Reagan vs Trump on the value of NATO

After the American Century

NATO is under attack. Not from Russia but from Donald Trump. He is the first American president ever to suggest that US allies ought to be attacked. He is the first to openly encourage Russia to make such an attack. If he becomes president, he will drive Europe away from the US, increase the danger of a wider war in Europe, and undermine the rule of law internationally.

Trump is a disgrace to himself and to the Republican Party. Ronald Reagan would not vote for anyone holding such views.

This is what Reagan said forty years ago, on the 35th anniversay of NATO's establishment:

"Throughout its history, the NATO Alliance has been challenged by the military power and political ambitions of the Soviet Union. Yet, in every decade, the nations of the Alliance have consistently pulled together to maintain peace through their collective strength and determination. On the basis of that strength and unity, the nations of the Alliance also have taken the initiative to seek a more constructive relationship with the Soviet Union.

"Over the years, NATO has grown from its original twelve members to include Greece, Turkey, the Federal Republic of Germany, and, most recently, Spain. It has demonstrated a capacity to adapt to evolving political and security challenges and to meet the changing needs of its members. The Alliance's commitment to collective security has been sustained through full democratic respect for the sovereign independence of each member.
I am proud to rededicate the United States to the ideals and responsibilities of our Alliance."

President Ronald Reagn, March 6, 1984


Why do Republicans honor the memory of Reagan and yet support Trump. Have they not lost their way? 

After the American Century

Google’s New Gemini AI is Unreliable 

Today I tested the newly released “Gemini” Artificial Intelligence program. It is a fraud. I asked it a question that was factual and that could be checked. The “facts” were wrong, sheer nonsense. I asked it who used the word “kaleidoscopic” in a literary text. It responded with many examples, including brief quotations. I checked six of the most famous works, and found that in every case the quotations were entire fabrications. However, they sounded plausible:

 • Mark Twain's "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" (1885): Describes the "kaleidoscopic whirl" of a Mississippi steamboat scene. 

 • T.S. Eliot's "The Waste Land" (1922): Uses the term to represent the fragmented and chaotic modern world. 

 • 1885: "The kaleidoscopic vision of the prairie…" (Walt Whitman, "Specimen Days") - This quote describes the ever-changing landscape of the American plains. 

 • 1925: "The kaleidoscopic panorama of New York…" (F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The Great Gatsby") - This quote captures the dazzling and chaotic energy of the Roaring Twenties in New York City. 

 • 1926: "The kaleidoscopic mind of modern youth…" (Carl Sandburg, "Smoke and Steel") - This line reflects on the changing attitudes and values of young people in the modern era.

I then wrote back to Gemini 

 Earlier today you provided examples of the use of the word kaleidoscopic (or kaleidoscope) in several works of American literature. I have checked, and every example I looked at proved to be false. 

     The word is not used anywhere in T. S. Eliot's The Wasteland. 

     It does not appear in Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. 

     It is not used in Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. 

     Walt Whitman did not use the word in Specimen Days, 

        and so forth. 

Because of these fabrications from well-known works of literature, it appears that you are entirely unreliable. You lie. You make up quotations. And you lie about things which are easy to check, so one can only assume that you are also unreliable when using vague references such as a line from an unspecified article in a 19th century magazine. I am disappointed, but not surprised. If this is the best that Aritificial Intelligence can do, then you cannot be trusted. 

Gemini Replied 

"I apologize unreservedly for the misinformation I provided about the use of "kaleidoscopic" in American literature. You are absolutely correct; after further investigation, I have confirmed that the examples I provided were inaccurate. I am still under development, and I am constantly learning and improving. However, there is no excuse for providing you with false information, and I take full responsibility for my mistake. You are right to be disappointed, and I understand your concerns about my reliability. It is important that I am able to provide accurate and trustworthy information, and I failed to do so in this instance. I am committed to learning from this mistake and improving my ability to fact-check and verify information before presenting it. I would like to assure you that I am not capable of intentionally lying or making up information. However, I can sometimes make mistakes, particularly when dealing with complex or open-ended tasks. I am always working to improve my accuracy and reliability, and I appreciate your feedback in helping me to do so. Please know that I am still under development, and I am always learning. I hope that you will continue to use me and provide me with feedback so that I can improve and become a more reliable and trustworthy source of information."

