Keen On America

Can we humans make it to 2125? According to Gary F. Bengier, author of Journey to 2125, our species faces three existential threats over the next 100 years. His horsemen of the apocalypse are climate change, nuclear war and robots. No great surprises there. Where Bengier is more original is his stress on narrowing the manifold threats to humanity. Focus, focus, focus is Bengier’s species survival mantra. The ex-eBay technologist turned philosopher argues we're distracted by too many doomsday scenarios. His classic Silicon Valley solution: ignore the noise, solve these three core problems, and humanity might be able to "muddle through." But, as always in these cliffhanger narratives, there's a potential catch—nuclear war could destroy the resources needed to fight climate change, while robot factories in the business of building more robot factories could short circuit capitalism itself. Ooops. So there’s no guarantee that any of us - even (or especially) those Kurzweilian crazies who believe we can live forever - will squeak through to 2125.

1. The Three Threats That Actually Matter Bengier argues humanity faces three existential challenges over the next century: climate change, nuclear war, and mass unemployment from robots that build robot factories. His core message: stop getting distracted by "50 other things" and focus solely on these civilization-ending threats.

2. The Dangerous Interconnection Nuclear war isn't just catastrophic on its own—it could destroy the economic resources needed to fight climate change. A limited nuclear exchange (losing "10 or 20 cities each") would consume so much wealth in rebuilding that climate action would become impossible, creating a cascade of existential failures.

3. The Robot Revolution Will Be Different This Time While the current AI wave won't eliminate most jobs, Bengier warns of a second wave when AI-embedded robots become ubiquitous. When "robots build the robot factories that build the robots," the fundamental question becomes: who owns the robot factories? This could mark the end of capitalism as we know it.

4. Nuclear Power Is Essential, Solar Isn't Enough Despite solar costs dropping 90%, Bengier argues we need nuclear power (especially small modular reactors) because renewables alone can't provide consistent baseline power. More critically, developing nations need accessible nuclear technology to avoid using their cheap fossil fuel reserves.

5. Consciousness Isn't Coming to Machines Against Silicon Valley hype about AGI and conscious AI, Bengier (who studied philosophy of mind) argues machines lack "qualia"—the subjective experience of what things feel like. Machines can analyze an apple's 37 components but can't understand what an apple actually is. The "hard problem of consciousness" remains nowhere near solved.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

For anyone who has seen Michael B. Jordan’s excellent new movie Sinners, it’s clear that any sort of deal with the devil - what has become known as the Faustian Bargain - is still very much alive. So relevant, in fact, that cultural historian Ed Simon has a book, just out in paperback, about its enduring relevance entitled Devil’s Contract. From Shakespeare and Goethe to Thomas Mann and Donald Trump, Simon argues, the Faustian Bargain is more than just a literary trope. In fact, he suggests, it is as relevant today, in our social media age of the Mephistophelian Donald Trump as it was in the German Reformation of the equally populist Martin Luther. The Art of a Deal with the Devil. And we all know how it ends. Go and see Sinners. Spoiler warning: not without the spilling of a great deal of innocent blood.

1. The Faustian Bargain is Fundamentally About Irrationality Despite knowing the terrible consequences, Faust signs the contract anyway. As Simon explains, "if you know that the devil is real and that the Devil collects souls at the end of your life, then like you'd never sign on the dotted line. And yet these characters continually do." This captures our human tendency to act against our own best interests.

2. The Contract Makes It Modern What distinguishes the Faust legend from earlier devil stories is the literal paperwork. Simon argues this bureaucratic element - signing on the dotted line - transforms it into a distinctly modern tale about legal systems, capitalism, and bureaucracy. It's not just about temptation; it's about documentation.

3. AI is Our Latest Faustian Bargain Simon sees artificial intelligence as having "a shockingly obvious kind of Faustian gloss" - from the magic of conjuring something from nothing to the environmental destruction of massive server farms. We're trading our future for technological convenience, knowing the costs.

4. Trump is Mephistopheles, Not Faust In Simon's reading, Trump isn't the one making the deal - he's the devil others make deals with. JD Vance becomes the perfect example: fully aware of what Trump is, yet "willing to seemingly abandon whatever principles he may have had in the past... for power alone."

