May 2026

WE ARE INCAPABLE OF EMPATHY:

The Fiction of Self-Knowledge: Good sociology listens to personal narratives without mistaking them for complete explanations of behavior. (C.D. Cunningham, May 12, 2026, Public Square)

Imagine you live in an apartment with roommates. One is a bit of a slob, struggles with school, and eventually stops doing the dishes altogether.

A sociologist is curious about what’s happening and comes to interview you and your roommate. The sociologist asks you why you think your roommate stopped doing the dishes. You tell the sociologist that your roommate is probably struggling in his broader life, doesn’t have a very clean personality, and might even be a bit lazy.

The sociologist then asks your roommate why. The roommate answers that it was because the rent was too high, school got busy, and you weren’t doing your fair share in other areas.

The sociologist then announces that you didn’t know why your roommate stopped doing the dishes.

Replicate this experiment across dozens of apartments, and suddenly the sociologist announces a trend: “roommates who do the dishes know the least about why people stop doing the dishes.”

The headline is absurd. We all know this intuitively.

People can’t truly be trusted to self-report their rationales. We barely understand our own rationales sometimes.

THE GOOD DOCTOR:

Growling in a corner: Samuel Johnson’s lost years (Henry Oliver, May 04, 2026, The Common Reader)

He rarely got out of bed in the morning. When he did, it was often to read a book about depression. He paid a great deal of attention to his belly, not just to keep himself well-fed so he could work without distraction—he concocted, out of his knowledge of medicine and food, his own syrups of figs and orange peel to keep digestion regular. He had no ear for music, and little appreciation of the visual arts, but few could claim to be better read in Latin or in English. He rolled, twitched, gesticulated, squinted, touched himself compulsively; he took religion so seriously he would admonish people fiercely in the middle of conversation; sometimes his political views came out in sulking fits. The woman he is thought to have loved, who said he would have been a hero to his own valet, once rated his personality traits out of twenty: for religion, morality, and general knowledge, he scored twenty; for person and voice, manner, and good humour she gave him zero.

A supporter of women’s education and accomplishments, in an age of patronising patriarchy, he gave Latin lessons to girls and women of his acquaintance, read and complimented (by quoting from memory) the novels of women writers, promoted their work, advised them and helped them get published; but he treated women with the same contempt he treated men, and when Catherine Macaulay published her radical History of England, which was republican, he not only refused to read it, but got into the habit of making toasts in her name, mockingly, when a toast to the King was called for. This was the same King, who he once said, if the people of England could be fairly polled, would be sent out of England, and his adherents hanged.

He so loved the hierarchical order of society, he thought the King—chosen by Parliament, a German Elector, and thus not the direct descendant of James II—was not the true King. It is not known what he was doing in 1745, the year in which a rebellion by James II’s descendants was launched against the throne. He wrote anonymous pamphlets which were sympathetic to the rebels’ cause. Scholars of his work argue bitterly in petty tones about where he might have been, and what he might have been doing. After recording the details of a rant about the recent history of England’s kings, his biographer declines to keep adding details of the expostulation, and instead merely notes, “He roared with prodigious violence against George the Second.”

This man who so loved hierarchy was an abolitionist before the abolitionist movement. He once shocked the company at a university dinner by making his toast to “the next insurrection of Negroes in the West Indies.” He took in a twelve year old boy, a freed slave, and trained him as a servant, eventually leaving him the majority of his estate. This servant, Francis Barber, had gatherings of other free Black Britons at his house.

THE ONLY EXISTENTIAL THREAT IS INTERNAL:

Israel: What Went Wrong? by Omer Bartov review – the long view: An erudite account of the foundation of the state and its subsequent moral and political decline (Avi Shlaim, 9 May 2026, The Guardian)


The moral and political degradation of Israel is the subject of this remarkable book. The author, Omer Bartov, has impeccable credentials for writing it: he was born on a kibbutz, he served as an officer in the IDF, and is currently professor of holocaust and genocide studies at Brown University in the US. It is dedicated to his father, Hanoch Bartov, “the last Zionist”, a reference to the liberal brand of Zionism to which the whole family were evidently dedicated. Yet this book is written more in sorrow than in anger. Its goal is not to condemn Zionism but to explain its evolution from a dream to a nightmare.

To do so, Bartov goes back to the formation of Israel in 1948. In a chapter entitled The Missing Constitution, he bemoans the failure of the founding fathers to resolve the question of how a multi-ethnic state can remain both Jewish and democratic; in other words, their failure to square the circle of ethno-nationalism and pluralism.

Had a written constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence been adopted, he argues, and had generations of Israelis been raised with respect for the constitution and pride in a bill of rights for all human beings, “the creeping racism of Israeli society might have been tempered, and the astonishing indifference to the genocide being perpetrated in Gaza and the daily crimes and pogroms on the West Bank might have elicited a greater sense of scandal”. Maybe. History does not disclose its alternatives. Arguably, however, Bartov does not go back far enough in history to explore the roots of Israeli racism. Zionism is a self-avowed settler-colonial movement and its principal political progeny – the state of Israel – is a settler-colonial state. The logic of settler-colonialism is the elimination of the natives in order to take over the land and its resources. Ethnic cleansing is the means by which this goal is achieved. In 1948, the newly born state of Israel carried out the ethnic cleansing of Palestine: 750,000 Palestinians became refugees and the name Palestine was wiped off the map. This is what Palestinians call the Nakba, meaning “catastrophe”. From the point of view of the victims, the viciousness of Zionism is nothing new; they have known it all along.