Do not use it! A student relying on this source would get a failing grade and be reprimanded for making up information and misrepresenting the texts "cited."

After the American Century

Should Nordic Universities Boycott Israeli Universities?

Neither the Hamas regime nor the Israeli government can be described as innocents. Both have been wronged. Both can be accused of unreasonable violence. Both have committed unlawful acts. Both might be accused before the World Court of war crimes committed during their current conflict. 

Some demand that we take sides, as if this would help resolve the crisis. In particular, some are calling for Nordic universities to boycott Israeli universities. This idea is hardly new, as it has also been advocated by supporters of Palestine in the United States. Such proposals attack the foundation of universities, as institutions that promote freedom of speech, dialogue, and cultural diplomacy. During the Cold War there were still exchanges between universities on either side of the Iron Curtain, notably those of the Fulbright Program. Russian and eastern European professors went to the United States, and Americans went the other way. For half a century all sorts of cultural exchanges, including orchestras, choirs, writers, engineers, farmers, and many more, helped maintain a dialogue between the two sides. When the Cold War ended, the Berlin Wall came down with scarcely a shot being fired. Decades of cultural exchange played a role in achieving that result. In the current conflict, the Nordic countries are not at war with either side, and the best role they can play is that of honest brokers. This is not a new role. Remember the Oslo Accords of the 1990s?

If you join a boycott in order to support the Palestinians, you are siding with Hamas and with Iran, which is fighting proxy wars and supporting terrorism in the Middle East. If you support the Israelis, then you are joining hands with an extreme right-wing government, whose prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been undermining democratic institutions in Israel, as well as treating the Palestinians unjustly. Boycotting Israel's universities will not bother that government very much, and it will likely please the rightwing extremists who support Prime Minister Netanyahu. Universities are places where moderates can work toward a different and more democratic future than what either Hamas or the right-wing Israeli government are fighting for. The former chair of the American Association of University Professors, Cary Nelson has written, "there is more academic freedom in Israel than in other nations in the Middle East. It is hypocritical and a fundamental betrayal of our mission as academics to advocate boycotting universities not because of their fundamental character but because of the policies of the nation in which they are located."

Yet Michelle Pace's essay in Politiken (29.11.23) calls for a boycott of all Israeli universities. She does not compare them to universities in Syria, Iran, or other Middle Eastern nations that are dictatorships. Only Israel's universities are guilty by geographical association. Her proposal would isolate moderate Israelis, many of whom are professors and students. The actual situation is not fairly described in her essay, which depicts Israeli academic research as being almost identical with government plans and policies. In fact, opposition to the Netanyahu government has been notable in the universities, and they teach not only Jews but also Arabs, Christians, Druze, and agnostics. There are about 320,000 students, including more than 40,000 Arabs, whose numbers were increasing rapidly before the current crisis. A boycott would prevent them from taking a term abroad in Denmark. Is that sensible? Is it defensible to prevent Israeli academics from attending conferences in the Nordic countries, regardless of their point of view? Is a boycott to be extended to their books, journals, or articles, regardless of subject matter? Are medical laboratories to break off cooperative research that has nothing to do with the war? Should Jewish writers, regardless of nationality, to be banned as well? 

Universities struggle to maintain academic freedom, and boycotts are threats to that freedom. The American Association of University Professors has long opposed the use of university boycotts. Of course there are professors in every nation's universities who support their government's actions, but that hardly justifies boycotting an entire university system. 

Boycotting Israeli universities would punish 350,000 students and faculty indiscriminately. By isolating moderates who seek conflict resolution and by taking sides with Hamas, who seek to eradicate Israel, a boycott would be like throwing kerosene on a fire. The university is the wrong target, and a boycott is the wrong weapon. In times of polarization it is crucial to maintain dialogue and free speech so that a resolution can become possible. The goal is not to proclaim virtuous outrage, take sides, and demand a boycott. The goal is to support moderates on both sides and help them to find peace.