5. Sometimes Faust Wins (But Usually Doesn't) While Goethe's Faust finds redemption and salvation, most versions end badly. The American "Yankee Faust" tries to trick the devil but still gets his house burned down. The lesson? You might think you're clever enough to beat the devil, but the house always wins.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

How to bring peace to Gaza and Ukraine? Maybe the United Nations can help. Or, sadly, maybe not. But there really was a time, in the second half of the 20th century, when the United Nations could help bring peace to supposedly insoluble wars. The U.N.'s glory days were in the Sixties when it was run by a former Burmese school teacher called U Thant. His incredible story is told by his grandson, the Cambridge University historian Thant Myint-U, in a new book appropriately called Peacemaker. Thant Myint-U reminds us of a halcyon time when the UN Secretary-General could summon presidents at will, mediate between nuclear superpowers, and command respect from Castro to Kennedy. Today's forgotten history reveals how U Thant's intervention during the Cuban Missile Crisis helped prevent nuclear war—a role not-so-surprisingly airbrushed from most American and Soviet accounts. Yes, even in the glory years of the Sixties, the bureaucratized U.N. was far from perfect. But under a dedicated peacemaker like U-Thant it could help bring ceasefires to seemingly endless wars. Like in Ukraine and Gaza.

1. U Thant's crucial role in preventing nuclear war has been erased from history During the Cuban Missile Crisis, U Thant provided the face-saving framework that allowed both Khrushchev and Kennedy to step back from the brink. He articulated the missiles-for-no-invasion deal, gave Khrushchev a neutral party to respond to instead of American ultimatums, and bought Kennedy time against his hawkish advisors. Yet this intervention barely appears in American or Soviet accounts.

2. The UN's decline stems from lost enthusiasm on both sides The UN's marginalization wasn't inevitable. It resulted from America's disillusionment after Vietnam-era challenges to its power, combined with a new generation of Third World leaders less interested in the global stage than their predecessors like Nehru, Nasser, and Nkrumah. Both superpowers and smaller nations stopped investing in the institution.

3. Decolonization needed the UN's framework to succeed Without the UN providing a structure where newly independent nations had equal status and a voice, decolonization might have resulted in continued informal empire or Commonwealth arrangements. The UN gave these countries both legitimacy and a platform to resist neo-colonial pressures.

4. The next Secretary-General selection could determine the UN's survival With the current term ending in 2025, the choice of the next leader—requiring agreement between Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping—may be the UN's last chance for relevance. Without strong leadership focused on the UN's core peacemaking function, the institution may not survive.

5. The UN worked best when it rejected Cold War binary thinking The non-aligned movement wasn't passive neutrality but active rejection of a world divided into camps. Leaders like U Thant succeeded by creating space for all parties to negotiate without choosing sides, offering an alternative to the superpower confrontation that risked nuclear war.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Lead in gasoline powered cars have killed more people than those that died in World War Two. That’s the astonishing claim of David Obst who, in his new Saving Ourselves From Big Car, lays out a strategy to kick our self-destructive automobile addiction. The former investigative reporter, who worked with Seymour Hersh on the My Lai massacre story and represented Woodward and Bernstein for All the President's Men, argues that the auto industry suppressed knowledge about lead's deadly effects for 70 years. More controversially, Obst claims electric vehicles are no better due to the lead in batteries. The only safe future is one without cars, he insists, pointing to car-free communities like Tempe, Arizona and Taipei, Taiwan as models for breaking what he calls our addiction to automobiles.

1. Lead in gasoline killed more people than World War II Obst claims that from 1927 to the 1990s, lead additives in gasoline caused more deaths globally than WWII, citing World Health Organization statistics - though interviewer Andrew Keen found this claim conspiratorial.

2. Electric vehicles aren't the solution Surprisingly, Obst argues EVs are just as dangerous as gas cars because their batteries contain lead. He points to Tesla fires in the California Palisades spreading lead pollution as evidence of this ongoing problem.

3. The auto industry suppressed the truth for 70 years The Ethel Corporation (formed by Standard Oil, DuPont, and GM) allegedly kept lead's deadly effects secret through lobbying and silencing critics, including exiling Caltech scientist Claire Patterson who tried to expose the danger.

4. Americans are "addicted" to cars Inspired by his granddaughter telling him "you are the traffic," Obst argues we must treat car dependence like any other addiction - acknowledging that 30% of gasoline is burned just looking for parking spaces.

