Where

You hear one degree. You hear Fahrenheit.
You hear warm weather in your hometown
And leave before the local news switches: they
Say half a degree, say Celsius, say warming
Global climate, so beeswax melts

Out your ear as it ships
Past the Sirens atop bones with plastic
Six pack yokes around them still choking
Those in rigor mortis. You hear them
As one hurricane siren—not constant, plural

Puddles feet deep of human waste smacking
Against Achilles—and chase them. As it turns out,
At half a degree warmer, all of you go
From underwater Otoh Gunga, Sub Diego, and Atlantis
To Upper and Lower Keys, Atlantic and Ocean City:

You go closer from myth to thawed
Greenland; deep-frozen heat in the sky
With smog and lung with tumor tips car
Exhaust pipes, blocking your airways
Yet trafficking cough drop

Needs; the soil’s dry spots a caught black sea bass,
Flat as a skate: you could skate on drought
To the North Pole and fall
Into the Arctic Ocean, devoid of any ice.
Algae moves out, breaks up with coral,

Who then bleaches their skin and dies,
The hottest day on record breaking
Its own record every two years until
Heat strokes are common colds
Nobody’s immune to, everywhere—

by Prince Bush
from Pank Magazine 1.1- Environmental Futures

Daniel Lefferts in The Millions:

Amitava Kumar tends to talk about his forthcoming novel, A Time Outside This Time, as if he’s still in the process of writing it. He says he’s “going to” try to achieve certain effects with it. He says “I will” adopt certain narrative strategies. He poses provisional questions: “What form do I give,” he asks, to the story he wants to tell?

It’s a curious tic but, given the novel’s subject matter, it’s not surprising. A Time Outside This Time, set primarily in the first half of 2020, is about the global proliferation of fake news and the writer’s obligation to combat it. Rather than examine the vagaries of our moment from a retrospective distance, the novel allows itself to be shaped by them, navigating events—the Covid-19 pandemic, the Black Lives Matter protests, the last breaths of the Trump presidency—as they unfold. No wonder Kumar describes his novel as if he’s still writing it: the story he’s telling is still happening.

“I’m going to put down the news,” Kumar says via Zoom from a hotel room in Sewanee, Tenn., where he’s teaching a class at the Sewanee Writers’ Conference. “I will put everything down as it is occurring—there will be an immediacy—but also I’m doing something that is artistic, or cunning.”

More here.

Cal Flyn in Prospect:

While the explosion in food allergies is well documented, there is no agreement on why it’s happened. Theories abound: one of the most enduring has been the so-called “hygiene hypothesis,” put forward by the epidemiologist David Strachan in 1989, which suggested that modern society’s obsession with cleanliness was at the root of the problem. The hypothesis proposed that a lack of exposure to dirt and bugs leads to a badly calibrated immune system prone to misfires. But though the idea feels intuitive, and has thus found a willing public audience, evidence for it has been lacking. Scientists now say that over-enthusiastic hygiene practices are unlikely to be the cause, although exposure to the lungs of particular cleaning products might be.

More here.

Yanis Varoufakis at Project Syndicate:

On February 9, 1967, hours after the US Air Force pounded Haiphong Harbor and several Vietnamese airfields, NBC television screened a politically momentous episode of Star Trek. Entitled “The Return of the Archons,” the episode marks the debut of the Prime Directive – the supreme law of the fictional United Federation of Planets, and its Starfleet, banning any and all purposeful interference with alien people, civilizations, and cultures. Devised in 1966, as President Lyndon B. Johnson was sending another 100,000 troops into Vietnam, the Prime Directive constituted a direct, though well-camouflaged, ideological challenge to what the US government was up to.

Having remained central to the Star Trek series to this day, the Prime Directive is even more pertinent now. Military escapades always entail a variety of separate issues, making it hard to have a rational debate about their merits. For example, were the US invasions of Vietnam or Afghanistan motivated by good intentions, whether containing totalitarianism or saving women from radical Islamists? Or were those intentions invoked to provide political cover for cynical economic or strategic motives? Were they wrong because the US forces were defeated? Or would they have been wrong even in victory?

The beauty of the Prime Directive is that it cuts through this labyrinth of confusion and deception: the invader’s motives, good or bad, matter not one iota.

