by Brooks Riley

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

by Alizah Holstein

Think of a Roman monument. What leaps to mind? The Pantheon? The Colosseum? The Arch of Constantine? Maybe even the aqueducts? I’ll wager that when you thought of the word “monuments,” your imagination traveled upwards instead of down. For what is a monument if not a tall, grand thing, large, and to some perhaps, looming? I do recognize it’s possible—though unlikely—that you conjured the catacombs. And it’s even less likely that you thought of roads.

Cultural critic Robert Hughes described roads as Rome’s greatest physical monuments. Their network extended some 50-75,000 miles and they were the sine qua non of Rome’s expansion. I should add a minor but nonetheless relevant detail here: some of my happiest moments have been spent on Roman roads. As were some of yours, in all likelihood, if you have ever felt ebullient in Rome or on the Italian peninsula, or indeed in Spain or France or England or Germany or the Balkans or Greece or Turkey or Syria or Israel or Gaza or Egypt or Algeria or Morocco.

Let me put another question to you. What is your favorite Roman road? If you’re a pilgrim, you might say the Via Francigena. And should you offer the Via Flaminia, Via Aurelia, or Via Aemilia or some other ancient equivalent, I imagine you have your reasons. But if you are a romantic like me, the only possible answer is the Via Appia, which is, after all, the regina viarum, the queen of roads. Think of cypress trees, ancient, crumbling tombs, jasmine and pinecones and fields of wildflowers. Think also of tourist traps, gladiator impersonators, a War World II massacre site, and prostitution. Think of paradox as the defining feature of the human condition. Still, even its name is beautiful: Via Appia. Look at all those a’s and i’s, like a palindrome just off its center, the V and A the very valleys and arêtes through which the road cuts. Read more »

by Thomas Fernandes

We might know more about biodiversity than ever before, yet we see it less. When life is talked about as “carbon sinks,” “pollinator services,” or “extinction curves,” it flattens into numbers: computable but unfeeling. But the loss we face isn’t just biological. It’s perceptual. We no longer notice life. Our first loss, then, may not be biodiversity itself, but our ability to see it. And nowhere is this blindness more widespread, or more foundational, than with plants.

Plant blindness is not simply a lack of interest in flora but a systemic failure to perceive the living structure of the world around us. We might pause for a flower’s scent or color, but how often do we notice the complex strategies behind its form?

Let’s begin, then, not with the abstract notion of biodiversity, but with the particular of flowering plants. At first, they had no roots, relying on fungi to supply water and nutrients in exchange for sugars produced by the plant through photosynthesis. With time plants started to develop their own roots systems but still lacked flowers. They were mostly ferns and conifers like pines.

In a baffling new evolution angiosperm (flowering plants) appeared about 170 million years ago. Flowers are the product of natural selection to attract and use pollinators to reproduce. They use scent, color, shape and sometimes temperature to signal to pollinators. Smell for instance is a primary attractor for many pollinators. In Europe, flowers that rely on bees and butterflies often emit sweet scents. But not all strategies are pleasant to us.

The Rafflesia, the world’s largest flower, smells like rotting meat to attract flies. The Titan Arum goes further, heating itself to human body temperature to volatilize more effectively corpse smelling compounds detectable hundreds of meters away. The temperature also imitates that of a body, an attractor in itself for carrion beetles. Read more »

Sughra Raza. The Visitor. Mexico, March 2025.

Digital photograph.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

by Katalin Balog

It was the first day of a Tibetan Buddhist retreat in 2016. We were about to participate in a ritual of chants and burning sage. Before we proceeded outside, the head teacher asked all of us to invite someone we would like to share this moment with. Instantly and vividly, my grandfather appeared in my mind. I found the defiance embodied in this choice shocking. My grandfather was the rock of my childhood. Kind, optimistic, a fountain of knowledge about the world, a lover of poetry and music, he was the undisputed authority in the family. He was a heir of the Enlightenment, and he would have been horrified by my association with religion, even the nontheistic Buddhist variety. At that moment, I realized that when the chips were down, I would choose my Enlightenment heritage over the enlightenment Buddhism promised. I was at this retreat (and later joining a synagogue) in an effort to recover parts of my soul that my secular rationalist upbringing made me feel I was missing. My being here was my rebellion against this very Enlightenment heritage.

But once here, feelings of unease increased with every chant about the “basic goodness” of humans, with every question waved away with impatience, with every forced debate on topics the leader of the organization set for his ostensibly grown-up disciples, with the disapproving jibes about “too much thinking”. The dissonance became too much, and by the end of the retreat – six long weeks later – I was out, no longer a disciple.

