of some of the inhabitants. As a geographer, I love the territory.

Thank you, and have a good work.


Andrea Pase's professional page

The planned wind plant on the Appennini Mountains

Friday, July 3, 2020

The ten worst predictions in history: learning from past mistakes

  Ugo Bardi experiments with new predictive methods.

This post was inspired mainly by the shock I had with the various failed attempts to predict the outcome of the Covid-19 epidemic. It was truly a sobering experience: bad predictions, clueless politicians, arrogant scientists, idiotic journalists, and more. It made me doubt of the usefulness of models in general. I think we are doing several (too many) things wrong with the way we use models and (sometimes) we trust them. I'll be discussing more on this subject in future posts, for the time being, here is a list of failed predictions that I think can teach us something.

1. Coronavirus Deaths. In 2020, the model developed in large part by Neil Ferguson at the Imperial College in London was the main element that led the British government to engage in a strict "lockdown" policy to avoid the hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of deaths that the model predicted as a result of the COVID-19 disease. Most European States followed suit. It is still early to evaluate how the real world followed the model but, if we look at the result proposed in the "Report n. 9", we see that the model was clearly overly pessimistic. The authors of the model defended their work saying that their prediction of doom was just one of several scenarios, which is correct, but weak as a defense. In the future, we'll be able to say if Europeans truly wrecked their economies for nothing but, for the time being, the coronavirus experience can be seen as a sobering experience on the limits of the models as predictive tools.

2. The Population Bomb. In 1968, Paul Erlich and his wife Anne wrote a book titled "The Population Bomb." To say that it was catastrophistic is a little of an understatement. It is known to have contained the sentence  In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. As we all know, that didn't happen. Instead, the 1970s ushered an era of apparent abundance in the food supply that led to a rapid increase in the human population. Yet, The Erlichs' prediction may not have been so bad, at least in qualitative terms. In reality, the current population is so large that if a new famine comes, it will cause the death of not just "hundreds of millions of people" but, likely, billions of them. You might argue that the present situation is much more dangerous in terms of risks of famines than it was half a century ago, when the world's food supply was not so critically linked to the supply of fossil fuels as it is today. This story illustrates once again how difficult it is to use models for quantitative predictions, even though they may be qualitatively good. 

3. Julian Simon's 7 billion years of prosperity. In 1994, Julian Simon wrote, "We now have in our hands in our libraries, really the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy to an ever-growing population for the next 7 billion years... " (Myers, N., and Julian Simon. (1994): Scarcity or Abundance, New York: Norton.). In reality, we are reaching the limits of our capabilities of doing that just now. We may conclude that Simon was off of some 7 billion years. It was a ridiculous idea from the beginning but, at least, it shows to us that there is no limit to how wrong you can be with your predictions!

4. Too much oil. In 1999, the respectable (so to say) "Economist" magazine published a leader titled "Drowning in Oil" where it was argued that the prices of oil were going to become so low that they would damage the economy, literally "drowning it in oil." The authors went on proposing that the oil price could soon go down to 10 dollars per barrel and perhaps even to 5 dollars per barrel. Needless to say, the trend was exactly the opposite, with oil prices starting a sustained rally that took them all the way up to some 150 dollars per barrel in 2008. Curiously, oil prices did plunge, briefly, to "negative" values in 2020, but if this is what the Economist authors were thinking, they were 20 years off with their prediction! This story is just one of the many disasters that ensued when someone tried to predict the vagaries of prices, even in a not so remote future. Prices are so strictly linked to human whim and perception that it seems to be simply impossible to predict them.

5. The Great Horse Manure Crisis. It is said that, in 1894, The Times newspaper predicted… “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of horse manure.” This prediction was obviously wrong, as reported and it is often used to poke fun at those silly catastrophists. But, in reality, there is no trace in the archives of "The Times" that it was ever uttered, it is a piece of fake news.  This story illustrates that you can be wrong even with a non-existing prediction!

6. The Wargame that lost the war for Japan.  It is known that, before the start of WW2, the Japanese admiralty engaged in a series of simulation games destined to determine the possible outcome of a war against the United States. It is reported that when one of these simulations was leading to a crushing defeat for the Japanese forces, the umpires (or perhaps Admiral Yamamoto himself) ordered two Japanese carriers "refloated," so that the game ended with a Japanese victory. The story of the refloated carriers is probably a legend, at least in part, but it is true that the Japanese wouldn't have engaged in the war against the US hadn't they had some kind of evidence that they could have won. It shows how dangerous it is to trust models for systems that have a binary outcome.

7. The Peace Dividend. In the 1990s, with the Soviet Union defeated and gone, some people thought that there was no more justification for the gigantic and cumbersome military apparatus that the Western Empire (officially) maintained as a defense against Communism. So, they thought it could be dismantled and the money saved distributed to the people. That was called the "peace dividend." Alas, that idea now looks as remote as the fall of the Roman Empire. Soon, there came the 9/11 attacks and the military apparatus was beefed up even more. Those who had proposed the idea of a peace dividend never realized that nobody ever made money on peace. And, as you see, it is rarely a good idea to think that people will behave in ways that make them lose money.

8. Nibiru. The story of the planet Niburu that should impact on Earth appeared for the first time in 1995, diffused by Nancy Lieder. The first predictions said the cataclysm should have been in 2003, but the best-known prediction indicated 2012 as the fatal year, something that gained a certain notoriety and a number of followers. Of course, nothing happened in 2012, so the date of the impact has been progressively moved onward, but the whole story seems to have lost interest -- as it should have. At least, this story tells us that wrong predictions may be a lot of fun and cause little damage. 