More here.

Cody Delistraty in The Paris Review:

The fifteenth-century Italian artist Fra Angelico invented emotional interiority in art; laid the stylistic groundwork for Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and Mark Rothko; and theorized a utopian world, one in which everything and everyone is ultimately linked.

In the summer of 1873, Henry James visited a former monastery on Piazza San Marco in Florence. Surrounded by a scattering of low-slung, washed-out government buildings and conical Tuscan cypresses, the church and convent were in what is still the city’s center. When James first entered the convent, he saw Fra Angelico’s The Crucifixion with Saints in the chapter room. A brightly colored, semicircle fresco about thirty feet wide, Crucifixion depicts Christ and the two thieves on either side of him, nailed to their crosses, as saints and witnesses grieve below. “I looked long,” James wrote. “One can hardly do otherwise.” As the author moved throughout what had then just become a museum, he felt a spiritual urge, even though he had rejected his Christian upbringing. “You may be as little of a formal Christian as Fra Angelico was much of one,” he wrote in Italian Hours. “You yet feel admonished by spiritual decency to let so yearning a view of the Christian story work its utmost will on you.” Even Angelico’s colors, he added, seem divinely infinite, “dissolved in tears that drop and drop, however softly, through all time.”

More here.

From Science:

A botanist’s quest for new medicines takes her deep into the Amazon. A computer scientist and a sci-fi author peer into the future of artificial intelligence. An anthropologist confronts changing attitudes about death. From an ambitious road map for the future of physics to a whirlwind tour of animal outlaws, the books on this year’s fall reading list—reviewed by alumni of the AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellowship program—challenge readers to see the topics under consideration in a new light. Join a neurologist on a journey to understand the myriad causes of psychogenic illnesses, gain a better grasp of the origins of the climate crisis, and confront the ways ideas about gender have shaped innovation, all with the help of the books reviewed below. —Valerie Thompson

Emily and Walt

I suppose we did not want for love.
They were considerate parents, if a bit aloof,

or more than a bit.  He was a colossus
of enthusiasms, none of them us,

while she kissed our heads and mended socks
with a wistful, faraway look.

She might have been a little, well, daft.
And he—Allons, my little ones, he’d laugh,

then leave without us.
And those “friends” of his!

Anyway, he’s gone off to “discover
himself” in San Francisco, or wherever,

while she’s retired to the condo in Boca.
We worry, but she says she likes it in Florida;

she seems, almost, happy. I suppose they were
less caregivers than enablers,

they taught by example, reading for hours
in the drafty house and now the house is ours,

with its drawers full of junk and odd
lines of verse and stairs that ascend to god

knows where, belfries and gymnasia,
the chapel, the workshop, aviaries, atria—

we could never hope to fill it all.
Our voices are too small

for its silences, too thin to spawn and echo.
Sometimes, even now, when the night wind blows

into the chimney flue
I start from my bed, calling out—“Hello

Mom and Dad, is that you?”

by Campbell McGrath
from Nouns and Verbs
Harper Collins, 2019

Daniel Birnbaum at Artforum:

In his 1591 treatise De monade, numero et figura liber (On the Monad, Number, and Figure), Bruno described three types of monads: God, souls, and atoms. Much later, the concept of the monad was popularized by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. In Leibniz’s system, monads are the basic, irreducible components of the universe. Each monad is a unique, indestructible soul-like entity. Monads cannot interact, but all are perfectly synchronized with one another by God.

Did af Klint know any of this when she created “The Atom Series” in 1917, juxtaposing her imagery with such statements as “Every atom has its center, but every center is directly connected to the center of the universe” and “The center of the universe consists of Innocence”? The series would appear to be a survey of the structure of the cosmos, but inner and outer worlds are so intimately intertwined in af Klint’s art that even physics can be described in moral and spiritual terms. The idea of macrocosms that both mirror and are composed of microcosms (universe and atom, body and cell) recurs throughout her notes.

more here.