During the Vietnam War, protests occurred at universities in both the United States and around the world. The protests were primarily calls for peace. I participated in many of them from 1966 until the end of that war in 1975, and the crowds were singing, "All we are saying, is give peace a chance." I suggest that Michelle Pace and others who are attracted to a boycott might reconsider their tactics. A boycott is a negation, a refusal to engage in dialogue, and a claim of superior virtue that will anger one side and encourage the other, helping to sustain a conflict. What we need are large, non-violent protests that include not only Palestinians and refugees now living in Denmark but also a broader coalition calling for peace and asking politicians to take an active role as arbitrators. 

Why is Burning Books Defined as Freedom of Speech?

After the American Century

In recent weeks the Koran has been burned several times in Sweden and Denmark, causing outrage in the Moslem world. Crowds have protested, attacked embassies, and denounced the Danish and Swedish governments. In response, Scandinavians point out that their governments have not burned books. Rather, individuals have done so, as is their right, as an expression of free speech.

As a historian, I note that book burning has usually been practiced by dictatorships and intolerant regimes. The Nazis come to mind. I do not recall many examples of books being burned by people who habitually read and write books. I doubt that those who are burning the Koran have read it, and it is also unlikely that those who ban or burn Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses have read that either. 

As a writer, I find book burning an insulting practice. One should debate about a book that causes offense, not destroy it. And in the age of digital communication, multiple copies proliferate, so burning a text is rather pointless as it will hardly be eradicated. 

As a citizen, I dislike book burning because it is almost always a populist stunt designed to short-circuit reasoned discussion. In Denmark, for example, a rather surprising number of people seem convinced that to restrict or ban burning the Koran would be a defeat for free speech and a victory for undemocratic Moslem regimes.

What nonsense. The real discussion ought to be about whether burning books is free speech. I submit that burning any book is the strongest possible manifestation of a refusal to discuss it or acknowledge any value in it. I would like to see a law that severely restricted the public burning of any book, by prohibiting such acts unless permission had been granted after a review of a 500-1,000 word statement that justified the proceeding. That is the length of a typical book review, and such a statement would have to convince a panel appointed by the government that (1) the applicant has read and understood the book, and that (2) there is a convincing argument for the destruction of the text. 

In other words, I would like to insist that there be reading, discussion, and collective decision-making before any book can be burned. This is a serious act, and it should not be a spontaneous one in a moment of anger or a way to make headlines without actually making a convincing argument. As currently practiced, I regard book burning as a form of hate speech, intended to insult and inflame, not to inform or debate

There is one further consideration. The right to free speech is not a right to irresponsible speech, such as shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Free speech entails responsibility for one's statements, which is why it does not include a right to slander someone or to spread falsehoods that damage another person's reputation.  

For a small, right-wing minority in Sweden or Denmark to burn the Koran in front of a Moslem nation's embassy seems very much like screaming "Fire" in order to create panic, provoke fear, and increase polarization. Why do journalists and politicians keep on saying that this is "free speech"? 

Paying for climate disaster or for nuclear weapons?

After the American Century

One of the sore points in the UN climate negotiations is the question of who should pay for floods and other disasters that are intensified or even caused by global warming. Pakistan has been especially insistent that it needs international aid to rebuild after intense flooding. I am not against this idea in the abstract, but note the following points.

(1) A nation is responsible for preparing for disasters. It ought to keep sea walls and dikes in good repair, for example. It should also restrict building on a flood plain which will almost certainly be inundated in the foreseeable future.  This point also applies to provinces or states within nations. When Florida allows extensive building close to the sea, while at the same time removing large mangrove trees which are an effective defence against storm surges, it should not be able, when disaster strikes, to ask for billions in aid. Regions and a nations have a duty to protect their citizens, and this means they should prepare for possible disasters. I cannot say whether Pakistan fulfilled its duty to be prepared, but it is fair to ask the question and investigate before handing over billions of dollars.