Moreover, the Nakba was not a one-off event; it is an ongoing process.

AS CONFIRMED BY PHYSICS:

Why Dr. Johnson Kicked a Stone After Hearing Berkeley’s Argument (Vanja Subotic, 5/07/26, The Collector)

Berkeley’s key idea, the one that so enraged Dr. Johnson, is neatly summed up in his neat Latin phrase: Esse est percipi (to be is to be perceived). He argues that for anything to exist, it must be perceived by someone. Put simply, an object that no one is aware of through their senses simply cannot exist. […]

Something often omitted in the retelling of this philosophical anecdote is that, according to Boswell, Johnson kicked the stone more out of frustration than demonstration. Both he and Johnson considered Berkeley’s ideas to be at odds with common sense. But try as hard as they could, neither of them could come up with a way of disproving Berkeley’s arguments. They were absolutely convinced that Berkeley was wrong and annoyed that they could not vindicate common sense.

No one can.

MOURNING THE BANTUSTANS:

How Minority Districts Fueled the G.O.P.’s Southern Ascendancy in Congress (Carl Hulse, 5/08/26, NY Times)

The G.O.P. may find it more difficult to win in more diverse districts of the kind that existed before the reshuffling of maps prompted by the Voting Rights Act. […]


In the late 1980s, Republicans had been deep in the House minority for nearly 40 years. But growing dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party had begun moving white Southern conservatives into the Republican ranks, as illustrated by high-profile party switches in Washington. Then the redistricting initiated under a series of court decisions aimed at fostering more minority representation provided yet another opening that might have seemed counterintuitive at first glance.

Architects of the maps realized that if they could maximize Black and Hispanic representation in the new districts, they would simultaneously dilute Democratic strength in surrounding jurisdictions where coalitions of white and Black voters had elected white Democrats for decades. The shift would ultimately create dozens of openings for Republican candidates in what had formerly been known as Democrats’ “Solid South.”

Groups bankrolled by wealthy conservatives joined with liberal organizations to school minority advocacy groups in state capitals and in Washington about how to shape new districts to meet court tests and best guarantee the election of minority representatives for minority communities — an outcome that many on the left argued was long overdue. Republican groups even provided free access to expensive computer software that could craft the new districts. Democrats eagerly accepted the help.

Some civil rights figures such as Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat, warned at the time that the new maps could empower Republicans by weakening the partnership of progressive white and Black voters in the South. But others said the new districts were the only way to overcome centuries of institutional discrimination against minorities in the region.

“Gerrymandering was done to keep Black folks out,” Mr. Clyburn said. “If you gerrymander to keep them out, you’ve got to gerrymander to bring them in.”

It’s not racism when you ghettoize the vote?

THE FUTURE ALWAYS HAPPENS FASTER THAN YOU EXPECT:

Trump Is Losing His War on Renewables: This is the second war Trump is losing. Last year solar and wind power accounted for 99 percent of the growth in world electricity supply, while generation using fossil fuels declined. (Paul Krugman , 5/08/26, NY Times)

The global energy transition — the shift from fossil fuels to electrotech, which uses solar, wind and batteries to power an electrified economy — is accelerating. It’s now clear that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz marks an inflection point: the global green energy curve, which was already on a rapidly rising trajectory, has suddenly become even steeper. “Investors,” reports the Financial Times, “are piling into clean energy funds.”

This acceleration isn’t just a consequence of soaring fossil fuel prices. It is also the result of the worldwide realization that, with the end of Pax Americana, depending on imported hydrocarbons is a risk not worth taking. The United States cannot be relied on to keep sea lanes open when cheap drones can take out an oil tanker or a major pipeline. Even relying on oil and gas from America itself is dangerous, since one never knows when an erratic U.S. government – now under the control of a twice-elected malignant narcissist — will try to use energy as a tool of coercion.


Despite the perversity of its causes, the current acceleration of electrotech is overwhelmingly positive for the world as a whole. It will slow climate change and reduce pollution. It will diminish the power of anti-democratic petrostates and limit the vulnerability of the world economy to disruptions at choke points like Hormuz. It will democratize access to cheap energy sources in places like Africa.

There is another positive consequence of the clean energy boom: the diminishment of the carbon coalition — the interest groups and ideologues who hate renewable energy and want the world to keep burning fossil fuels.

Economics trumps ideology.

SILLINESS EVOLVES:

If wings came before flight, what were they for? (Lily Burton, 5/08/26, Science News)

In the experiments, Jablonski, now at the Museum and Institute of Zoology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, and his colleagues focused on small, feathered dinosaurs called pennaraptorans. The animals’ “protowings” were unlikely to have supported flight, says Minyoung Son, a vertebrate paleontologist at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

The surface area of the wings, he says, would have been too small to create the aerodynamic force needed to lift pennaraptorans off the ground, and the ranges of their wing joints would also have limited their movements. Plus, Son says, feathers need to have an asymmetrical shape to be aerodynamic, and based on the fossil record, these dinosaurs “don’t have the aerodynamic feathers yet.”

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.