Emily Ziff Griffin at The New Yorker:

February, 1991. The first night on the ship, I wore a cobalt velvet jacket with a shawl collar, stonewashed jeans, and a necklace bearing three tiers of iridescent orbs, an unintentional nod to the disco ball that would cast the ballroom in a glittering glow. I was barely a teen-ager, and, from my view across the dining room, I appeared to be the sole female passenger on the cruise ship carrying several hundred gay men from Miami, Florida, to San Juan, Puerto Rico, over the course of seven days—and definitely the only kid. I was travelling with my father, who, less than eighteen months later, would die after a five-year battle with aids. But, for the moment, he was well—at least well enough to take his daughter on a Caribbean vacation.

Fitting me into his gay life style, one that did not typically accommodate children, was my father’s norm.

more here.

Kyle Chayka in The New Yorker:

Memes become omnipresent for a variety of reasons. They might be fodder for entertaining video footage. They might provide a tool for people to express themselves, or cater to deep-seated hopes or anxieties. Ivermectin, which is used for some human applications as well as horse deworming, answered the desire for a covid miracle cure in the face of the United States’ recent surge in infections caused by the Delta variant. The drug has been the subject of medical studies for its supposed efficacy in treating covid-19, but there is little rigorous data on the subject, and one recent study found that it does not alleviate mild coronavirus symptoms. Still, over the past few months it has been publicized by figures such as Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, and the Fox News hosts Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson. Joe Rogan, who hosted the ivermectin advocate Bret Weinstein on his podcast in June, announced on Wednesday that he had tested positive for covid-19, and claimed that he had been treated with a number of medications, including the dewormer. (YouTube has deleted some of Weinstein’s content promoting the drug.) The ivermectin phenomenon is a successor to Donald Trump’s obsessive touting of hydroxychloroquine, but the newly popular drug is even more dangerous because it can be self-administered without prescriptions. Indeed, some users have taken highly concentrated versions made specifically for animals. On August 26th, the C.D.C. released a health advisory warning of “severe illness” caused by ivermectin overdoses, including vomiting, diarrhea, and hallucination. Rather than accepting a free vaccine with minimal documented risk of side effects, people are buying a way to poison themselves—one man cited in the C.D.C. bulletin landed in the hospital for nine days.

Fuelled by viral misinformation, the mania has been countered through memetic channels in turn. On TikTok, hashtags like #ivermectin4covid and #ivermectinworks were becoming popular and netting millions of views.

More here.

From Phys.Org:

Right now, in your body, lurk thousands of cells with DNA mistakes that could cause cancer. Yet only in rare instances do these DNA mistakes, called genetic mutations, lead to a full-blown cancer. Why? The standard explanation is that it takes a certain number of genetic “hits” to a cell’s DNA to push a cell over the edge. But there are well-known cases in which the same set of mutations clearly causes cancer in one context, but not in another. A good example is a mole. The cells making up a mole are genetically abnormal. Quite often, they contain a mutated DNA version of the BRAF gene that, when found in cells located outside of a mole, will often lead to melanoma. But the vast majority of moles will never turn cancerous. It’s a conundrum that has scientists looking to cellular context for clues to explain the difference.

The scientists say their results offer an important new perspective on cancer formation, one that contrasts with conventional wisdom. “The standard idea that has been around for decades is that you basically need two types of DNA mutations to get cancer: an activated oncogene and a disabled tumor suppressor gene,” Dr. White says. “Once you clear those two hurdles, cancer will form. Now we have this entirely other thing—oncogenic competence—which adds a third layer to the mix.” Dr. Baggiolini, a lead author on the study and a postdoctoral fellow in the Studer lab, likens the situation to starting a fire. “The DNA mutations are like a lit match: If you have the wrong wood or if the wood is wet, you might get a bit of flickering but no fire. But if you have the right wood, and maybe some kindling, the whole thing burns up.” In this example, ATAD2 is the kindling. Developing a drug to remove this kindling would be another way to treat the cancer besides targeting the DNA mutations.

More here.

Lauren Stroh at n+1:

I AM ON MY FOURTH HURRICANE in 367 days. My protocol at this point has become routine: you prep for hours, and then you wait. You buy your water, you fill the bathtub so you can pressure flush the toilet, you bulk up on flashlights and candles, you throw out your perishable food, you secure your belongings and your property, you cool the house as much as possible before the power goes out. I choose to stockpile cigarettes, beer, and votive candles of Catholic saints, but that is my individual pleasure. Everyone has their own.