The tension I was experiencing was a small manifestation of the central problem of modernity. Can the common-sense, first-person, subjective view of ourselves as souls or subjects be reconciled with a scientifically informed, objective perspective? Can reason be overridden in the name of mindfulness, of systematic attention to subjective experience? This question preoccupied two very different thinkers of the 19th century, Auguste Comte and Søren Kierkegaard, who, though they seem to have been unaware of each other, lived at the same time and have come to very different conclusions. Read more »

by David J. Lobina

This is a question I was considering whilst reading this recent paper by Dorsa Amir and Chaz Firestone on the origins of a well-known visual illusion (a preprint is freely accessible here). It is an issue I have often thought about, and about which I have always wanted to write something. It is a question that attracts the attention of most scholars who study human behaviour, and most scholars will have a particular idea as to what their “first principles” are when it comes to constructing a theory of cognition.

Where does one start from when building up an account of a given cognitive phenomenon, though? Are there any initial assumptions in this kind of theoretical process? I think it is fair to say that in most cases one’s first principles can go some way towards explaining what kind of theory one favours to begin with, though this is not always explicitly stated; an enlightening case in this respect is the study of language acquisition, as I shall show later.

Let’s keep to Amir & Firestone’s study for a start. The paper focuses on the Müller-Lyer Illusion, shown in graphic A below, taken from their paper, an illusion that goes back to 1889 and is named after Franz Müller-Lyer, who devised it. Why is it an illusion? Well, because the two lines are of the same length and yet one typically perceives the top line to be longer than the bottom line, even after being told that they are of the same length – and even after checking this is so with a ruler. The Müller-Lyer Illusion seems to be unaffected by what one knows about it, and thus would be a candidate for a perceptual process that is more or less autonomous – it simply applies because of how our visual system works.

Or does it? A typical rejoinder has been that culture can shape the way we perceive the world in rather significant ways, and as a matter of fact not everyone is as susceptible to the Müller-Lyer Illusion as the western, educated population that is usually tested in cognitive psychology labs (this cohort is sometimes referred to as WEIRD; google it). Indeed, many cross-cultural studies have concluded so, and as a possible explanation it has been argued that the Illusion arises in populations who have been brought up in carpentered environments, shown in graphic B above – lacking this background, the Illusion is not as robust. Thus, the Müller-Lyer Illusion would be a product of experience and its observers might just be the exception rather than the rule. Read more »

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

by Eric Schenck

At a Christmas market in Germany, I told my German girlfriend’s mother that I masturbate with my family every December.

Of course (I swear), this was a mistake. What I was trying to say is that my family and I do a gift exchange every year. What I actually said? That we do a fair bit of masturbating together.  

As I learned that snowy evening, the words are practically the same in German:

• “Wechseln”: exchange
• “Wichsen”: masturbate  

Just a few letters off, and an entirely different world of meaning.

My girlfriend Janina knew what I was trying to say. But Gitta? She looked at me like I was a monster, like her daughter had picked the biggest piece of shit in the world. 

Do I masturbate with my family every Christmas? I do not. But the story does make me laugh. And if you’re serious about learning a language, you need to laugh, too.

Over the last 15+ years, I’ve learned four of them:

• Spanish
• Modern Standard Arabic
• Egyptian Arabic
• German

Here are some things about each one that have me laugh (or at least awkwardly smile)… Read more »

by Derek Neal

The File on H is a novel written in 1981 by the Albanian author Ismail Kadare. When a reader finishes the Vintage Classics edition, they turn the page to find a “Translator’s Note” mentioning a five-minute meeting between Kadare and Albert Lord, the researcher and scholar responsible, along with Milman Parry, for settling “The Homeric Question” and proving that The Iliad and The Odyssey are oral poems rather than textual creations. As The File on H retells a fictionalized version of Parry and Lord’s trips to the Balkans to record oral poets in the 1930’s, this meeting from 1979 is characterized as the genesis of the novel, the spark of inspiration that led Kadare to reimagine their journey, replacing primarily Serbo-Croatian singing poets in Yugoslavia with Albanian bards in the mountains of Albania.