9. The Solow-Swan model. In the 1950s, Robert Solow proposed a model for the US economy based on a simple formula that generated exponential growth. The model came to be known as the "Solow-Swan" model.  There was no term in the model that accounted for the possibility of a decline or a collapse so that it was generally interpreted by economists as implying that there were no limits to growth and that the economy could be growing forever. Today, most of the choices made by politicians and decision-makers all over the world seem to be based on this model, trying, for instance, to "restart the economy" after the SARS-Cov2 epidemic by means of stimulating more consumption. That, of course, is going to make things worse if the crisis is caused by a dearth of natural resources, as it is the case. This model shows us how you can do tremendous damage to humankind even by means of just a one-line equation.

10. The second coming (or the parusia). If you read the texts written by the early Christians, Paulus, and others, it is rather clear that they were expecting the "second coming" of Jesus Christ during their lives. That, of course, didn't happen and Christians have been waiting for this dramatic event for a long time, and they are still waiting for it, sometimes under different names such as the "rapture." We cannot exclude that one of these days we'll hear a booming voice coming from the sky telling us that "The Day of Judgement has come" -- but so far that didn't happen. So, this prediction turns out to have been wrong of at least 2000 years (so far). But Christians are still waiting for the second coming and so we can conclude that predictions with no well-defined time frame can never be disproved!

Wednesday, July 1, 2020

The epidemic in the US: a comment by the virologist Guido Silvestri

Many have noted the spike in the number of coronavirus cases observed in the United States. The fear is, obviously, that this increase will result in a corresponding spike in the number of deaths after some delay. The virologist Guido Silvestri wrote a comment in Italian on Facebook about the situation and I thought it was interesting to translate it in its entirety and post it here. This translation is made by smoothing a Google-translated text and it remains rough, but I verified that it maintains the meaning of the original. This text was written a few days ago and, so far, we saw no large changes in the trends of cases and deaths in the US. But, as Dr. Silvestri himself says, we need to wait a few more days in order to see if the spike will continue and result in an increase in the number of victims. On this subject, see also this post by Chuck Pezeshky.

Update of July 2nd, 2020. The trends are still the same: the number of new cases keeps growing, but the number of deaths goes down. It seems to disprove Silvestri's hypothesis 1, the other three remain possible

By Guido Silvestri

Many ask me to talk about the situation of the COVID-19 epidemic in the US. I try in these lines to start from the data, without making political considerations. Science, always science, and very strongly science, as you and I like it :)

First of all, I would start from the curve that you see in the graph, above. Today (28 June), it was the second-highest day in terms of number of cases (yesterday was the highest ever). So it is clear that we are in full pandemic with many new cases diagnosed, especially in the large southern states (CA, TX, AR, FL, GA etc). Not that it is a subject not discussed at length, but it is good to start from these data.

It is equally clear that we are not experiencing the Apocalypse. In fact, if you look at the graph of daily deaths (above, lower graph) you can see that today was the 85th worst day since the beginning of the epidemic - which is not so bad since everything started here early March 2020. As far as I know, there is also no sign of the hospital overload seen in the past in Wuhan, Lombardy, New York / New Jersey, and other places.

The question asked by those who try to understand the facts (and do not have pre-packaged and/or ideology-driven answers) is the following: since we are facing this massive increase in cases that has lasted for ~ 3 weeks, why there is no corresponding increase in deaths or seriously ill people?

Of course, I don't have the absolute answer (and in fact nobody has it), but let me try to make some hypotheses and comments.

Hypothesis # 1. There will be a surge of deaths in the coming days. It is possible, of course, and we will see that in the next few days (so I already anticipate that in a week we will return to this discussion). I would point out, softly, that, looking at the graphs of last March, the time gap between increase in cases and increase in deaths is ~ 1 week. I repeat: we'll see.

Hypothesis # 2. Many diagnoses (i.e., positive swabs) are being made in asymptomatic and/or young subjects and therefore less at risk of developing severe forms of COVID-19. It is difficult to find precise data in this regard, but the feeling of many is that this is an important point, especially if the feared surge of deaths does not occur. If confirmed, this aspect would open up interesting implications in terms of natural immunity.

Hypothesis # 3. Positive swabs have a lower viral load, as it was already demonstrated in Italy first by the group of Massimo Clementi and Nicasio Mancini at the San Raffaele hospital and then by others (Pavia, Treviso, etc). This in turn could be linked to environmental factors (many infections in the South) and/or seasonality, which favor infections caused by lower viral inoculation. I would like to remind readers that lower inoculation infections = less serious infections, as known from the animal model of CoVs

Hypothesis # 4. Patients have a better prognosis because we treat them better. This point, in my opinion, is important and, if confirmed, goes in the direction of putting COVID-19 among the diseases with which the health services are concerned, without asking the general population to upset its existence - which, then, to think about it well, they are all other diseases. It seems clear to me that between dexametazone, tocilizumab, baricitinib, remdesivir, convalescent plasma, anticoagulant therapy, better ventilation protocols, etc. we are much more effective in treating the infection today than 3-4 months ago. This is important and a harbinger of optimism.

I add: note that I have not even mentioned the possibility of a virus-host adaptation, which is very plausible for me, because I do not want the scandalized chorus of some "purists" to say that it is too early to make this hypothesis ((but not other hypotheses) :-)

For now, therefore, I leave you with a key question, some preliminary hypotheses for an answer, and an appointment next week, to see if at that point we will have clearer ideas of what is going on.


Dr. Guido Silvestri received his MD in Ancona, Italy, and completed Residency training in Internal Medicine & Clinical Immunology (Florence 1990) and Pathology (U. Penn 2001). He is currently a Georgia Research Alliance Eminent Scholar in Comparative Pathology, and Professor and Vice-Chair of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at the Emory University School of Medicine, where is also serves as Chair of the Division of Microbiology & Immunology at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center. 