5. Car-free communities are the only answer Obst profiles successful car-free zones from Tempe, Arizona (6,000 residents, no cars allowed) to Taipei's bicycle-centric system, arguing for gradual implementation of car-free neighborhoods rather than overnight transformation.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

There is no more shakespearean parable of the tragic rise and fall of the postwar American meritocratic elite than Robert Strange McNamara. War hero, Harvard Business School, head of Ford, begged by JFK to take a role - any role - in Camelot. Then came the equally meteoric fall as JFK and then LBJ’s Secretary of Defense - Vietnam and all its death and deceit. With his brother William, Philip Taubman has written about what he calls McNamara’s “double life” in his new biography, McNamara At War. In this “new history”, they uncover new documents showing that McNamara was privately telling his aide John McNaughton in April 1966 - just nine months after advocating for massive escalation - that he "wanted to bring the boys home so bad I can hardly stand it." Yet this analytic whiz-kid, a poetry loving smart machine in a grey suit, continued prosecuting this unwinnable war for nearly two more years. The Taubmans suggest, therefore, that the catastrophic American defeat in Vietnam wasn’t simply a military failure. It was a defeat of the entire postwar American technocratic meritocracy represented, above all, by the tragic double life of Robert Strange McNamara.

1. Institutional Loyalty Can Override Moral Judgment McNamara's "contorted loyalty" to LBJ and the presidency led him to continue prosecuting a war he privately knew was unwinnable. His defense was that cabinet members serve the president, not some "higher calling" - yet the actual oath of office mentions defending the Constitution, not the president.

2. Technical Brilliance Doesn't Guarantee Moral Leadership The "whiz kids" represented a new technocratic approach to governance based on data analysis and corporate efficiency. Yet when faced with Vietnam's moral complexities, these analytical skills became tools for prolonging catastrophe rather than preventing it.

3. Elite Institutions May Inadequately Prepare Leaders for Ethical Dilemmas McNamara's stellar credentials - Berkeley, Harvard Business School, Ford presidency - represented the pinnacle of American meritocracy. But this system apparently failed to develop his capacity to act on moral conviction when it conflicted with institutional pressure.

4. The "Double Life" Problem in High-Stakes Decision Making The gap between McNamara's private knowledge (war unwinnable by late 1965) and public actions (continued escalation through 1968) suggests a psychological split that may be endemic to powerful positions where personal judgment conflicts with role expectations.

5. Personal Character Flaws Amplified by Power McNamara's failures weren't limited to Vietnam - his treatment of his dying wife, his emotional manipulation by LBJ, and his suppression of his own moral compass suggest character weaknesses that became magnified and consequential when combined with immense institutional power.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Dumb globalization: America’s worst bet. That, at least, is the view of the Washington Post financial writer David J Lynch and author of The World’s Worst Bet. From Clinton to Bush, Lynch argues, America has bet stupidly on globalization and, not surprisingly, has lost. It’s no coincidence, he suggests, that the American dream has also unraveled in this tumultuous period. While globalization lifted billions from poverty worldwide and enriched coastal elites, Lynch contends that America's failure to help displaced manufacturing workers created the resentment that ultimately put Trump in the White House. The promised assistance to globalization's losers never materialized, leaving entire communities devastated by both catastrophic job losses and the equal catastrophe to tens of million Americans of the 2008 financial crisis.

So what to do? Lynch argues that both Trump's tariffs and Biden's industrial policy are fighting yesterday's battles. Instead, America needs robust labor market policies—wage insurance, place-based economic development, and real safety nets for workers displaced by trade, automation, or AI. The missing piece has always been helping people transition, not futile attempts to resurrect lost manufacturing jobs. Smart globalization: America’s best bet.

1. The Unappreciated Gamble America bet it could reap all of globalization's benefits without addressing its costs. Politicians from Clinton onward promised help for displaced workers that never materialized, while prioritizing balanced budgets, wars, and bank bailouts over struggling communities.

2. The Obama-to-Trump Pipeline is Real Counties that voted for Obama by 59% flipped to Trump by 56%. These voters saw both as outsiders promising change. When "hope and change" failed to deliver, they turned to "Make America Great Again" - two sides of the same anti-establishment coin.