This anecdote is repeated in almost every article one finds on the novel, scholarly or popular. Perhaps it is simply too good of a story to pass up—the American meets the Albanian, who, trapped in a communist dictatorship, knows nothing of the research and scholarship going on outside his country’s borders. On one of the few trips when he’s allowed to leave the country, a special privilege granted to culturally important Albanians, he meets an American who enlightens him about the history of his own country, but they’re only given a few minutes before the Albanian has to return to his isolated nation, forced to reconstitute the conversation in novelistic form.

It is ironic that what seems to be a piece of gossip, a possibly apocryphal tale, would attach itself to the story of The File on H, which ultimately deals with the implications of the transition from an oral world to a literate one. These types of tales change each time they get passed on from one person to another, but once they are set down in writing, they become fixed. The official account becomes codified—Kadare wrote this novel because of his conversation with Albert Lord in 1979. And maybe he did. But if this is the case, one wonders how his characterization of Lord and Parry’s findings, how his articulation of the difference in the oral worldview and the literate worldview, are so accurate in his novelization. Surely Lord couldn’t have told him of his in-depth findings on the composition of oral poetry in just a few minutes. What one forgets, however, is that the world Lord and Parry were discovering was already Kadare’s world. Read more »

by Barry Goldman

I am not a cocktail guy. The whole craft cocktail thing strikes me as precious, pretentious and silly. You want to have a drink? Fine, let’s have a drink. I’ll have an IPA or a scotch. Maybe a gin and tonic if it’s a particularly hot day. But stay away from me with your oregano tincture and elderflower liqueur. If I’m drinking wine with one of my wino friends, I like to pay attention to the first few sips. We can talk about the character of the wine for a minute or two. But then I want to talk about something else. I quickly run out of patience with conversation about artisanal anything. Look, I’m a crotchety old Midwesterner. Guys like me just don’t go for that stuff.

On the other hand, I am a big fan of the physicist, author and “natural philosopher” Sean Carroll and his Mindscape Podcast. So when Carroll interviewed Kevin Peterson, author of Cocktail Theory: A Sensory Approach to Transcendent Drinks, I listened. And it was fascinating.

Peterson has an undergraduate background in physics and a PhD in mechanical engineering. He approaches the world of cocktails as a scientist. In Peterson’s view, a statement that one drink is better than another is not a matter of opinion. It can be objectively confirmed. Partly, this is based on his knowledge of the biology of the human sensory apparatus, and partly it is based on his extensive, painstaking accumulation of data. Peterson has digital thermometers and gram scales that allow previously unavailable precision measurement. And he has the kind of obsessive personality that will systematically test a thousand daiquiris. He proceeded methodically, varying only one element at a time and only by tiny increments. Testing ingredient ratios was only the beginning. He also tested small changes in temperature, dilution, and aeration. In the end, he says, he can draw quantitative, objective conclusions.

Peterson claims to have established, for example, that the proper distance to shake a cocktail shaker is 18 inches, and proper length of time to shake it is 12 seconds. His claim is that this is not just his opinion. He says it’s in the data. Read more »

by Muhammad Aurangzeb Ahmad

In the early 2000s, a curious phenomenon emerged in Japan: some grown men began forming intimate relationships with inanimate pillows bearing images of anime girls, a phenomenon known as “2-D love.” When I first encountered this phenomenon, I wondered if people could grow emotionally attached to two-dimensional printed images, how much deeper might that attachment become when artificial intelligence advanced enough to convincingly simulate companionship? I speculated whether there would come a time when individuals might be tempted to retreat from the real world and instead choose to live alongside an AI companion who also served as a romantic partner. That brave new world has now arrived in 2025. Apps like Replika, Character AI, Romantic AI, Anima, CarynAI , and Eva AI enable users to create AI-powered romantic partners i.e., chatbots designed to simulate conversation, affection, and emotional intimacy. These platforms allow users to personalize their virtual partner’s appearance, personality traits, and the nature of their relationship dynamic.

Unlike the 2-D love phenomenon, today’s AI romantic partners are no longer a fringe community. Today, over half a billion people have interacted with an AI companion in some form. This marks a new frontier in AI and its venture into the deeply human realms of emotion, affection, and intimacy. This technology is poised to take human relationships into uncharted territory. On one hand, it enables people to explore romantic or emotional bonds in ways never before possible. On the other hand, it also opens the door to darker impulses, there have been numerous reports of users creating AI partners for the sole purpose of enacting abusive or perverse fantasies. Companies like Replika and Character.AI promote their offerings as solutions to the loneliness epidemic, framing AI companionship as a therapeutic and accessible remedy for social isolation. As these technologies become more pervasive, they raise urgent questions about the future of intimacy, ethics, and what it means to have a human connection.