Sunday, June 28, 2020

English as a Sacred Language: the path to a global ecclesia

Latin was once considered a sacred language all over Western Europe. Today, we can see English as a global sacred language, but how long will it maintain this role?

Imagine living in Western Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. With the collapse of the Roman government, Europe had fragmented in a myriad of cities and statelets, each one with its territory and its language. Starting from your home town, it was enough to travel for a few hundred miles to find yourself in a land where nobody could understand you, nor you could understand them. You didn't even need to cross the border of the main linguistic blocks of the European territory (Romance, Anglo-Frisian, Germanic, Slavic, and more). Just the internal variation of each block was enough to make communication impossible.  It was the Babel tower again.

But the old Roman Empire had left a heritage that kept Europe as a single cultural entity: Latin. Once the language of a small city-state in central Italy, it had spread all over the Empire as the language spoken by the legionnaires, the bureaucrats, the governors, and the tax collectors. All that was gone, but Latin had remained, too useful to disappear. It was the language of commerce, of diplomacy, of pilgrims. of travelers, of intellectuals, and, more than all, it had morphed into a sacred language used by the Catholic Church. It was the language of the holy Christian books. Even though God had never spoken in Latin to anyone (we are not completely sure of the language of the original Christian books: probably Greek, but perhaps Aramaic or Hebrew), Latin was sacred in the deepest meaning of the term: something set apart from everyday use. It was the language that kept together the ecclesia, the assembly of the citizens of Europe. Latin was not just a commercial language, it was a noble language, above and separated from all other languages.

Other languages had played and were playing the role of sacred languages in this sense. Sumerian had been perhaps the first, remaining in use long after the Sumerians had ceased to exist as a separate population in Mesopotamia. Then, contemporary to the Latin of Middle Ages, the Koine version of Greek remained the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean and the sacred language of the holy scriptures of the Orthodox Church. Earlier on, God had spoken to Moses in Hebrew and, around the same period, the Archangel Gabriel spoke to Muhammad in Arabic, giving a sacred characteristic to that language, too.

As universal languages, all these were rather provincial ones, used only in limited regions of the world. As the Middle Ages waned, Europe started to grow, moving along the trajectory that would take Europeans to dominate the whole world. The European armies could have taken Latin with them, restarting on a large scale the process that the Roman Legions had started long before. But that didn't happen. Latin didn't expand beyond Europe and it waned even as an intellectual language. Newton still wrote his Principia in Latin in 1687 but, a century later, Latin had become a relic of old times. It was still used by the Catholic Church for its ejaculatory prayers, but little more than that.

There were good reasons for the demise of Latin as a would-be global language. For one thing, it was too provincial: as soon as Europeans started expanding in faraway continents, Latin was useless for dealing with the locals. More than that, the development of the printing press gave a big boost to national languages. When books were handwritten, they were hugely expensive and it made sense to write them in a universal language (Latin) that ensured their widest diffusion. But the printing process made it possible to write books also for people who didn't understand Latin. The printing press was a powerful factor that caused the fragmentation of Europe in nation-states. Without a common language, people couldn't understand each other anymore. The result was the great massacre that we call today "the 30 years war."

Still, the loss of a universal language was a big handicap for commerce and for culture. For a few centuries, the struggle for world domination was at the same time a military struggle and a struggle for the prevalence of a specific European language. Spanish did well in South America, French made an attempt to dominate worldwide out of sheer boasting, German became diffuse as a scientific language, and Italian found a niche in the bel canto of Opera. Some people dabbled at reinventing new languages for scratch, such as Esperanto. Even more creatively, the Catholic Church attempted to develop a new kind of international language, not based on words, but on icons and images. It was a bold attempt, but it failed. In this age of European dominance, non-European languages, Swahili, Chinese, Arabic and others, had no chances to be anything more than regional languages.

Eventually, military might gave to English the right to become the first truly global language in history. Carried first by the British legions, then by the American ones, English is spoken nowadays by at least 1.5 billion people and probably understood by many more than that. It is the one language that gives you a chance to be understood and to understand the locals everywhere in the world.

In religious terms, English has never been as directly linked to God's words as Latin and older languages were, although many people claim to have received revelations in English directly from God. But English became the language of the Ecclesia, the assembly of the citizens of the world and, for this reason, it can justly claim to be sacred in the sense to be special, set apart. Besides, English does have a sacred corpus of scriptures: more than a century of scientific research, practically all of it written in English. It is from this corpus that a sacred creature called Gaia, may one day emerge. Not a Goddess, but the very spirit of the Earth, a new reference point for the human ecclesia.

And from now on? Despite the ongoing fall of the American Empire, English could follow the path that Latin had followed centuries before. It could expand and maintain its leading role as the world's global language. Or it may not. Just as Latin was destroyed by a technical improvement, the printing press, the same could happen for English. It could be mercilessly replaced by a new language that we could call "Googlish," the result of the Google translating engine.

I am not so happy at seeing English disappear, because it is a language I know reasonably well, even though I am not a native speaker. But I can see the writing on the screen. For one thing, my Italian students can't speak English anymore and they seem to be surprised, at times shocked, when they discover that science is normally written in English. Even my Italian colleagues sometimes seem to write in English with the same ease and attitude of someone undergoing a root canal treatment (with some commendable exceptions). 

What surprised me even more, recently, is how efficient automatic translators have become. A friend of mine, a professional translator, used Google to translate one of my posts in English and publish it in his blog in Italian. The result was far from perfect, but it was readable and it required just a few retouches to be made smooth to read. 