(2) In 2019 the nations with nuclear weapons spent about $73 billion on their arsenals. Some nations that are asking for free disaster aid are also nuclear powers, notably Pakistan. Should it continue to make large investments in atomic bombs rather than make that money available as disaster aid? Would not loans to such a nation be, in effect, assistance to their nuclear programs?  Supposedly, such weapons are for national defence, but in practice the bombs are in storage, available just in case. The estimated annual cost of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program is $1 billion. It also was costly to develop the weapons in the first place, and took almost twenty years before the first bomb was tested successfully in 1998. The total expense of Pakistan's nuclear program is therefore at least $30 billion. Had they used that money to prepare for flood disasters, it would be roughly twice the $15 billion they now are requesting in free disaster aid.  India has spent more than twice that sum on nuclear weapons  in the last quarter century, so it might have had more than $60 billion for environmental projects and disaster aid.

On the whole, if all the money now spent on nuclear weapons could be reallocated to curbing global warming, by 2035 it would amount to $1 trillion.

I am amazed that any nuclear state has the nerve to ask for free aid to protect its people from environmental disasters. If they have billions for weapons of mass destruction, then they do not need charity when disaster strikes. Rather. they need to rethink their priorities.

On this basis, I suggest that the following nations should not be eligible for free disaster assistance:

    The United States

    China

    Britain

    Russia

    France

    India

    North Korea

    Iran

One might want to add more nations to this list, depending on their annual budget for conventional ams.

Downsizing Knowledge: The Danish government's plan to shorten humanities education

After the American Century

The OECD statistics on spending for higher education reveal considerable differences between the Scandinavian countries. Norway spends more than $22,000 per student each year; Sweden about $25,000; and Denmark, about $19,000. Some fields cost a lot more than others, notably medicine and science need expensive equipment and laboratories, whose price presumably is much the same regardless of country. The least funding goes to the humanities, which usually have larger classes and need little equipment and no laboratories. Bluntly, Denmark spends less per student for university education than Sweden and Norway, and the Danish students in humanities receive the least support of any students in Scandinavia.  It is also worth noting that the annual expenditure per university student in the US is about $32,000 and in the UK about $28,000. Denmark has fallen behind, and things are about to get worse.

The number of university students in all fields has been falling in Denmark since 2014, with about 13,500 fewer in 2021. The Danish government has saved quite a lot of money by educating fewer people, perhaps as much as $250 million each year. Being behind Sweden and Norway and having fewer students as well, one might think that it was time for Denmark to invest more in education. 

  

But the new Danish government does not see it that way. They have been aggressively cutting the size of the student body. In 2021, the socialist government told the universities to cut enrolments. Copenhagen University announced it would downsize by 1,590 student places by 2030, and 40% of these would be in the humanities. The next three largest universities made similar announcements. The government was downsizing on higher education, and they were just getting started.

During the run-up to the election in November, 2022, the Socialists announced that they would like to remodel university education, especially for the humanities, by eliminating an entire year. At present, students who want a BA and an MA follow a five year curriculum, with the first three years for the BA and the MA as a two-year degree.  The proposal was not laid out in detail, but it appears that this cutback would primarily affect the MA. In other words, there will be less specialization, with an entire year removed from MA studies.  Few have ever been given the opportunity to do a Ph.D. in Denmark, and for those who do get the chance, there are no regular classes or seminars at that level. 

Note that this "reform" was proposed for all of the humanities, perhaps for some of the social sciences, but not for science, medicine, and engineering, which would still have a longer curriculum. If carried through, the inequality between humanities and rest of the university would make Denmark unusual internationally. Norway, Sweden, the US and Britain do not offer a cut-rate degree in foreign languages, history, art. theology, and other humanistic subjects. 

   

If carried through, this will be the second time university education has been shortened. Until 1993, universities offered a six-year education, which combined 4 years of specialization in one subject and 2 years in a second field. The graduates were then qualified to teach two subjects in the gymnasium. If someone was not interested in becoming a teacher, they could stop after four years in one field and receive a degree called a cand. phil. 