Several recent cases offer a sobering glimpse into what the future may hold as AI romantic partners become more pervasive. Read more »

Shadow of the A22 Autobahn (a four lane highway) as it passes over the Stausee (a lake formed by a dam on the river Eisack) in Franzensfeste, South Tyrol, on the longest day of the year. I was taking a short pre-lunch walk and shot this photo at noon.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

by Adele A. Wilby

The Paradise, Pandora and Panama Papers, exposing secret offshore accounts in global tax havens, will be familiar to many. They are central to the work of economic sociology professor, Brooke Harrington. She has spent many years researching the ultra-wealthy and several books on the subject have been the result. Her latest book Offshore: Stealth Wealth and the New Colonialism is a continuation of her research; it focuses on ‘the system’, the professional enablers who support and advise the ultra-wealthy and make it possible for them to store and conceal their phenomenal fortunes in secret offshore accounts.

Offshore accounts should be of interest to everyone, particularly because any discussion of offshore finance is inevitably qualified by the word ‘secret’. As Harrington argues, the reasons are clear:  secrecy ‘confers impunity: freedom from accountability, both to social norms and the law. Offshore ‘secrecy havens’ make it possible for some corporations, and a small group of individuals – including the world’s approximately three thousand billionaires – to escape constraints the rest of us take for granted. Freedom from taxation is just the beginning’. Offshore wealth allows the super-rich to live in what some economists refer to as ‘fiscal paradise’, a ‘transcendent plane of existence’, beyond the norms, rules and regulations that govern society.

To convey the staggering scale of offshore finance, Harrington cites the Berkely economist Gabriel Zucman:  an end of 2022 estimate puts the sum of an astounding $12 trillion in private household wealth hidden in offshore accounts, roughly 12 per cent of all the wealth produced in the world that year, an amount, Harrington points out, that is a ‘central feature of the world economy’. To make sense of ‘the economic and political inequality spiralling out of control worldwide’ access to the secretive world of offshore finance was crucial and she went to remarkable lengths to do so. Read more »

by Brooks Riley

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.

by Malcolm Murray

When it comes to AI, or even worse, “AGI”, we are facing a crisis of language. Different people use the terms to mean drastically different things. This is deeply unhelpful for productive debate. This point was hammered home to me several times this week. On LinkedIn, I debated appropriate risk management techniques for AI with a professor, and it turned out we were talking about very different kinds of AI. In New York, the proposed RAISE act made the A16Z lobbying army, fresh from its bloody victories in the California legislature, reload its weapons, despite the two sides talking about very different kinds of AI.

AI, as the current buzzword, is an extremely big tent and in effect a screen on to which people project their distinct hopes and fears. To make some progress in the AI debate, we should separate AI into its different archetypes. I believe there are at least five: Tool AI, Robot AI, Oracle AI, Golem AI and Agent AI, and they are all distinct, with different lineages and different purposes. Let’s examine each in turn.

First, there is Tool AI. Its lineage can be traced to big data, the buzzword in the business world in the early 2010s. This is the AI we have had for more than a decade, the AI that gets advertised in B2B SaaS solutions. It is AI as a prediction engine, deployed in the Amazon storefront to recommend your next purchase. This is AI in the TikTok feed, optimizing content for your engagement. It is statistics, but statistics on steroids. This is the type of AI for which VC firms like Andreessen Horwitz (A16Z) are techno-optimists and that can lead to large productivity increases for companies. It is a complement to humans, not a substitute.

Second, there is Robot AI. Its lineage includes the first use of the word robot, in the Czech play R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots) in 1920, and Robotic Process Automation (RPA), a buzzword in the business world in the late 2010s. This signifies a machine that can automate and therefore replace a hitherto human-conducted process, whether analog or digital. Since the Industrial Revolution, repetitive factory processes have become automated. Instead of the human, blue-collar worker picking up the product to be manufactured and painted, say, the machine does it. More recently, we are seeing digital processes, on computer systems, also becoming possible to automate. Instead of the human, white-collar worker picking up the piece of data from one database and pasting it in another, the machine does it. This is also an AI that the A16Zs of the world would approve of, that can lead to large-scale productivity enhancements. At the same time, this is a type of AI that politicians worry about, since it will inevitably lead to job losses, as it is a substitute to humans rather than a complement. Read more »

Sughra Raza. Light Tricks, Seattle, March, 2022.

Digital photograph.

Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.