https://www.economist.com

  • On Independence Day Israel is ripping itself apart
    https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2024/05/14/on-independence-day-israel-is-ripping-itself-apart


    Expressing their independencephotograph,: flash90

    Anger, tears and recriminations

    The torch-lighting which traditionally opens Israel’s Independence Day was broadcast on the evening of May 13th as usual. But instead of being televised live as before, the event was pre-recorded. The government said this was because of the solemnity of holding the ceremony while the nation is at war. The real reason, however, was the politicians’ fear that it would be disrupted by protesters, furious with their failings in handling the war. In a breach of protocol, some broadcasters screened an alternative ceremony organised by the families of hostages held in Gaza, protesting against the government.

    As Israel celebrated the 75th anniversary of its independence a year ago, it seemed to many, including this newspaper, that the most immediate threats to its prosperity, stability and security came from within. A new government, in which far-right and religious nationalist parties held sway, had launched a radical constitutional overhaul, aimed at dramatically weakening the independent Supreme Court. The proposed reforms brought hundreds of thousands of Israelis out on the streets in bitter protests against what they saw as the dangerous erosion of their country’s democratic foundations.

    It was a clash between two Israels: a secular and, at least in its own eyes, liberal state still aligned with the ethos of Israel’s socialist-Zionist founders; and the new Israel of the ruling right-wing Likud party and its ultra-Orthodox partners. Those two visions of the country’s identity looked increasingly incompatible. Constitutional crisis loomed and Isaac Herzog, Israel’s president, warned of civil war.

    Meanwhile longstanding external threats—the current conflict with the stateless Palestinians and an increasingly aggressive Iran—seemed manageable. The salience of Israel’s festering occupation of the Palestinians in the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza had faded regionally and internationally. Israel had formalised diplomatic relations with five Arab countries and a breakthrough with Saudi Arabia seemed to be around the corner. Joining together to confront the influence of Iran, a shared rival, took precedence over resolving the plight of the Palestinians.

    Fast-forward 12 months to the 76th anniversary and the dangers beyond Israel’s borders loom large. Israel is stuck in a disastrous war in Gaza, triggered by the atrocities inflicted by Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement, last October. The conflict has killed around 35,000 Palestinians, including Hamas fighters. That has triggered a wave of legitimate protest against Israel, legal action accusing it of breaking international law and a global upsurge in antisemitism. President Joe Biden has begun to restrict the supply of arms to Israel in order to dissuade it from a full-scale invasion of Rafah, Hamas’s last stronghold, and to curb critics at home.

    Beyond Gaza the picture is grim. Hizbullah, the Iran-backed Lebanese militia, has launched its own war of attrition. The wider region has become more threatening. The Houthis in Yemen are targeting shipping in the Red Sea, as part of what they claim is a siege of Israel. On April 13th Iran launched a direct strike on Israeli soil in retaliation for the bombing of its diplomatic compound in Damascus.

    A coalition of Western and Arab armed forces helped Israel fend off Iran’s attack, averting open war, for now. But as the death toll mounts in Gaza, ties with Israel’s Arab neighbours are fraying. The relationship with Egypt, which also borders Gaza and worries about the conflict spilling over, looks particularly fragile. Saudi Arabia’s crown prince and de facto ruler, Muhammad bin Salman, is apparently still open to “normalisation” with Israel, but wants to see a ceasefire in Gaza and a revival of the peace process with the Palestinians first.

    Initially Israel responded to the Hamas attack with a display of unity. The trauma of the massacre of nearly 1,200 people and the kidnapping of over 250 into Gaza blotted out the divisions. Some 300,000 reservist soldiers, including many who before the war had been threatening to suspend their service in protest at the proposed constitutional changes, rushed to their units. Israelis seemed to set aside their differences; secular and religious volunteers came together to help families who had been displaced by the fighting. Support for the war and for Israel’s armed forces was strong.

    It couldn’t last
    But as the conflict has continued, the splits within the country have resurfaced. Support for the invasion of Gaza has not translated into support for the government. The disputes over the judicial system have been replaced by anger at the politicians who have catastrophically mishandled the war. Among the sites Hamas attacked were kibbutzim and a music festival, both bastions of the secular, liberal Israel so at odds with the government of Binyamin Netanyahu. Kibbutz survivors have refused to meet the prime minister, who has infuriated many Israelis by failing to take responsibility for the intelligence and defence failures that preceded October 7th.

    Resentments have deepened as Israelis have argued over whether they shouldered an equal burden in the war. The fighting has sharpened secular Israelis’ anger at the ultra-Orthodox, who make up 13% of Israelis and whose young men have long been exempted from military service. The exemption has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, to the anger of the ultra-Orthodox parties that are a key element in Mr Netanyahu’s coalition.

    On Memorial Day, which falls the day before Israelis celebrate their independence, the country remembers fallen soldiers and victims of terror attacks. This year ministers were heckled at services of remembrance. Relatives of soldiers killed in Gaza walked out of Mr Netanyahu’s speech at the national cemetery. In his address Mr Herzog implored Israelis to heal their rifts. A year ago the president tried to use his position, above politics, to find a compromise over constitutional reform. He failed to reconcile Israel’s warring tribes then and seems likely to fail now.

    The divisions between Israelis have shaped the course of the war. Mr Netanyahu has refused to formulate a strategy to end the conflict beyond the vague goals of “destroying Hamas” and “total victory” because he remains so dependent on his far-right partners. They make no attempt to hide their desire to re-occupy Gaza permanently and rebuild the Jewish settlements that Israel dismantled there in 2005.