Even more than that, I was amazed at seeing the discussion that's taking place on my Facebook pages. I tend to write mostly in English on Facebook, but I write in Italian about subjects that I think are of more local interest. The interesting thing is that people often comment in both languages, in Italian on the English pages, and in English on the Italian pages. They understand each other, evidently, it is a small miracle worked by the automatic translator embedded in Facebook. The beauty of this way of communicating is that you don't have to be ashamed of your poor English (or your poor Italian). You speak in the language you know best and the mistakes are a fault of the translating engine. And you can communicate with almost everyone on this planet: this has never been possible up to now.

So, are we going to build a true planetary ecclesia, realizing the dream of those who invented Esperanto? Maybe. So we can conclude with a quote from the Ecclesiastes (it means "the person who convenes the assembly"). It goes "there is a time to keep silence, and a time to speak." It sounds very wise when applied to our social media.

Thursday, June 25, 2020

Is Gaia a Superorganism? No, she is a holobiont!

A few days ago, I was discussing with a friend and he used the term "superorganism" for Gaia as the Earth Goddess. When I said that Gaia is not a superorganism but a holobiont, he asked me, "but what is a holobiont, exactly?" I thought about that for a while, and then I said, "a holobiont is a democracy, a superorganism is a dictatorship."

If you have a friend who is a biologist, try to tell her that Gaia is a superorganism. Likely, she won't be happy and she might ask you, rather venomously, "And so, tell me, good sir, how could natural selection have generated this -- ahem-- 'Gaia' of yours? You tell me that there is only one Gaia on this planet and so, in order to evolve, did perhaps different planetary ecosystems in the galaxy competed with each other?" I am not inventing this, it is the scathing criticism of the Gaia theory that Richard Dawkins produced in his book, "The Extended Phenotype" (1982).

Given a certain interpretation of Darwin's idea, Dawkins' position is logical and even unavoidable. There is just one problem: the common interpretation of Darwin's theory is wrong.

Don't misunderstand me: Darwin was one of the greatest scientific geniuses in history. But we need to take into account that he was working on limited data and with limited tools. He himself could never decide exactly between two concepts that he used interchangeably: "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest." They are not the same thing, not exactly at least. If you emphasize the idea of the "survival of the fittest," then you see evolution as a continuous competition among the best in the search for the even better. It is a cutthroat competition, nature in red tooth and claw.

But it doesn't have to work that way. An alternative view of evolution is more compatible with the idea of "natural selection" and it takes its inspiration mainly from the work of Lynn Margulis (1938 - 2011). In brief, the unit of evolution is not the organism (at least, not only the organism) but the holobiont. And evolution is not competitive but mainly collaborative. 

It is a long story, and I invite you to read the fundamental book "Symbiotic Planet" (Margulis, 1998). See also an article of mine on "Cassandra's Legacy" and my Facebook group on holobionts. To summarize, holobionts are collaborative societies of organisms that live together, helping each other. A good example is a human being, a community formed of the main organism (the proper "human"), and a large number and variety of micro-organisms (the microbiota) that live inside and on the surface of the main organism. Every living being on this planet is a holobiont, and there are holobionts formed of smaller holobionts: think of a forest. Trees are holobionts, a forest is a holobiont formed of trees. Holobionts are a self-similar entity operating at various scales.

Then, evolution is a mechanism for keeping a population stable. It operates mainly at the bottom, not at the top. Those organisms which are defective because their genome is damaged, those that Gorshov and Makarieva call "decay individuals" (Biotic Regulation and the Environment, 2000), are removed and the genetic information contained in the population is maintained intact in order to regulate the system. It is not the "survival of the fittest" but the "non-survival of the unfit."  It is a mechanism that sheds entropy away from the system.

Holobionts do compete, but the concept seems to be (this is an interpretation of mine) that while organisms search for perfection, holobionts strive for the good enough. Mostly, holobionts just survive. And those that survive tend to shed away those parts of themselves which are not good for survival. Holobionts continuously exchange genetic information with other holobionts (it is called "holosex"). In this way, they teach survival techniques to each other. You could say that holobionts are a democracy, while organisms are a dictatorship. (you might also say that holobionts are communists, but that means pushing the similitude a little too much.)

So, back to Gaia, now it should be clear that Gaia is a holobiont, just like us (see also this article by Castell et al.) You could call Her a super-holobiont that includes all the smaller holobionts of the biosphere. Then, this idea overcomes Dawkins' objection: Gaia exists not because She competes with other superorganisms. She exists because the sub-holobionts that form Her collaborate with each other. Think of a forest: did it evolve by competing with other forests? No. It came to exist because trees survive better together than alone. The same is true for Gaia. She operates like all other holobionts. She survives because the living beings of this planet survive better (actually, only) if they are together. Gaia is what She is.

The beauty of this concept is that it gives a form and a substance to Gaia that other views don't provide. So far, Gaia has been an abstract term, mostly described in terms of scientific models and equations. But if She is a holobiont, well, the Goddess is one of us! She is a living being just like us. And when you pat, touch, or caress another human being, you are patting, touching, and caressing the Goddess herself. You can do that with your dog, too! We, living creatures of the biosphere, all partake in the same holobionticity!

And so things stand: onward, fellow holobionts!

See my also facebook group on holobionts  and Erik Assadourian's site on Gaianism

Note: these ideas are not new, after all: 

I will sing of well-founded Earth, mother of all, eldest of all beings. She feeds all creatures that are in the world, all that go upon the goodly land, and all that are in the paths of the seas, and all that fly: all these are fed of her store. Through you, O queen, men are blessed in their children and blessed in their harvests, and to you it belongs to give means of life to mortal men and to take it away.” Homeric Hymns,

Monday, June 22, 2020

The Cinderella Strategy: How to Restart the Italian Economy by Building a Bridge Across the Messina Strait

The former Italian prime minister, Mr. Silvio Berlusconi, evoking the Messina Strait by a magic spell in an image taken probably around  2002. As a modern version of Moses, Mr. Berlusconi didn't manage to do much more than creating a scale model. But the idea of building this monster (it would be the longest suspension bridge ever built), has been recurrent in Italy for decades. It is a dream that refuses to come true, no matter how much politicians get their inspiration from Cinderella.