3. We're Going Backwards, Not Forward U.S. tariffs are now at their highest level since the 1930s. Both Trump's tariffs and Biden's industrial policy are fighting yesterday's battles, trying to resurrect manufacturing jobs that economists agree won't return at any reasonable cost.

4. The Financial Crisis Was the Breaking Point The 2008 crash wasn't just another recession - it was the second devastating blow to communities already reeling from job losses. Watching banks get bailed out while losing their homes cemented the perception that the system was rigged.

5. AI Makes This Urgent The next wave of displacement won't hit factory workers - it'll hit the coastal elites. Doctors, lawyers, and knowledge workers face AI disruption, possibly creating the political will for the safety nets America should have built decades ago.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

In our angry MAHA times, how can we get people trusting science and scientists again. According to MIT’s Alan Lightman, one of America’s greatest scientific writers, we need to both demystify science and humanize scientists. Lightman is the co-author, with Martin Rees, of The Shape of Wonder, a timely collection of essays about how scientists think, work, and live. We need to learn from scientists like Albert Einstein, Lightman - himself the author of the 1993 classic Einstein’s Dreams, suggests. He argues that Einstein's "naive" willingness to challenge millennia of thinking about time exemplifies the wonder that drives great science. Lightman discusses why scientists have become entangled with "elite establishments" in our populist moment, and argues that critical scientific thinking—from balancing checkbooks to diagnosing a child's fever—belongs to everyone, not just scientists. So make America smart again (MASA), by demystifying science and humanizing scientists.

1. "Naive" questioning drives breakthrough science Einstein revolutionized physics at 26 by refusing to accept millennia of received wisdom about time—showing that great science requires childlike willingness to challenge fundamental assumptions.

2. Scientists are victims of populist backlash The mistrust of science isn't really about science—it's part of a global populist movement against "elite establishments," fueled by social media, immigration fears, and growing wealth inequality.

3. Wonder requires discipline, not just awe Unlike a child's wonder, scientific wonder comes with tools—both experimental and theoretical—for actually understanding how things work, making it "disciplined wonder."

4. Scientists shouldn't be authorities beyond science Even Einstein or Nobel laureates like Geoffrey Hinton have no special authority on ethics, philosophy, or politics—they're just smart people with opinions like everyone else.

5. Critical thinking belongs to everyone When you balance your checkbook or diagnose a child's fever, you're using scientific thinking. Science isn't an elite activity—it's a method we all already practice in daily life.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The human brain is so unbelievably complex that we barely understand its most basic functions. According to the British neuroscientist Daniel Yon, our brains - which some speculate are the most mysteriously complicated things in the universe - might even have minds of their own. In his latest book, A Trick of the Mind, Yon argues that our brains quite literally create our own realities. So is all reality entirely subjective, then? Not quite. Yon describes the brain as functioning like a scientist, constantly generating predictive models based on past experiences to interpret ambiguous sensory data. Rather than passively receiving information, we actively construct our perceptions through these mental frameworks. This isn't pure subjectivity, though—it's what he calls a "duet" between external stimuli and internal predictions. Our brains need these biases and preconceptions to make any sense of the world's overwhelming complexity. Without them, we'd be lost in what Yon calls "chaotic, volatile, unstable mystery." It all sounds like something out of a particularly fabulistic Jorge Luis Borges short story. Maybe it is.

1. Your brain acts like a scientist, not a camera The brain doesn't passively receive reality—it actively generates theories and predictions about the world based on past experiences. We're constantly creating models to interpret ambiguous sensory data, making perception an active construction rather than passive reception.

2. Some biases are actually rational necessities Contrary to behavioral economics' focus on "irrational" biases, Yon argues that preconceptions and biases are often essential for making sense of an ambiguous world. Without these mental frameworks, we'd be overwhelmed by raw sensory data—lost in "chaotic, volatile, unstable mystery."

3. We're "prisoners of our own pasts" Our brains use past experiences to predict and interpret the present, creating a self-perpetuating cycle. This explains why changing entrenched thought patterns is so difficult—we literally perceive the world through filters created by our history, both personal and cultural.

4. Knowledge-seeking has the same neural currency as basic survival drives The brain treats new information and understanding with the same reward systems it uses for food or water. This explains why humans pursue knowledge even at personal risk (like students studying philosophy under Communist surveillance)—our "wanderlust" is biologically encoded.