    A huge majority of Israelis supported the war in its early months. That is changing. According to one recent survey 62% of the country now think a temporary ceasefire agreement to free the surviving hostages in Gaza should take priority over another military push into Rafah. But Mr Netanyahu is reluctant. The hardliners in his cabinet are threatening to bring down the government if he pauses the war.

    Those who protested against Mr Netanyahu’s judicial reforms are back on the streets, but they have struggled to find a unified message. Some call for the release of the hostages, whatever the price. Others are demanding an end to the war. Many are simply clamouring for Mr Netanyahu to go. Meanwhile the government’s supporters have organised their own pressure groups of families of hostages and fallen soldiers who demand that Israel continue to pummel Gaza.

    The Biden administration and its partners in the Middle East have offered Israel a way out of the war with the vision of a “revitalised” Palestinian Authority replacing Hamas in Gaza and the building of an America-backed regional alliance against Iran and its proxies. Achieving this would be far from simple, but would be preferable to what looks like an unwinnable war.

    And yet the splits within Israel are making it nearly impossible for the country to follow that path. It is blocked by the combination of a deeply traumatised and divided population, an electoral system that gives disproportionate power to small radical parties and an unpopular leader fighting for his political survival above all else. A year ago, those on the right, including Mr Netanyahu, thought Israel could survive its domestic turmoil in part because it no longer faced the external threats of the past. Today, it is clear that even at the height of war, the greatest threats to Israel remain those within its own borders.

  • God™: an ageing product outperforms expectations
    https://www.economist.com/culture/2024/05/14/god-an-ageing-product-outperforms-expectations


    illustration: carl godfrey

    The Divine Economy. By Paul Seabright. Princeton University Press; 504 pages; $35 and £30

    An economist tries to explain religion

    God gets mixed reviews on Amazon. This is perhaps surprising. His marketing campaign (now in its third millennium) has been strong. His slogans (“God is Great!”) are positive. And indeed many shoppers effuse. “Wonderful!” reads one five-star review beneath His best-known work, the Bible. “Beautiful,” says another. “Amen,” adds another satisfied customer.

    Other reviewers are critical. One, after giving the Bible just a single star, observes bluntly, if rather blasphemously, that it is a “boring read”. Another review complains: “The plot is not cohesive.” A third disgruntled reader argues that there are “too many characters” and that the main protagonist is a bit full of himself.

    If it feels surprising that God is reviewed on Amazon, it should not. He may have made heaven and earth, but He also makes an awful lot of money, as Paul Seabright, a British economist and professor at the University of Toulouse in France, points out in a new book.

    Hard facts on the economics of the Almighty are hard to come by. But the Mormon church is reportedly one of the largest private landowners in America. One study found that in 2016 American faith-based organisations (non-profits with a religious bent) had revenues of $378bn. This was more than the revenues of Apple and Microsoft combined. Better yet, churches usually pay no tax. God may be great; His full-year results are greater.

    Secularists may smirk at religion as silly, but it deserves proper analysis. “The Divine Economy” looks at how religions attract followers, money and power and argues that they are businesses—and should be analysed as such.

    Professor Seabright calls religions “platforms”, businesses that “facilitate relationships”. (Other economists refer to religions as “clubs” or “glue”.) He then takes a quick canter through the history, sociology and economics of religions to illustrate this. The best parts of this book deal with economics, which the general reader will find enlightening.

    Economists were slow to study religion. Some 250 years ago Adam Smith observed in “The Wealth of Nations” that the wealth of churches was considerable. He used secular language to describe how such wealth arose, observing that churches’ “revenue” (donations) flowed in and benefited priests, who he argued were sometimes animated less by love of God than by “the powerful motive of self-interest”. He also argued that if there were a better functioning market in religious providers, this would lead to increased religious harmony. According to Laurence Iannaccone, a professor of economics at Chapman University in California, Smith’s analysis was “brilliant”—and for a long time largely ignored.

    Divinity departments are staffed by theologians rather than economists; the idea of mixing the dismal science with the divine strikes many people at the very least “as odd and at worst strikes them as blasphemous”, says Mr Iannaccone. People associate God with angels, not with Excel.

    Yet religions lend themselves to economic analysis nicely. They offer a product (such as salvation), have networks of providers (priests, imams and so on) and benefit from good distribution networks. It is not just trade that travels on trade routes: ideas, diseases and religions do, too. Roman roads allowed the plague of Justinian to spread across Europe with a rapidity never seen before. They allowed Christianity to do so as well.

    Starting in the 1970s, some economists have been approaching religion with more academic devotion, analysing, for example, the economics of extremism and obtaining a place in the afterlife. This mode of thinking can help clarify complicated religious history. When historians talk about the Reformation they tend to do so using thorny theological terms such as “transubstantiation”. Economists would describe it more simply as the moment when a monopoly provider (the Catholic church) was broken up, leading to an increase in consumer choice (Protestantism) and the price of services declining (indulgences were out).

    A greater variety of suppliers started to offer road-maps to heaven. Henry VIII swapped his old service provider, Catholicism, for the new one—which was not only cheaper, but also allowed him to divorce a troublesome wife. There were, admittedly, some bumps: the pope was not pleased, and the habit of burning picky customers at the stake dented consumer confidence. But overall, the Reformation enabled people and their rulers to “get a better bargain”, says Davide Cantoni, a professor at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich.

    Ask a believer why they believe in their particular deity, and they will tend to talk of religious truth. Professor Seabright offers another explanation. The two most popular religious “brands” (Christianity and Islam) have, he writes, replaced smaller local religions in much the same way that Walmart, Lidl and Tesco have replaced smaller local shops.