The story of the Covid-19 epidemic never ceases to surprise me for one reason or another. Wrong models, superstar scientists, terrorized citizens, non-existing vaccines sold at high prices, the police fining people for taking a walk, snake oil in great abundance, and more. But this really hit me badly: would you believe what the Italian government is considering, now? Yes, in order to restart the economy after it was hit so badly by the lockdown, they are thinking of building a bridge over the Messina strait to connect Sicily to Italy. (really!). The longest suspension bridge ever built, assuming that it were possible to build it -- not obvious at all. It is a Cinderella-style dream that, likely, will never come true.

Maybe it is true what some people said, that the Covid-19 can sometimes affect people's brains, but the real explanation is another one: the unbreakable grip of obsolete ideas on the way people think. In times of crisis, leaders simply tend to go back to the solutions to old problems, without realizing that times have changed. So, we need to return to growth, we need to stimulate the economy, we need to build large infrastructures, we need (this too is being said!) to get rid of these stupid regulations about pollution that prevent the economy from restarting to grow.

That explains the return to the recurring idea to build this bridge that has been around for decades. Probably, the leaders are sincere in their feeling that if it were possible to start building this monster, then it would be a good thing for the Italian economy (and, of course, some of their friends would make a lot of money as a side effect). The concept that the economy needs energy and resources to keep going (to say nothing about expanding) is wholly alien to the people in charge.

So, will the bridge be built? Of course not, (see below for an explanation). But we'll hear about it for some more time and some money may be wasted on preliminary studies. What's truly fascinating is how economic thought has not budged of an inch after that Robert Solow proposed his economic model that saw growth as generated by an entity called "total factor productivity." Whatever that was, it couldn't be defined or measured, but it was supposed to grow exponentially forever and push the economy to grow in the same way. Natural resources didn't appear among the parameters of the model.

And so we are condemned to follow our dreams in a Cinderella world, always thinking that, if you keep on believing, the dream that you wish will come true.

Why the Messina Strait bridge will never be built. A note on energy based economics

Image from Tim Morgan, "Surplus Energy Economics"

The idea that the economy depends on the supply of energy should be obvious to anyone who ever owned a car. Take away the gas, and the car doesn't move, no matter how much you tinker with the carburetor. And it is not just cars that work in this way. Everything that moves, moves because it uses energy to move. If you want to say that in a fancy manner, you can say that living creatures, engines, hurricanes, rivers, and more move because they dissipate energy potentials. No energy potentials no life and no movement. 

It is hard to think that the human economy doesn't depend on the same factors. Indeed, one of the founders of economics, William Stanley Jevons, had already understood the question in his work on coal in the mid 19th century. But over more than a century of work, economics has drifted away from concepts related to physical factors. For some reason, economics, as it is today, remains linked to the idea that things such as the energy supply are not fundamental in affecting the performance of the system -- if they are considered at all.

The idea that things are different -- a lot different -- remains marginal and heretic, but it persists and over time it may gain some space -- although it takes an awful amount of time and effort. To learn the basics of the idea you can check the blog by Tim Morgan, "Surplus Energy Economics". Right now, he has a post that reviews the whole concept. It is an interesting read, highly recommended. 

One remark about Morgan's description: When he discusses the entity called "ECoE" (energy cost of energy invested) he doesn't seem to notice that it can be set as equal to 1/EROEI, the energy return on energy invested. Of course, you have to measure the cost in some units, and energy is the best one in this case. 
The behavior of ECoE is described by Morgan in qualitative terms as a parabolic curve -- going through a minimum (maximum prosperity) and then shooting up. If we equate ECoE to 1/EROI, it is not exactly so. This rate tends to taper off with time, as we found in a study we are preparing right now with my colleague Ilaria Perissi. Here is how our model describes the behavior of ECoE for a non-renewable energy source, such as oil.

You see that it tapers off, rather than growing quadratically as in Morgan's qualitative model. But that doesn't mean Morgan's model is wrong, it is approximately correct and, in any case, note how the cost of energy increases of a factor of a hundred over the depletion cycle (in the assumptions of this specific run). It means that some energy is still produced at this high cost only because the amount produced is reduced to a trifle. Note also that Morgan's curve takes into account technological progress and jumping from one source to another; our model doesn't. For an in-depth analysis, wait for the paper we have in preparation 

In any case, no matter what measurement you want to use, EROI or ECoE, the result is the same: there is no hope to keep going forever with a non-renewable energy source. Maybe you don't need models to understand this point, but take this one as a confirmation of what common sense tells us.

h/t Rafal

Saturday, June 20, 2020

Are Face Masks Useful Against the Epidemic? Political and Scientific Questions

Are face masks useful against the Covid-19 epidemic? As obvious, it depends on various factors: the WHO says there is no scientific evidence of a benefit from the generalised use of masks by "healthy people in the community." But it is also stated that masks are beneficial when used in special conditions. Here, I tell you what I found about the scientific literature, but first I'll discuss how people tend to approach the problem according to their political views.

This is a modified version of a post that appeared in Italian on "Effetto Cassandra"

The Covid-19 epidemic is winding down in Italy, just like everywhere in Europe. The data indicate that the average mortality in most countries has been below average during the past three weeks, at least, and the curve shows no signs of picking up again. In Italy, there are still a few scattered cases, mostly in Northern Italy, but the numbers are minuscule. On all counts, the epidemic is over.