I helped out in Lake Charles, where I grew up, last year in the aftermath of Hurricanes Delta and Laura, and I live in New Orleans where I rode out our last two storms. Then in Lake Charles there was last winter’s ice storm, a hundred-year’s flood in May, and still no federal aid. Those people lost everything. My mom was knocked off her feet: sixty years of shit, thirty-three years of flood insurance, six inches of water, and just a couple hours.

more here.

Adolph Reed, Jr. at nonsite:

I know that many liberals, and not a few leftists, will dismiss this account as wildly hyperbolic. Liberals have an abiding faith in the solidity of American democratic institutions; leftists have internally consistent arguments demonstrating why a putsch can’t happen because it wouldn’t be in capital’s interests. It always seems most reasonable to project the future as a straight-line extrapolation from the recent past and present; inertia and path dependence are powerful forces. But that’s why political scientists nearly all were caught flat-footed by the collapse of the Soviet Union. To be clear, I’m not predicting the possible outcome I’ve laid out. My objective is to indicate dangerous, opportunistic tendencies and dynamics at work in this political moment which I think liberals and whatever counts as a left in the United States have been underestimating or, worse, dismissing entirely. If forced to bet, based on the perspective on American political history since 1980, or even 1964, that I’ve laid out here, I’d speculate that the nightmare outline I’ve sketched is between possible and likely, I imagine and hope closer to the former than the latter.

more here.

David Byrne in Reasons to be Cheerful:

At the end of June, the World Health Organization certified China as having eliminated malaria. The announcement may have gotten a little drowned out by the mass spectacles surrounding the Communist Party’s 100th birthday, but make no mistake: going from 30 million cases annually to zero really is a reason to be cheerful.

There are a lot of places that would like to emulate China — malaria is one of the top public health threats around the world, with 200 million cases and 400,000 deaths per year. And while a number of other countries are malaria-free — most recently El Salvador, Algeria, Argentina, Paraguay and Uzbekistan — many more are eager to know how the Chinese did it.

The scope of China’s achievement is hard to overstate.

More here.

Sheldon Lee Glashow in Inference Review:

Steven Weinberg and I knew each other for seventy-four of our eighty-eight years. He was my friend and classmate throughout high school and college. We met at the Bronx High School of Science, where, together with Gerald Feinberg, Morton Sternheim, and Menasha Tausner, we decided to become theoretical physicists—as we all became.

Steve and I and a few friends created the first high-school science-fiction fanzine, Etaoin Shrdlu, writing and illustrating it ourselves; but we did manage to secure a contribution from Alfred Bester, who was already admired as a writer of science fiction. Feinberg was our science editor. Our zine did not outlive our tenure at Bronx Science. To satisfy our fearsome senior class public-speaking requirement, Steve and I submitted a wire recording we made of our production of Orson Welles’s 1938 radiocast, “The War of the Worlds.” Steve was the narrator and I, the scientist, Dmitri Shostakovich’s Seventh Symphony serving as background music.

We aced the course.

As graduation approached, Steve and I were both rejected by Harvard, but accepted by Cornell, MIT, and Princeton.

More here.

Pratap Bhanu Mehta in The Indian Express:

There is an old adage that if you want to understand state building or state breakdown, follow the guns. In conflict zones like Afghanistan, it is all too easy to take recourse to debates over development and culture, while ignoring the dynamics of armed conflict, and the presence of weaponry that militarises society and embeds violence. Even a casual perusal of databases at Small Arms Survey, Geneva, that tracks violent conflict and the proliferation of arms, brings home some basic facts about state building and violence.

In their last year of comparative data base 2018, Afghanistan has a rate of 59.8 violent deaths per 1,00,000, below other conflict zones like Syria (187.9), and El Salvador (87). But this data base is also a reminder of two other large trends. First, violence tends to be sticky. Once embedded, it is hard to dislodge. South Africa has a rate of 40.6; Brazil 36.3. Most countries with relatively lower rates are in Asia, or are European social democracies. In Asia, India has a violent death rate of 3.9 per 1,00,000; Pakistan is at 5.9 while big countries like Indonesia, China and Japan are lower than 1. This contrast between Asia and the Americas on this aspect of state building and prevalence of violent death is striking, and rarely made as central to the development literature as poverty.

More here.