    These brands have honed the international distribution of their product: the Catholic church, like McDonald’s, offers a striking uniformity of service, whether you are in the Vatican or Venezuela. They have the resources to compete for customers in ways that smaller, less well-financed, local gods cannot. Baal, it seems, died out not because—as the Bible has it—he was a false god but because his franchise failed.

    Popular works have tackled the idea of religions as businesses before. In the 1960s Tom Lehrer, an American satirist, observed that if Catholics “really want to sell the product” they should improve their music: his solution was “The Vatican Rag”, which contained such lines as “Two-four-six-eight / time to transubstantiate”. Incensed Catholics declared it blasphemous.

    “The Divine Economy” is more tactful than Mr Lehrer—though not quite as much fun. The book’s scope is big. So too, alas, are many of the words. Sentences such as “Probabilistic models of cognition assume that human cognition can be explained in terms of a rational Bayesian framework” leave the reader wishing for lines that are, like those in “The Vatican Rag”, a little snappier, and his idea that religions are “platforms” is at times more confusing than clarifying.

    An obvious riposte to all this religious analysis is: who cares? It is 2024, not 1524. God, as Friedrich Nietzsche stated, is dead. But such a sweeping judgment is misplaced and wrong. The West may be less Christian—but the rest of the world is not. Between 1900 and 2020, the proportion of Africans who are Christian rose from under 9% to almost half; the proportion who are Muslim rose from around a third to over 40%.

    Even in secular countries, faith remains powerful. In America in 2022, Roe v Wade was overturned due, in part, to decades of campaigning by evangelicals and Catholics. Non-believers dabble too. Jordan Peterson, a Canadian author, performs to stadiums with a talk titled “We Who Wrestle With God” and garnishes his books with statements such as “Our consciousness participates in the speaking forth of Being.” God might wish He were dead when He hears such things. He is not.

  • At a moment of military might, Israel looks deeply vulnerable
    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/03/21/at-a-moment-of-military-might-israel-looks-deeply-vulnerable

    Beaucoup de bruit autour de la dernière édition de The Economist. Même les « meilleurs » amis d’Israël commencent à s’inquiéter (pour eux ?)

    There is still a narrow path out of the hellscape of Gaza. A temporary ceasefire and hostage release could cause a change of Israel’s government; the rump of Hamas fighters in south Gaza could be contained or fade away; and from the rubble, talks on a two-state solution could begin, underwritten by America and its Gulf allies. It is just as likely, however, that ceasefire talks will fail. That could leave Israel locked in the bleakest trajectory of its 75-year existence, featuring endless occupation, hard-right politics and isolation. Today many Israelis are in denial about this, but a political reckoning will come eventually. It will determine not only the fate of Palestinians, but also whether Israel thrives in the next 75 years.

    If you are a friend of Israel this is a deeply uncomfortable moment. In October it launched a justified war of self-defence against Hamas, whose terrorists had committed atrocities that threaten the idea of Israel as a land where Jews are safe. Today Israel has destroyed perhaps half of Hamas’s forces. But in important ways its mission has failed.

    First, in Gaza, where its reluctance to help provide or distribute aid has led to an avoidable humanitarian catastrophe, and where the civilian toll from the war is over 20,000 and growing. The hard-right government of Binyamin Netanyahu has rejected plans for post-war Gaza to be run by either the Palestinian Authority (pa) or an international force. The likeliest outcome is a military reoccupation. If you add the West Bank, Israel could permanently hold sway over 4m-5m Palestinians.

    Israel has also failed at home. The problems go deeper than Mr Netanyahu’s dire leadership. A growing settler movement and ultra-Orthodox population have tilted politics to the right and polarised society. Before October 7th this was visible in a struggle over judicial independence. The war has raised the stakes, and although the hard-right parties of the coalition are excluded from the war cabinet they have compromised Israel’s national interest by using incendiary rhetoric, stoking settler violence and trying to sabotage aid and post-war planning. Israel’s security establishment is capable and pragmatic, but no longer fully in charge.

    Israel’s final failure is clumsy diplomacy. Fury at the war was inevitable, especially in the global south, but Israel has done a poor job of countering it. “Lawfare”, including spurious genocide allegations, is damaging its reputation. Young Americans sympathise with it less than their parents do. President Joe Biden has tried to restrain Mr Netanyahu’s government by publicly embracing it, but failed. On March 14th Chuck Schumer, Israel’s greatest ally in the Senate, decried Hamas’s atrocities but said Israel’s leader was “lost”.

    It is a bleak picture that is not always acknowledged in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. Mr Netanyahu talks of invading Rafah, Hamas’s last redoubt, while the hard right fantasises about resettling Gaza. Many mainstream Israelis are deluding themselves, too. They believe the unique threats to Israel justify its ruthlessness and that the war has helped restore deterrence. Gaza shows that if you murder Israelis, destruction beckons. Many see no partner for peace—the P.A. is rotten and polls say 93% of Palestinians deny Hamas’s atrocities even took place. Occupation is the least-bad option, they conclude. Israelis would prefer to be popular abroad, but condemnation and antisemitism are a small price to pay for security. As for America, it has been angry before. The relationship is not about to rupture. If Donald Trump returns he may once again give Israel a free pass.

    This seductive story is a manifesto for disaster. (...)