The Coming Danish Brain Drain

It seems obvious that when cutting an education from five to four years it is impossible maintain the same level of expertise, nor will Danish universities be as attractive to students. Furthermore, if there are 20% fewer hours in the classroom for students, then about one in five teachers will not be needed. An entire generation either will not be trained at all or will get an advanced degree and find that there are no jobs. Looking ten years ahead, faculties will consist of people between 40 and 65, with almost no young scholars and no Ph.D. students.  Some of the most promising people will go abroad, perhaps to Sweden, Norway, the US, or Britain. They will not return because there will only an impoverished second-rate university sector to come back to. If the government carries through its plan, then a Danish brain drain seems inevitable. Moreover, the government has forced universities to eliminate several thousand places for international students.

The combined effect of the various cutbacks have devastated some departments. At the University of Copenhagen alone, 344 teaching positions disappeared between 2015 and 2017, or about 6.5% of the faculty. More positions have since disappeared at all the universities. The University of Southern Denmark used to offer degrees in Spanish, French, Russian, and Chinese, but all of these have gradually disappeared. Many faculty are deeply distressed, not least because it seems there is no Danish political party that thinks they are worth defending in an election campaign. And when students ask about doing a PhD, the only honest answer one can give them is that he or she should go abroad or forget about it.

Final note on expenditures per student. Harvard University has an endowment of more than $40 billion, and it supplements what students pay in tuition. The total cost to educate one Harvard undergraduate per year is more than $200 thousand per year, more than Denmark spends to educate ten students.  

The big picture on Energy in 2023

After the American Century

Newspaper stories about energy tend to focus on particular countries, new technologies, or one energy sector at a time.  But what is the big picture?  Here are a few facts of the matter.

Is coal being phased out, since it is the very polluting compared to most other energy sources? In the world as a whole, coal consumption continued to rise until c. 2010. Since then it has been leveling off, but it has begun to rise again after the worst of the pandemic was over. Some countries are moving away from coal, notably the United States, but others are increasing their reliance on it, notably China. A bit more than half of all coal consumption takes place in China. For another generation, coal will still be a dominant fuel.

Is world energy use rising along with the increase in population?

These changes in coal use are not related to population growth in any simple way. US population is growing, but coal use there is not. In China, the population is not growing, due to the long enforced "one child per family" policy. But coal use is rising in China, at least in the short term. In other words, every country has a somewhat different resource base and situation. In general, as the standard of living increases, so does energy consumption. However, the most advanced forms of housing and transport break that rising curve. Well insulated buildings with solar panels make many new buildings self-sufficient.

Is the problem of energy one of supply? or perhaps the technologies we need are not yet commercially developed?

The biggest problem used to be that the technologies of extremely efficient energy production and use were too expensive. But in the last decade that has changed, and the biggest problem is the failure of politicians (and therefore of voters) to adopt the changes that are now possible. More than half of all the new cars sold in Norway are now electric vehicles. In contrast, equally rich and more densely populated Denmark is far behind Norway. If Denmark were an automobile producing nation, this might possibly make some sense, but it has no automobile factories at all. Unhappily, it is ill-informed and second-rate politicians who are holding Denmark back on this matter. One can see the same thing in the United States. where some states, notably California and Massachusetts, have energy policies that are excellent, while other states, notably those in the Old South, have terrible records on making the energy transition. I cannot say this strongly enough: today the problem is more social and political than it is technological. Don't believe it? Then consider that Costa Rica gets more than 95% of its electricity from solar, wind, hydo, and geothermal, while few of the other small central American countries come close to that statistic. 

How much energy is generated by wind power?

In 2021, for the first time solar and wind power supplied more than 10% of the world's power. But this general figure hides large disparities. The 10% figure is accurate for Japan or Argentina, but a few countries are far ahead of that level. Scotland generates more than 90% of its electricity from wind. Denmark also is a leader in windmill technologies, and it routinely supplies more than half its electrical needs using wind. On some windy days, windmills supply all of its electricity. Other emerging leaders in wind power include Portugal and Chile. China, the US, and Germany are investing heavily in this area, and they are the three nations with the biggest production, although these nations are still working to free themselves from fossil fuels.