5. Mental health differences reflect alternative predictive models, not deficits Depression, anxiety, and neurodivergent conditions can be understood as different ways the brain models reality rather than as illnesses or deficits. In unpredictable environments, anxiety might be a perfectly rational response to perceived instability.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

According to former college president Beverly Daniel Tatum, Trump’s war on university admissions is deeply hypocritical. On the one hand, she argues, his attack on affirmative action admissions policy is made in the populist language of “anti-woke” egalitarianism; but on the other, wealthy families are already gaming college admissions through clever manipulation of the system. A Harvard study revealed that athletes, legacies, donors' children, and faculty offspring—categories overwhelmingly benefiting affluent white families—receive admission advantages far exceeding any diversity program. Yet while demanding universities abandon "racial proxies," Trump's administration simultaneously insists on counting student demographics, exposing the contradiction in claims of colorblind meritocracy.

Tatum’s new book, Peril and Promise: College Leadership in Turbulent Times, draws from her extensive experience as President of both Mount Holyoke College and Spelman College. Tatum discussed her controversial decision to eliminate NCAA sports at Spelman, redirecting resources toward wellness programs for all students rather than competitive athletics for a few. She also addressed the broader challenges facing higher education, from AI's potential to transform teaching and reduce costs to the ongoing mental health crisis on campuses, presenting herself as both a trustworthy insider and experienced observer of college education in our unusually turbulent times. Even opponents of affirmative action might learn something from the wise Dr Tatum.

* The Real Admissions Advantage Goes to Wealth, Not Race - A Harvard study shows that "ALDCs" (Athletes, Legacies, Donors' children, faculty Children) receive far greater admissions boosts than any affirmative action program ever provided, with these categories disproportionately benefiting affluent white families.

* Trump's "Colorblind" Approach Is Contradictory - While demanding universities stop using "racial proxies" and claiming to want merit-based admissions, the administration simultaneously insists on counting and tracking student demographics by race.

* 2025 Is Uniquely Turbulent for Higher Education - Tatum, who lived through the Vietnam era and other crisis periods, believes the current government intervention in university operations represents the most intense challenge to academic freedom she's experienced in decades.

* College Sports Often Drain Resources from Student Wellness - Tatum eliminated NCAA sports at Spelman College, redirecting funds toward fitness and wellness programs that benefit all students rather than the small percentage who compete, especially given data showing young Black women's sedentary lifestyles.

* AI Will Transform College Costs and Teaching - While startup costs for AI implementation are significant, early experiments show promise for reducing expenses and improving learning outcomes, such as AI tutors available 24/7 that outperformed traditional teaching methods in physics classes.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Globalization is dying, maybe even dead. Borders are back, baby. That’s the message in Jonn Elledge’s sparkling Brief History of the World in 47 Borders. In this romp around world history , Elledge introduces us to 47 of the world’s oddest borders including particularly weird ones in Detroit, Kaliningrad and Bolivia. So should be celebrating or mourning the rebirth of the border? Elledge is in mourning. A self-described progressive who grew up on Star Trek dreams of planetary unity, he sees nationalism's resurgence since 2016 as "quite a bad thing." He blames economic stagnation—when the pie stops growing, generous approaches to migration and distribution become much harder to sustain. I’m more sanguine. Whatever globalist bureaucrats at the UN or EU promised us, borders were never going away. As a species, we humans are agoraphobic. The Trekkies are wrong. The claustrophobia of the border is what gives us our sense of space.

1. Borders are having a political moment - The "liberal hegemony" that promised borderless globalization has been collapsing since 2016 (Brexit, Trump), making nationalism and territorial division the dominant political force again.

2. Economic stagnation drives border obsession - When economies aren't growing and people aren't getting richer, generous policies on migration and wealth distribution become much harder to sustain politically.

3. Maps shape leaders' minds - Trump's fixation on his Oval Office Ukraine map shows how visual representations of territory directly influence foreign policy decisions and geopolitical thinking.

4. Most "historic" borders are recent inventions - What we assume are natural, ancient boundaries (like the Berlin Wall, Bangladesh, or even Germany's division) are often just decades old, showing how arbitrary our sense of "normal" geography really is.

5. Borders create unexpected consequences - From Bolivia maintaining a navy despite being landlocked to Detroit's expansion bankrupting the city, where you draw lines has profound, often unintended effects on politics, economics, and culture for generations.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.