  • Women ask fewer questions than men at seminars
    (de 2017, je mets ici pour archivage)

    ONE theory to explain the low share of women in senior academic jobs is that they have less self-confidence than men. This hypothesis is supported by data in a new working paper, by a team of researchers from five universities in America and Europe. In this study, observers counted the attendees, and the questions they asked, at 247 departmental talks and seminars in biology, psychology and philosophy that took place at 35 universities in ten countries. On average, half of each seminar’s audience was female. Men, however, were over 2.5 times more likely to pose questions to the speakers—an action that may be viewed (rightly or wrongly) as a sign of greater competence.

    (#paywall: si quelqu’un·e a accès...)
    https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2017/12/07/women-ask-fewer-questions-than-men-at-seminars
    #statistiques #chiffres #questions #séminaires #conférences #genre #femmes #première_question #hommes

    • How to stop men asking all the questions in seminars – it’s really easy!

      I spotted a short item on gender #bias in academia in the Economist this week and tweeted it, which then went viral. The tweet read:

      https://frompoverty.oxfam.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/questions-in-seminars-508x1024.png

      ‘In academic seminars, ‘Men are > 2.5 times more likely to pose questions to the speakers. This male skew was observable only in those seminars in which a man asked first question. When a woman did so, gender split disappeared’. CHAIRS PLEASE NOTE – FIRST Q TO A WOMAN – EVERY TIME.’

      Which confirms an impression I’ve had when chairing assorted discussions – if you let men dominate from the start, it stays that way, but call on women for the first few questions, and things work out much better.

      The research paper that backs up the stats can be found here. It’s based on survey responses of over 600 academics in 20 countriesand observational data from almost 250 seminars in 10 countries. Kudos to the authors, Alecia Carter, Alyssa Croft, Dieter Lukas and Gillian Sandstrom. Their broader recommendations are:

      ‘Increasing the time for or number of questions reduces the imbalance in the questions asked. We recommend that, where possible, the question time not be limited. This could be achieved through, for example, booking a seminar room for longer than one hour so that the next event in the room does not cut short the question time. Having said this, our data suggest that to overcome the male-first question bias, upwards of 25 min is needed for questions, which was a rare occurrence in our data and additionally may be a taxing requirement for the speaker after having given a seminar.

      Alternatively, keeping questions and answers short will allow more questions to be asked during a given question period, and could be an alternative method to allow greater balance in the questions asked. We feel that more could be done through active changes in speakers’, attendees’ and particularly moderators’ behaviour. Having an active, trained moderator may avoid those situations where one audience member seems to be “showing off” (which survey respondents claim to be the case quite often), or is going off-topic, or a speaker who goes over time.

      We would recommend that, should the opportunity arise, a female-first question be prioritised because this was a good predictor of low imbalance in the questions asked in our observational data. In addition, moderators could be trained to see the whole room (location was mentioned as a factor), and to maintain as much balance as possible with respect to gender and seniority of question-askers. In the open-ended survey questions, respondents complained that moderators call on people they know or more senior people, overlooking the rest.

      https://frompoverty.oxfam.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/speeches-disguised-as-comments.jpg

      Although it may seem fair to call on people in the order that they raise their hands, doing so may inadvertently result in fewer women and junior academics asking questions, since they often need more time to formulate questions and work up the nerve.

      Our data clearly show that women are not inherently less likely to ask questions when the conditions are favourable—there is no gender bias when a woman asks the first question. Our suggestions should be seen as aims to create favourable conditions that remove the barriers to speaking up and being visible.’

      One of the single most useful bits of gender-related research I’ve read in a long time. I will do things differently from now on.

      Update: most useful additional advice on twitter comes from Joe Smith. He attended a recent seminar where the chair announced he would take Qs in order ‘girl-boy-girl-boy’. Lets people know in advance, is obviously fair, and is light hearted and infinitely preferable to male chair ‘look how feminist I am’ trumpet-blowing.

      https://frompoverty.oxfam.org.uk/how-to-stop-men-asking-all-the-questions-in-seminars-its-reall
      #université #recherche #ESR #solution

  • The genocide case Israel faces is more about politics than the law
    https://www.economist.com/international/2024/01/17/the-genocide-case-israel-faces-is-more-about-politics-than-the-law


    getty images

    Since its creation in 1946 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has heard an average of fewer than three cases a year. Many are obscure, such as a dispute over pulp mills in Uruguay. The trial that began on January 11th, though, was one of the highest drama, when it heard arguments from South Africa that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.
    Palestinians were elated by the sight of Israel in the dock after decades of impunity for its conduct in the occupied territories. Crowds gathered to watch it broadcast in squares in Ramallah, the de facto capital of the West Bank.

    A full trial would take years to conclude. In the meantime South Africa has asked the court for “provisional measures”, one of which is that it orders Israel to stop fighting in Gaza. The burden of proof for an injunction is low: “South Africa just needs to show that its claims are plausible,” says Adil Haque of Rutgers Law School. Judges must now decide whether to demand that Israel end its longest and deadliest war against the Palestinians since 1948.
    As a political gambit, South Africa’s case is already a success. Yet as a legal strategy it is risky. Some of Israel’s actions in Gaza since October 7th could plausibly be described as war crimes. But in seeking to label them genocide, a uniquely horrific crime, it risks making the debate about the label rather than the actions themselves.
    In politics, genocide has become a byword for the worst human suffering imaginable. But legally it is a tightly defined concept, and hard to prove. This is because it entails not just particular acts, such as killing civilians or causing them “serious bodily or mental harm”, it also requires that they be done with the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”.
    To prove intent, South Africa cited Israeli ministers, lawmakers, army officers and soldiers: the Knesset member who spoke of “erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the earth”; the troops who later chanted “may Gaza be erased”. It sought to show that these statements were followed by rank-and-file soldiers. Israel argued that these were “random quotes that are not in conformity with government policy”.
    Parts of South Africa’s presentation were sloppy: its lawyers referred to a speech in which Mr Netanyahu invoked the biblical story of Amalek, a nation that persecuted the Israelites, yet in seeking to explain how the allusion was genocidal they cited the wrong biblical passage. Their filing then quoted Yoav Gallant, the Israeli defence minister, saying on October 10th that “Gaza won’t return to what it was before. We will eliminate everything.” That sounds genocidal. But in Mr Gallant’s actual comments there is an additional sentence in the middle: “Hamas will no longer be.” The correct quote, and the rest of the clip, make clear that he is referring to Hamas, not to Palestinians.