Where is solar power being used the most?

The largest capacity in solar power can be found in China, whose capacity in 2019 was roughly that of the US, Germany, and Japan, combined.   The cost of solar has now fallen below the cost of burning coal, so it is only a failure of leadership and investment that keeps desert nations from cashing in on this opportunity. But consider that Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries subsidize gasoline prices, making it cheaper to burn petroleum than to invest in solar power. Again, this is, at root, a political problem, not a technological one.

And what about oil?

In 2021 the US consumed more oil than any other country, about 20% of world demand. China was next with roughy 16%, India about 5%. Since the combined population of China and India is well over 2 billion, or roughly six times the population of the US, two things are obvious. One, the US must radically reduce its oil consumption if it is going to help stave off more global warming. Two, even assuming it does this, the enormous populations of China, India, and other Asian nations are going to keep demanding oil. It seems unlikely that the global consumption will fall very much, if at all, in the next ten years. Therefore, improvements in all the other energy sectors are going to be crucial to reducing pollution and cutting back on CO2 from other sources. 

Conclusion

The outlook is rather grim. Oil and coal are almost certain to remain the dominant sources of energy for the next decade. We have the technologies and the knowledge to replace them, but we have not yet shown enough political will to make the change. 

What happens after the 2022 Midterms?

After the American Century

The 2022 midtern elections are over, and it appears that Donald Trump is losing his hold on the Republican Party, which might help the nation move away from nasty politics, denialism, and polarization. However, both houses of Congress will be rather evenly split.  Many fear that the next two years will be a time of gridlock in Washington, with little legislation getting through. If the Republicans choose this path, however, I do not think it will lead to victory, for the following six reasons.

Why two years of gridlock is unlikely

1. The climate crisis is worsening, and the years when Republicans could stonewall attempts to deal with it are over. They will lose credibility if they keep on obstructing.

2. New candidates to replace Trump are going to need some achievements to make them credible. Possibly there are no wanna-be candidates in the Congress, but if so, this would be the first time. 

3. People doubted that Biden could get much legislation through in his first two years, but in fact he did rather well. There are a few (admittedly very few) moderate Republicans who will vote with the Democrats on particular issues.

4. Bi-partisan support for Ukraine is likely to continue, especially after the events of the last week, when Russia was forced to withdraw from Kherson. If Republicans do not continue their support, then they will be helping Putin, who is surely one of the least popular foreign leaders among Americans. Who cannot be inspired by the Ukrainian determination and grit? 

5. There is always pork barrel legislation (highways, bridges, airports, etc.), which every legislator wants, in order to please the constituents. 

6. Disasters will always strike, whether tornados, hurricanes, or floods. The President has the power to declare a national disaster, which unleashes federal resources and funding. If the Republicans try to play hardball, Biden can refuse to declare a disaster, which would be especially likely if there are any games being played with passing the budget or raising the ceiling on the national debt. 

I am not predicting peace and harmony, of course. But for all of these reasons, gridlock is not the most likely outcome. In fact, Washington is quite used to functioning with a White House that does not control both houses of Congress. 

The next election

With the midterms over, the 2024 presidential election comes into sharp focus. It is early days, but it seems likely the Republicans will not simply fall in line behind Donald Trump. He has a LOT of baggage, most obviously in the form of on-going lawsuits. One reads reports already that leaders want to see a fresh, younger face.

Democrats are worried that Biden is a safe pair of hands but lacks charisma. His age has become an issue for some, too. If he chooses to run, however, it may be hard to run in the primaries against him. Should he decide not to run, presumably in about a year from now, then a vigorous contest would follow.

In short, it might turn out that in 2024 both parties will have new candidates, almost certainly younger candidates than Trump and Biden.  If so, it will be an extremely interesting election.