As a consequence, the use of face masks is not mandatory anymore in most regions of Italy, except inside shops, buses, and other crowded places. I expected that people walking in the streets would gladly shed their masks and enjoy the fresh air of these last weeks of spring, but many didn't. An informal measurement that I made during the past few days shows that if you take a walk in Florence you'll see a good 30% of the people still wearing masks tightly fitted on their faces. Another 30%-40% wear the mask loose on their face, leaving free the nose and often also the mouth. The rest don't wear masks at all.

Curiously, wearing or not wearing the mask seems to be linked to political opinions. In the US, it has been noted that the use of masks is more widespread in "blue states" than in "red states," those supporting Trump. Even more surprisingly, the mortality in red states is lower than in blue states (of course, that's not necessarily linked to the use of masks).

In Italy, things seem to be similar. I have no statistical data, but from what I read and what I see, I can tell you that left-oriented people are in favor of masks, whereas right-oriented ones are not. As it happens more or less everywhere, every issue discussed on social media soon becomes political with two opposite and incompatible opinions. It also happened with masks and extreme opinions are the rule. I received a comment to a post of mine that went as "If we don't wear masks we'll all die." Then, a well-known right-wing member of the Italian parliament, Mr. Vittorio Sgarbi, aired an emotional speech in which he maintained that "Masks are not only useless, they are harmful!"

For a discussion of why most people just can't approach this issue from a rational/data-oriented viewpoint, you can see this post by Chuck Pezhensky. Here, I am trying to do the currently undoable: examine the subject from a rational viewpoint. This approach has already caused someone to shout at me on Facebook "you are an abhorrent negationist" when I stated that things were not so bad as described in the media. But so is life and let me try to tell you the results of a search I made about masks on scientific literature. Just a quick disclaimer: I don't pretend to be a medical doctor, but I do pretend to be able to examine and analyze data. It is my job (*).

To begin with, what is the main route for the transmission of these viruses? On this point, you can read a recent review (in Italian) that summarizes what we know. To go more in-depth in the matter, you can read a hugely interesting article by Shaman and others. It is not very recent (2010) but it provides a complete description of how respiratory diseases diffuse and about their seasonal nature.

From these and other articles and documents, we can conclude that the main vector of the epidemic is the cloud of "droplets" emitted when infected people breath, cough, or sneeze. Instead, the so-called "fomites", particles that stand on solid surfaces and infect by contact, play a marginal role. But it seems logical that diseases affecting the respiratory system are transmitted mainly through the respiratory tract.

At this point, we need to understand how and under what conditions these "droplets" spread and reach other people. Here, the story becomes fascinating. It is clear that the droplets produced by sneezing, those visible to the naked eye, are basically harmless since they quickly fall to the ground. If that was the only problem, we wouldn't need masks at all. But smaller particles, those below a micron (millionth of a meter), are much more effective as vectors. The term "aerosol" is used for a suspension of these particles. You can find a very interesting clip on this matter at this link.

The measurements show how these particles remain airborne for a long time indoors and spread even at a distance of several meters. In practice, an aerosol may saturate a closed space and that makes social distancing useless. Not only that, but their persistence depends on the absolute humidity of the environment. In dry environments (a typical indoor condition), droplets partially evaporate, become even smaller, and the virus remains airborne for longer times. The opposite happens in humid environments.

These characteristics explain why influenza is a typical seasonal disease, as Shaman and others explain well. In summer, the absolute humidity is higher, and therefore the particles forming aerosols may grow in size and fall to the ground. It helps that people keep the windows open longer, which makes the aerosols for ventilation disappear quickly. The ultraviolet rays of the sun also help a lot, but of course only outdoors.

At this point, the question is whether the masks block the emission of aerosols. The answer is " in part, yes." One problem is that there are so many types of masks and that people often don't wear them correctly. But we can say that, in general, any mask -- even a simple damp cloth -- will block at least a fraction of the small droplets that generate aerosols -- you can see that effect here.

So, is wearing mask sufficient to have an effect on the diffusion of the epidemic? It seems that the answer is positive. A recent study by Leffer et al. shows that there exists a correlation between the use of face masks and the speed of diffusion of the Covid-19  epidemic. That's to be taken with some caution because it is difficult to disentangle the many parameters affecting the diffusion pattern, but it makes sense. Also the recent study by Chu et al. confirms that face masks reduce the transmission of the virus.

On the basis of these data, I would infer that the place where it is easiest to get infected is at home, where you often find yourself in poorly ventilated and dry rooms, especially in winter. From that, you could deduct that locking people in their apartments may not have been a good idea and, indeed, Leffer et al. find no evidence that the lockdown had any effect in slowing down the spread of the epidemic. But for the moment we do not have enough data on this point.

Now we can summarize.
  1. The virus is transmitted mainly as an aerosol in indoor and poorly ventilated areas, in winter. In these conditions, social distancing is of little use.
  2. In these environments, masks can help a lot, but it would be better to ventilate rooms as much as possible and try to keep them moist. It is even better to stay outdoors as much as possible, exposing yourself to the sun.
  3. In conditions where there is no crowding and there is no evidence of the presence of infected people, masks are not needed. This is what the WHO says in their recommendations.
  4. Most people will ignore the above points ad behave according to their political orientation. 

And this is what I found. If you know more than me or have different data, please feel free to comment. In science, nothing is ever carved in stone, you can and you should change your mind when new data become available.