    Still, it is impossible to deny that some prominent Israelis have said things that could incite genocide, which is also an offence under the UN convention, to which Israel is a signatory. Though they have suffered no legal or political consequences for doing so, it would be hard to prove that their incitement amounts to state intent.
    A second issue is proving Israel has killed Palestinians because of their nationality. South Africa’s lawyers claim that Israel’s use of 2,000lb (907kg) bombs, the largest in its arsenal, in densely populated places like Jabalia, in northern Gaza, is evidence of genocide. Using such large bombs could be a war crime, unless Israel can show it had no other way to strike a vital military target. But it is not a genocidal act unless South Africa can prove that Israel dropped those bombs specifically to kill lots of Palestinians. Thus far, it has failed to do so. The same goes for the restrictions Israel has imposed on aid to Gaza. “Israel could argue that it used starvation as a weapon of war to make people suffer,” says Mr Haque. “That would be a war crime, but it’s not genocide.”
    To call these arguments distasteful would be an understatement. The South African filing describes a litany of horrors committed against Palestinians in Gaza. Whichever way the ICJ rules, they will still be horrors. By pressing the charge of genocide, South Africa has created a situation in which a ruling in Israel’s favour could be seen as absolution for its conduct.
    Yet even if it is absolved of genocide, Israel should still be scrutinised for other possible violations. Start with two of the core principles of international law: distinction and proportionality. The former requires armies to distinguish between civilian and military targets. The latter demands they not inflict excessive harm on civilians in relation to military utility. With northern Gaza now a wasteland, and thousands of civilians dead, it is hard to trust that Israel has adhered to those principles. Israeli officials concede that in this war the army has approved strikes that are both deadlier for civilians and achieve smaller military gains than in previous conflicts in Gaza. Some Western officials think Israel has crossed a legal line with its new calculus of proportionality.
    Other questions of law deserve scrutiny as well. One is the destruction of Gaza’s medical facilities. There is strong evidence that Hamas has used hospitals for military purposes, which is itself a war crime. Under international law, hospitals can lose their protection if used for “acts harmful to the enemy”. But they do not become valid targets indefinitely. That Hamas militants might have used Shifa hospital in October does not necessarily justify an Israeli raid there in November. In many cases Israel has not offered compelling proof that its attacks on hospitals were justified.
    Another question is over the appalling humanitarian conditions in Gaza, where the UN says there is a risk of imminent famine. Israel told the ICJ that it has not limited deliveries of food to Gaza, which is true in theory but not in practice. It has largely barred such deliveries via its own territory, which is how most supplies entered Gaza before the war, and it imposes long and unpredictable inspections on aid entering from Egypt.

    Investigating such cases, however, will not be the job of the ICJ. That task would fall to the International Criminal Court (ICC), the other big court in The Hague, which claims jurisdiction over both the Hamas attacks in Israel on October 7th and the war in Gaza that followed because Palestine is a signatory to its founding treaty. But such investigations will be sluggish.
    For now, that leaves the genocide case at the ICJ and the question of whether to impose any of the provisional measures requested by South Africa. Because the ICJ settles disputes between un member-states, and Hamas is not one, judges are in the uncomfortable position of being asked to order Israel to implement a unilateral ceasefire with no corresponding obligation on Hamas to halt its genocidal attacks.
    Even if it were to issue such an order, it would have no means to enforce its judgments, which governments sometimes ignore. Israel has made clear that it will do just that. “We will continue this war until the end,” Mr Netanyahu has said. “No one will stop us, not even The Hague.”
    Still, a ruling against Israel could have far-reaching consequences. It would certainly make the politics of supporting Israel’s war more complicated for its allies. There could also be legal implications. In America the so-called “Leahy law” bars the government from providing military aid to foreign forces that commit human-rights abuses. If the ICJ were to find that Israel is “plausibly” committing genocide, some Democrats would no doubt try to invoke this law. It is unlikely that such a view would find majority support in a country that is both supportive of Israel and hostile to international courts. But President Joe Biden’s administration could still find itself in the uncomfortable position of appearing to much of the world to be excusing a crime it has long sought to end.

  • Kill eu cru ? Bibi est cuit ! The Economist : Il faut virer Bibi | 03.01.24

    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/01/03/binyamin-netanyahu-is-botching-the-war-time-to-sack-him

    Mayhem in the Middle East

    Binyamin Netanyahu is botching the war. Time to sack him

    To be safe, Israel needs new leadership


    There is mayhem in the Middle East. In Gaza 2m war-battered civilians are at risk of famine. Attacks on cargo ships by the Houthis threaten world trade. Israel’s northern border is tense after the assassination of a Hamas leader in Beirut on January 2nd. A day later two explosions killed almost 100 people in Iran; the Iranians at first blamed “terrorists”, and then America and Israel. War could break out between Israel and Hizbullah, the Iran-backed militia in Lebanon. Two things are clear. The attacks of October 7th are reshaping the Middle East. And under Binyamin Netanyahu’s leadership, Israel is making blunders that undermine its own security.