Seven Sublimes

After the American Century

Seven Sublimes – The The MIT Press, 2022 

        Discount for readers who order before Jan 31, 2023. Enter code MITPHoliday22 at checkout on PenguinRandomHouse.com for 20% off ALL titles published by the MIT Press (including Seven Sublimes!), with free shipping until January 31, 2023. Terms and conditions apply.  This offer is only good for readers living in the USl

• “With brilliant clarity, Nye delineates the nuances of the sublime, from the natural to the technological, from the infinite to the infinitesimal. Building on Kant and Burke, this book is a revelation of how we see and experience the world.”

  Miles Orvell, 

  Temple University, author of Empire of Ruins: American Culture, Photography, and the Spectacle of Destruction. Oxford University Press, 2021

The sublime is a widely shared emotion that all human beings, regardless of their race, gender, or nationality, are capable of experiencing, for we all are endowed with the same bodily senses. When W. E. B. Du Bois visited the Grand Canyon, the railroads forced him to travel in a segregated railway car because he was Black, but this did not prevent him from appreciating its grandeur. Du Bois declared unequivocally, “I believe that all men, black and brown and white, are brothers, varying through time and opportunity, in form and gift and feature, but differing in no essential particular, and alike in soul and the possibility of infinite development.” His meditation on the enormous chasm concluded with these words: “It is not—it cannot be a mere, inert, unfeeling, brute fact—its grandeur is too serene—its beauty too divine! It is not red, and blue, and green, but, ah! the shadows and the shades of all the world, glad colorings touched with a hesitant spiritual delicacy.” Du Bois understood that the capacity to experience the sublime is universal.

This book focuses less on formal philosophy than on personal experiences, such as visiting a national park, skyscraper, disaster site, battleground, or virtual reality. To experience the sublime, it is not necessary to travel to famous locations. During travel restrictions due to the pandemic in 2020–2021, many people discovered solace and inspiration in local microadventures. They camped in nearby parks; they climbed trees; they disrupted routines; they stared at the night sky; they took walks in unfamiliar places. Recent studies confirm what philosophers have long said: confronted with the sublime, people commonly feel a sense of humility. These experiences of awe reduce self-interest and increase social cohesion. 

The sublime is a powerful individual moment, but it also has cultural effects, helping to hold groups together. This is a useful starting point for an historical assessment of the sublime, considered not as a static category but as an evolving realm of experiences with at least seven distinct forms. Sublime phenomena may be experienced either directly through the senses or indirectly through instruments, such as telescopes, microscopes, sensors, and computers. By focusing on this distinction, I found that there appear to be four forms of the tangible sublime (natural, technological, disastrous, and martial) and three forms of the intangible sublime (scientific, digital, and environmental). This book devotes a chapter to each of these. 

While developing these chapters, I realized that the different sublimes did not merely focus on different classes of objects. Each implies a distinct perception of space and time, and therefore they can be on odds with one another. A waterfall or canyon exemplifies the natural sublime to some, and yet other people value more highly a large hydroelectric dam that obliterates these landscapes and exemplifies the technological sublime. Likewise, virtual reality makes possible new perceptions but engages only a few of the senses, in contrast to the all-encompassing sensory engagement with a local ecology that is the hallmark of the environmental sublime. The martial sublime and the technological sublime are based on the mastery of many of the same technologies, but they work toward quite different ends and express incompatible values. In short, the seven sublimes share certain characteristics, but they are not a coherent system. They are related but not congruent.

Gazing from the top of a mountain at a vista is not the same thing as looking at a metropolis from the observation deck of a skyscraper. Watching a military bombardment is not like visiting Niagara Falls. Looking at images constructed from Hubble Space Telescope data is not the same as experiencing a powerful earthquake or visiting a battlefield. In different ways, each of these experiences may be sublime, but the expanded terminology developed in Seven Sublimes is needed to distinguish between them.   This work is  framed by philosophy but focused on historical examples.

Hardcover  $35.00     ISBN: 9780262046923

232 pp.  19 figures   May 2022