(*) About the right to speak on scientific matters, let me cite again Chuck Pezhensky

"One of the reasons I fervently believe our current society in the U.S. is collapsing is the loss of noblesse oblige — the idea that those of us that are better off in some definable way should help those who are less fortunate. I view my role as a full professor as one where I am supposed to think about complex and complicated things for the common good, just like a rich person is supposed to build housing developments for the poor."

Sunday, June 14, 2020

Why do people touch each other all the time? Sex among holobionts

Nowadays, we are encouraged to exterminate our skin microbiome by means of various poisonous substances. But this is not a good idea. We are holobionts, and our microbiome is part of us. If we kill the microbiome, we kill ourselves. Touching each other is a way to keep our microbiome alive, it is a form of sex ("holosex") intended as a form of communication.  The lady in this picture seems to understand the point, at least judging from her unhappy expression. (see also the "proud holobionts" group on Facebook)

Humans tend to touch each other. They hug, pat, rub, kiss, cuddle, clutch, caress, clasp, embrace, each other a lot. Think of the kissing habits ("la bise") that's typical of the French society, it is done also in Italy and in other Latin countries. In most societies (*), at least some kind of skin contact is supposed to be a sign of reciprocal trust and confidence.

But, today, we are seeing a completely different pattern diffusing all over the world. With the coronavirus epidemic, people are not shaking hands anymore, to say nothing about kissing and hugging each other. Not only people don't want to touch other people, but they are also positively scared of getting close to each other. It is called "social distancing" and it involves a series of ritualized behaviors of dubious efficacy against the epidemic that include wearing face masks, sanitizing one's hands, spraying disinfectants all over people and things, raising plexiglass barriers, and more.

So, what's happening? Is social distancing just a temporary need or something that will last in the future? The answer depends on whether skin contact is useful for something: if it is not, we could as well abandon it, apart from strictly reproductive needs. But why do people touch each other? For one thing, we may be reasonably sure that if touching each other were harmful to us, natural selection would have eliminated this behavior from our genetic pool and from our cultural habits. On the contrary, touching each other has positive advantages. It is because we are all holobionts.

Let me explain: I am a holobiont, you are a holobiont, all the living creatures surrounding you are holobionts. The term is a little abstruse and still scarcely known, but it has been making spectacular inroads in biology from when it was proposed by Lynn Margulis in 1991. You probably heard of Margulis as the co-developer with James Lovelock of the concept of "Gaia" as the control system of Earth's ecosphere. And, yes, Gaia is a holobiont, too!

So, what is a holobiont? It is a community of living beings that share food, shelter, resources, and protect each other. A tree is a holobiont, a forest is a holobiont, a coral reef is a holobiont, your dog is a holobiont. And, as I said, as a human being you are a holobiont. You are an entity formed of a human organism and a large microbiome formed by a complete ecosystem of microorganisms living on your skin, colonizing your gut, helping various hormonal syntheses more or less everywhere in your body. Without a microbiome, you wouldn't survive for long, although you may eke a precarious existence with a reduced set of the full-fledged version.

And, as a holobiont, you are having sex all the time with other holobionts (and, yes, with your dog, too!). That needs to be explained as part of the great fascination with the concept of holobiont. We are starting to develop a definition of "sex" that goes beyond the conventional one. In our case, as humans, we think of sex as the exchange of genetic material between a male and a female of the same species (actually, we also practice non-reproduction oriented varieties of sex, but that's another form of communication). The result of reproductive sex is meiosis and a new individual with a mixed genome. It is called also "vertical sex," meaning that genetic material is transferred from parents to offspring.

In contrast, the horizontal gene transfer is the movement of genetic material from a donor organism to a recipient organism that is not its offspring. Bacteria, by far the most common lifeform on Earth, exchange genetic material simply passing it through their membranes, a mechanism called "conjugation." And viruses are great genetic exchange machines: they are packages of DNA and RNA that move from a host to another.

A holobiont is, as they say, another kettle of bacterial culture. It is formed of an ensemble of organisms, so it doesn't have a proper genome. But it has a hologenome, the ensemble of the genomes of the organisms that compose it. The hologenome has the same meaning of the genome, it is the "blueprint," so to say, of the holobiont. And, since holobionts are living creatures, they are born and die. So, the hologenome must be transmitted from one to the other. It is the transmission of constitutive information. It is a kind of sex that we may call "holosex."

By means of holosex, holobionts transmit hologenetic information from an individual to another. It is in this way that evolution occurs: "bad" holobionts, meaning those which are unstable, or unable to ensure the survival of the organism, are de-selected and disappear. It is a form of natural selection, not exactly in the neo-Darwinian sense, it has a certain degree of "Lamarckian" transmission of information. If a holobiont has developed a capability that other holobionts don't have -- say, resistance to a specific parasite -- it can transmit it directly to others by the exchange of micro-organisms. There is no need to wait for the population to be replaced by a new generation of individuals who have inherited a certain trait.

But then, how is exactly that holosex, sex among holobionts, works? Well, you don't need special organs and, of course, there is no male/female distinction. Hologenetic material is mainly in the form of microbial lifeforms of various kinds. To exchange these tiny critters, holobionts need to be in contact with each other or, at least, close to each other. Then, the passage of microbes mainly occurs by means of skin contact, although there are other possibilities.

That's why holobionts tend to touch each other: they hug each other, they pat each other, they rub each other, and they kiss each other: it is to exchange chunks of their hologenome, performing holosex, if you like to use this term. They tend, as we can imagine, to be cautious in doing that because they could exchange "bad" microbes and be infected with some illness. As we all know, sex is necessary, but nobody ever said that it is not dangerous. Holobionts need holosex in order to transmit and maintain their hologenetic structure and they need to accept that there is some risk involved. No sex, no life. Not for long, at least.