    Since the slaughter of Israeli civilians by Hamas in October, Israel has had to rethink its long-standing security doctrine. That doctrine involved giving up on peace with the Palestinians, building walls and using technology to repel missile attacks and infiltrations. It didn’t work. The Palestinians were radicalised and the walls did not stop the atrocities of October 7th. Israel’s air defences may yet be overwhelmed by the increasingly sophisticated arsenal of missiles aimed at it by Iran-backed militants in Lebanon, Yemen and elsewhere.

    How might a new Israeli security doctrine work? The Economist supports removing Hamas from power in Gaza: it has oppressed and impoverished the people there. It is also an impediment to peace. But Israel should make clear its fight is with the terrorists. That means using force judiciously and letting in a lot more aid. It also means having a plan for after the war that creates a path to a moderate Palestinian state. Such an approach would help maintain support for Israel in America and elsewhere. This is crucial: America deters Iran and backs detente between Israel and Gulf states that also oppose Iran’s influence. Most important, it underwrites the security of Israel itself.

    Alas, in Gaza, Mr Netanyahu has eschewed this logic. Israel’s tactics show needless disregard for civilian lives. The Hamas-run authorities there say 22,000 civilians and fighters have died. The UN says another 7,000 may lie under the rubble. Israel says it has killed 8,000 terrorists. Far too little water, food and medicine is reaching Gaza and there are no truly safe zones for civilians. Mr Netanyahu seems to have no post-war plan, other than anarchy or occupation. He has excluded rule by the Palestinian Authority in Gaza. Extremists in his coalition talk, outrageously, of permanently displacing Palestinians from the enclave.

    What explains this myopia? It is true that Israeli public opinion shows little sympathy for the Palestinians and that the obliteration of Gaza may help restore Israel’s deterrent power. Yet the main explanation is Mr Netanyahu’s weakness. Desperate to stay in office, he has pandered to extremists in his coalition and the Israeli electorate, while testing America’s patience and horrifying Arab states. That will backfire in Gaza and hinder Israel from dealing with its own broader security concerns.

    Take the northern front: the threat of a Hizbullah invasion or missile strikes means that a strip of northern Israel is now uninhabited. Yet Israel’s options are grim. A pre-emptive invasion of Lebanon could lead to a military quagmire, trigger the complete collapse of the Lebanese state and wreck relations with America. Diplomacy might create a buffer zone between Hizbullah and Israel’s border, but a regional plan is needed to contain and deter Iran. That requires the support of America, other Western allies and, ideally, the Gulf Arab states, all of which Mr Netanyahu is alienating.

    Mr Netanyahu’s popularity at home has plummeted. Israel’s Supreme Court has just struck down his controversial judicial overhaul. For Israel’s sake, he has to go. Given the trauma of October 7th, his successor will not be soft on security. But a wiser Israeli leader might understand that famine in Gaza, anarchy or open-ended occupation there and the erosion of American backing will not make Israel safer. ■

  • La bourse à la rescousse : j’dis ça j’dis rien, mais le Hamas, c que des petits salopiots | The Economist | 05.12.23

    https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/12/05/did-hamas-make-millions-trading-the-october-7th-attacks

    Caught short

    Did Hamas make millions trading the October 7th attacks?

    Researchers highlight suspicious activity in New York and Tel Aviv


    In the run-up to its attack on Israel on October 7th, Hamas maintained tight operational security. The timing of the assault blindsided Israel’s army and intelligence services, and appears to have surprised even some of Hamas’s political leaders. However, a new working paper by Robert Jackson Jr, a former commissioner of America’s Securities and Exchange Commission, and Joshua Mitts of Columbia University suggests that someone had enough advance knowledge of the plan to make a small fortune profiting from a crash in the Israeli stockmarket.

    The authors analysed trading patterns in Israeli shares in the weeks before the attack, and found anomalies consistent with a grim form of informed trading. Perhaps the most striking example is a surge in short sales—bets that a security’s price will fall—of a relatively illiquid exchange-traded fund (etf), which is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker eis, and tracks an index of Israeli share prices.
    [...]

    Related: Inside Hamas’s sprawling financial empire

    Et si c’était un membre du gouv Israelien :-) ?

    Ah mais là, on saura jamais, comme eux c’est pas des terroristes, le secret bancaire jouera.

    • cf. https://seenthis.net/messages/1030140

      Et si c’était un membre du gouv Israelien :-) ?

      Ah mais là, on saura jamais, comme eux c’est pas des terroristes, le secret bancaire jouera.

      Méchante langue ! l’autorité de contrôle de la bourse israélienne a ouvert une enquête.

      Les auteurs, spécialement le second dans ses interviews, ne sont pas du tout convaincus que ce soit le Hamas qui ait bénéficié de ce « délit d’initié »…

    • merci @simplicissimus ; j’apprends au passage une nouvelle loi de la nature :

      We know that Batteridge’s law of headlines says:

      Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.

      It was thereby not Hamas which profited from unusual short positions but likely someone else.

      Ceci-dit, l’article de The Economist répond plutôt oui à son point d’interrogation - comme c’est étonnant, hein ?

