May 8, 2026

PITY THE POOR MALTHUSIANS:

The Simon Abundance Index 2026: Earth was 536.4 percent more abundant in 2025 than it was in 1980.(Marian L Tupy and Gale Pooley, Apr 22, 2026, Doomslayer)

The Simon Abundance Index (SAI) measures the relationship between resource abundance and population. It combines the per-person abundance of 50 basic commodities with the size of the world’s population into a single number. The index began in 1980 with a base value of 100. In 2025, the SAI stood at 636.4, indicating that resources have become 536.4 percent more abundant over the past 45 years. All 50 commodities in the dataset were more abundant in 2025 than they were in 1980. The global abundance of resources increased at a compound annual growth rate of 4.20 percent, thus doubling every 17 years.

THE SILLINESS OF DARWINISM:

Most Bird Wings Aren’t Optimized for Flight (Jake Currie, May 7, 2026, Nautilus)

To investigate the optimization of bird wings, researchers from the University of Bristol essentially decided to design some from scratch. They created a “theoretical morphospace” of all wing shapes that could appear in nature, regardless of whether they’re actually found there or not (and they really covered their bases—some of the imagined wings were almost round while others were spindly wisps). They then tested each wing to discover which shapes performed the best in different flight modes (soaring, hovering, diving, and so on).

After identifying the ideal theoretical wings, they mapped real bird wings on top to see how they measured up. Most birds don’t have the “best” wing shapes, they discovered. In fact, the majority of birds were in the middle to low end of the optimization space. “It turns out for many birds, including most of the ones you see every day, that good enough is good enough when it comes to flight,” study author Benton Walters said in a statement. 

It’s ideology, not science.

ALL COMEDY IS CONSERVATIVE:

Freud’s Greatest Critic: The Legacy of Frederick Crews (Carlos Orsi, May/June 2026, Skeptical Inquirer)

During a very productive life of more than nine decades, Crews—literary critic and professor emeritus of the University of California Berkeley—became famous twice. The first round, between 1963 and 1965, came after the publication of The Pooh Perplex, an erudite satire that became an unexpected bestseller. The second time, from 1993 onward, came after his explosive article “The Unknown Freud,” which appeared in The New York Review of Books, igniting the so-called Memory Wars and opening up the debate about the true cultural, social, and scientific legacy of Sigmund Freud and the psychoanalytic movement.

As far as psychological science and neurology went, when Crews’s explosive article came out, Freudianism had been reduced, at least in the United States, to a kind of historical landmark in the field, much like the miasma theory of disease in medicine. But in certain branches of the humanities, such as literary criticism, and several “critical theory” models in sociology and political philosophy, it was still taken quite seriously. Being part of that world, Crews was acutely aware of that fact and of the need for correction.

Separated by thirty years, The Pooh Perplex and “The Unknown Freud” are animated by the same skeptical and critical spirit. This spirit is manifested in a relaxed and playful way in The Pooh Perplex and in an acutely and decidedly serious manner in “The Unknown Freud.” The Pooh Perplex is a satire, a series of alleged academic analyses of the adventures of Winnie-the-Pooh, each of them written by Crews as a parody of the dominant style in some branch of the humanities: Marxist, Freudian, existentialist, etc. The Marxist sees in Piglet the revolutionary potential of the proletariat; the Freudian finds sinister Oedipal implications in the fact that none of the stuffed animals in Christopher Robin’s collection has a dad.

The collection of parodies, signed by a then newly minted PhD (Crews had obtained the degree at Princeton in 1958), already pointed to what would become one of the dominant concerns of the mature author: the fatal attraction of the humanities to farfetched, logically circular theoretical schemes that lose themselves in doctrinal labyrinths and generate texts that confuse rhetoric with rigor, leaving behind any contact with empirical, verifiable reality.

We got a lovely note from the late Professor Crews when we reviewed his Postmodern Pooh. He’d taken so many slings and arrows he was gratified to find fans.