This means that, sooner or later we'll go back to touch each other and, perhaps, in France they will restart with la bise. Now, it looks as obsolete as dancing rituals to the moon Goddess in the night, but that may return, too. And so, onward, fellow holobionts!

(*) it may be possible that the Japanese exchange microbiota by means of their habit of communal hot baths, notoriously a place where bacteria thrive, So, they don't need to touch each other as much as Europeans do.

(**) To know more about holobionts and discuss the subject, see the "Proud Holobionts" group on Facebook

Thursday, June 11, 2020

You are What you Read: How to Manage your Personal Echo Chamber

Mr. Trump has often being accused of "lying" in his many speeches and tweets. For sure, much of what he says can be said to be "contrary to fact." But is the president really lying or is he simply stating what he thinks truth is? One man's lies are another man's truth. And the problem is that people tend to see the world according to the different echo chamber in which they live. Everyone seeks for facts that support their opinions. We badly need to take control of the information flow that we receive and I think we can do that. Let me show you how I try to do it by disclosing my personal information bubble.

Not long ago, I stumbled in a comment on "Quora" for the question, "Why do some people deny climate change? Here is a shortened version:

CO2 levels of 400 ppm being dangerously high are not accepted by scientists I find credible. There is no significant sea rise. The temperature has not changed by even 1 degree C. over the past century. Climate Change has not increased hurricanes or their intensity. I may rethink this if there is an undoubtedly measurable change in the level of the seas, or a decade long temperature rise.
Now, if you are an average reader of "Cassandra's Legacy" you'll agree with me every statement in this paragraph is wrong in the sense of being "contrary to fact." But I am sure that the writer of this paragraph is a good person. He signed with his full name and I could see his profile. I think that if he were a neighbor of mine we could be good friends (as long as we would avoid discussing climate science!). He truly believes in what he says and he thinks his vision of the world is the right one.

What's wrong here? How can it be that "truth" is so different depending on the viewpoint? The problem is that we all live in an "information bubbles" or "echo chambers" where views are shared with other members of the same bubble/chamber. And if everyone thinks that something is true, then it is very difficult for a single person to deny that something -- even to imagine that it could be completely false.

So, we badly need to take control of the information we receive. We need to select trusted sources and balance the voices we hear in such a way to see things from different viewpoints. Otherwise, we are easy prey for the simplest propaganda tricks, continuously used against us. Silly tricks, but they work. And they work very well. Can we avoid this trap? I think so, but it takes some work.

First of all, let's see what are the Web-based sources of information we have. I listed them an order that -- according to my opinion -- goes from very bad to reasonably good.

It is a mishmash of some 66 blogs, not far from the "Dumbar Number," the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. It is a list that, most likely, won't make any sense to you, but it does to me. It changes all the time, but it maintains a "core" of blogs that I have been following for several years. "The Old Reader" doesn't allow alphabetic ordering the links, so the list starts with the blogs I have been following for a long time, those at the bottom are new entries (or re-entering the list after a hiatus).

So, what am I reading? You may notice that I am following some of the most subversive blogs of the Web: the pro-Russian Saker, the neo-Eurasianist site of Alexander Dugin, the ultra-communist site of Caitlin Johnstone, and the very subversive "Moon of Alabama." But take into account that I can't avoid being exposed, at least a little, to the standard mass media. So, I am not unaware of what's being said in the mainstream debate. But I can tell you that every time I open the site of a major newspaper, or of CNN, or of RT, I am surprised by the shallowness and the poverty of the information they provide (and not just that, you know better than me that they lie most of the time). And it helps little to try to balance what you read on CNN and RT: averaging two lies doesn't generate a truth.

Then, there are several scientific blogs I follow. Some are rather catastrophistic, such as the ones by Jem Bendell, by Gail Tverberg, or by Antonio Turiel (The Oil Crash). But I also tend to follow a good number of "climate denialist" sites, such as the arch-evil site of Alan Watts (Watts Up With That). Indeed, they are evil, but in a certain way funny. And I learn a lot from their posts. I also follow Roy Spencer, though I disagree with him, he is still a valid scientist. The site kept by Judith Curry is normally boring, but it often provides interesting links. I also follow the Italian "New Ice Age," they are totally cocoa bananas and, fortunately, they don't seem to be so active anymore. But they made death threats against me in the past, so I'd better keep track of what they are up to.

Then, there is a group of blogs that I consider as true gems, but not easily classifiable in political or scientific terms, such as the Kelebekler blog (in Italian), the Empathy site by Chuck Pezhensky, the Gaianism site by Eric Assadurian, the Blogmire by Rob Slane. And many other blogs in different languages, it is truly a zoo. Over the years, I found that I often tend to follow blogs I disagree with. The only kind I can't possibly stomach are those promoting racism, violence, suprematism, oppression, intimidation, and the like -- sorry, those won't make it to my list.

So, what do you think? Are these blogs harming my mental sanity? Maybe. For sure, many people tend to think that I am "strange," especially those who watch TV every day and, if you read the Cassandra blog, you probably understand why. I am hard to classify as being "left" or "right." I don't even fall into the category of the "catastrophists" because I believe that collapse can be reversed. That seems to anger some people who are convinced that it is a good thing that we are all going to die very soon. But, frankly, I am not in a hurry.

There is more, but I don't think you are especially interested in my personal blog preferences. I just wanted to point out to you what I believe is a better way to manage your information bubble. You may give it a try! And if you have stories, comments, or suggestions on information bubbles, we can discuss the subject in the comments.


    Ugo Bardi is a member of the Club of Rome, faculty member of the University of Florence, and the author of "Extracted" (Chelsea Green 2014), "The Seneca Effect" (Springer 2017), and Before the Collapse (Springer 2019)