      Voilà leur conclusion :

      The study has prompted an investigation by Israel’s securities authority. Given the secrecy around the attacks, news is unlikely to have leaked to a short-seller on Wall Street. Unless it was dumb luck, whoever placed the trades was probably inside Hamas, or close enough to know its military secrets. In the past two months, America has banned just one trading firm for its ties to Hamas—a crypto exchange in Gaza that was linked to illicit transactions worth a mere $2,000. Somebody has managed to pull off a far bigger coup. Mr Mitts reckons that the trades he and his co-author have detected are “just the tip of the iceberg”.

      (et j’ajouterais : wink-wink nudge-nudge)

      Note que le titre dans la newsletter (que je cite) est différent du titre de l’article (dont je donne le lien) ; ça change la prémisse du ? mais bon, leur conclusion est claire[ment dans l’arc républicain].

  • Putin seems to be winning the war in Ukraine—for now
    https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/11/30/putin-seems-to-be-winning-the-war-in-ukraine-for-now

    FOR THE first time since Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine on February 24th 2022, he looks as if he could win.

    His biggest asset is Europe’s lack of strategic vision.

    Tu m’étonnes. Le souci des ukrainiens, ce n’est pas la fermeture du robinet à dollars par le Congrès américain. D’ailleurs, rega’d, les européens, y veulent pas que l’Ukraine rentre dans l’UE alors que bon, c’est pourtant évident que ça devrait déjà être le cas, mais y-a le méchant Hongrois qui refuse.

    C’est vrai, les Européens continuent à se tirer des balles dans les pieds, en prétendant défendre une certaine souveraineté Ukrainienne, souveraineté dont ils n’ont absolument rien à faire quand il s’agit d’un membre de l’UE, la Grèce par exemple, suivez mon regard...

    En fait, les ricains, dès qu’il faut éviter de parler de leur propre chaos, ils te pointent le doigt vers l’UE, et chpoum, tous les sujets des grands journaux se tournent dans cette direction.

    En attendant, on commence à te dire que bon, peut-être que la guerre est terminée, et qu’il faudrait trouver un moyen de dire que bon, on a gagné quoi, passons à autre chose, à la façon de l’Afghanistan ou de l’Irak, ou de la Syrie, où il ne reste que des ruines.

  • The importance of hand-writing | The Economist | 14.09.23

    https://www.economist.com/culture/2023/09/14/the-importance-of-handwriting-is-becoming-better-understood

    If you are like me, you haven’t handwritten anything longer than a short note for many years. In modern life, writing means typing. But for a back-to-school column, I took up the subject that gave me my worst-ever grade in school: a scowling “Needs Improvement” (the worst given) in handwriting.

    A few years ago I typed a column on my phone as an experiment. Another time, I dictated one to transcription software. This time I took pen to paper. The medium may not exactly be the message (with apologies to Marshall McLuhan, who said that it was). But it certainly has an impact on the message. One series of studies has found a big advantage in note-taking by hand. The very inefficiency of the medium is its advantage: it seems to force writers to think and compress information as they jot, rather than mindlessly transcribing verbatim.

    Such research has made many school systems start to reduce the role of technology in the classroom—especially in early years—and increase the teaching of handwriting (including my bête noire, cursive).

    Lane Greene
    Language columnist and Spain correspondent

  • The largest freshwater lake in the British Isles has been poisoned
    https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/09/21/the-largest-freshwater-lake-in-the-british-isles-has-been-poisoned

    Choc climatique : le Lough Neagh, plus grand lac d’#Irlande en péril • Guide Irlande.com
    https://www.guide-irlande.com/choc-climatique-le-lough-neagh-plus-grand-lac-dirlande-en-peril

    Et ce ne sont pas que la faune et la flore qui sont impactés. Les nord-irlandais subissent de plein fouet l’altération de ce lac. Car le Lough Neagh a toujours servi de réservoir d’#eau potable pour l’Irlande du Nord. Le lac fournit jusqu’à 40% des besoins en eau de la population nord-irlandaise.

    #climat #pollution

  • Tweets show how a stroll in the park can bring happiness | The Economist | 14.08.23

    New research suggests that visiting green spaces improves the mood of stressed city-dwellers

    27 Aug. 2019

    (data : visits to parks in San Francisco, California, May-Aug 2016)

    https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/08/27/tweets-show-how-a-stroll-in-the-park-can-bring-happiness

    #sans_dec ?!?

  • Election of the chair of the #IPCC – The Economist
    #GIEC

    Editor’s note: the ipcc’s new chair will be elected at its 59th session in Nairobi on July 25th-28th. Three weeks ago we invited all four candidates for the post to contribute a piece to this section; Dr Roberts and Jean-Pascal van Ypersele agreed to do so.

    • Debra Roberts on why she is running to be chair of the IPCC
    https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2023/07/24/debra-roberts-on-why-she-is-running-to-be-chair-of-the-ipcc

    The organisation should be more inclusive, and more focused on assessing climate measures’ effectiveness, she says

    • Jean-Pascal van Ypersele on why he is running to be chair of the IPCC
    https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2023/07/24/jean-pascal-van-ypersele-on-why-he-is-running-to-be-chair-of-the-ipcc

    He believes that the climate panel can serve policymakers’ needs better

    #paywall

    • Debra Roberts on why she is running to be chair of the IPCC
      The organisation should be more inclusive, and more focused on assessing climate measures’ effectiveness, she says

      D. R. :
      REFLECTING ON THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) sixth assessment cycle, known as AR6, I am struck by the extent to which global challenges, once distant or abstract, are now immediate and personal. Global crises made me caregiver to my 100-year-old father during the covid pandemic; contributed to a week of poverty-fuelled civil unrest where I live in South Africa; and saw flood waters engulf our home because of the ever-warming atmosphere.

      These experiences remind us why science is so important. Evidence-based decision-making has allowed the world to respond to the pandemic, attribute extreme events to climate change and understand that inequity anywhere undermines a safer, more sustainable future for everyone.

      For the past 35 years the IPCC has provided decision-makers with scientific evidence to inform policy. Over the first five assessment cycles the panel explained the causes and impacts of climate change, whereas the most recent cycle has focused on identifying solutions.

      But during the United Nations’ “decade of action”—aimed at stepping up action to tackle the world’s biggest challenges—it is clear that we need not only solutions, but also an assessment of their feasibility and effectiveness to inform ambitious short-term action. And action is critical as the AR6 reports conclude that the pace and scale of what has been done so far are insufficient to tackle climate change. This is the challenge for the seventh assessment cycle, AR7.

      Having worked at the interface between science, policy and practice for more than 30 years in the fields of climate change, biodiversity, sustainability and resilience, I know how difficult it is to turn science into action. Experience has taught me that the best outcomes come from working together to prioritise equity and shared responsibility.

      My priority as chair of the IPCC would be to build a strong leadership team. I would harness the strengths of the vice-chairs and the Working Group and Task Force/Group co-chairs and bureaus to strategically plan the scientific workflow of the cycle and determine how we make IPCC operations more sustainable. That will involve assessing and reducing the carbon footprint of IPCC’s own activities. An AR7 leadership team with a shared vision and clear roles would drive even stronger scientific integration than we saw in AR6. The Special Report on Cities offers an early opportunity to put increased integration into practice.

      Ensuring more balanced representation of women and scientists from the global south, and addressing data gaps for the south, should be priorities for AR7. My appointment as the first female chair, and the first from Africa, would encourage more women and global-south scientists to volunteer their time. I would also work with the IPCC vice-chairs to liaise more closely with member governments, who are responsible for identifying national experts, to ensure that a more representative range of authors are nominated for AR7 reports.

      In addition, we need to make the work environment more inclusive, for instance by training people to work effectively in diverse, multicultural teams. Ensuring that the Gender Action Team concludes the work on a code of conduct and complaints process should also help.

      Engaging more young scientists is critical. By involving early-career scientists and IPCC scholarship recipients, and providing clear roles for Chapter Scientists, who give technical and logistical support to authors, we can help ensure the longevity of the organisation.

      Strengthening the organisation must be accompanied by actions that enhance the scientific leadership of the IPCC. Given the increase in climate-change-related literature, I believe AR6 was the last assessment cycle in which it was possible to produce a comprehensive assessment of the literature using traditional means. In AR7 we should evaluate new tools such as AI and machine learning, which can potentially assist the assessment process and increase access to non-English literature. We must ensure that authors from the global south have equal access.

      AR7 will require broader engagement with those who hold indigenous and local knowledge, which will be crucial in developing strategies that improve stewardship of ecosystems, increase biodiversity and improve resilience. Better co-ordination with the work of other global initiatives, such as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, which was created to bridge the gap between biodiversity science and policy, should also be prioritised.

      Finally, if IPCC reports are to inform fast and far-reaching implementation, we must be willing to question whether lengthy assessment reports delivered at the end of the decade of action are the best approach. Shorter, more focused special reports may better support ambitious action and the second Global Stocktake—the process that enables governments and other stakeholders to assess progress made in meeting the goals of the Paris agreement on climate change. We should step up regionally focused communication efforts and encourage other networks, including NGOs, to produce their own reports based on IPCC material. The chair should play a central role in IPCC communications. As a skilled science communicator, I am well placed to do that.

      In the decade of action, we need IPCC leadership with the right experience. As an active publishing scientist and skilled practitioner, I bring a practical approach to the science. My experience would help me to build bridges inside and outside the IPCC. I would ensure that the panel’s work stays independent of politics, is fair and balanced, prioritises scientific integrity and creates a work environment that values all voices. The science of AR7 will be critical to ensuring we leave no person, place or ecosystem behind.■

      Debra Roberts is IPCC Co-Chair of Working Group II (Sixth Assessment Cycle); heads the sustainability and resilience function in eThekwini municipality in Durban; and holds the Professor Willem Schermerhorn Chair in Open Science from a Majority World Perspective at the University of Twente.

    • Jean-Pascal van Ypersele on why he is running to be chair of the IPCC
      He believes that the climate panel can serve policymakers’ needs better

      J.-P. Y :
      THIS YEAR marks the 35th anniversary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the halfway point to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. Our planet is facing challenges that have no historical equivalent. Action, based on the best scientific assessments, is needed on a number of fronts: to stay on track with the 1.5°C goal and accelerate reductions in emissions; to engineer a just transition to more climate-resilient economic development; to put the most climate-vulnerable countries on a stronger footing and provide funding for a broader set of developing countries; and to find the right mix of climate-change mitigation, adaptation and other societal objectives.

      Action means alerting the world to the consequences of inaction while looking for ways to tackle the climate crisis. The IPCC has been doing this consistently, for example providing lists of technologies and measures that could help reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 2030, with a clear indication of their lifecycle costs.

      I am convinced that the IPCC can serve policymakers’ needs even better. Scientists and policymakers need to discuss issues freely before any IPCC report is written, to increase the policy relevance of such documents. Many of the policymakers I met during my campaign to chair the IPCC told me their job would be easier if climate action (SDG 13) was better integrated into the 2030 agenda and the 16 other SDGs. We must let the IPCC help those policymakers.

      In its most recent reports, the IPCC helped to break down the barriers between different, siloed objectives by demonstrating links and synergies between them. Eradicating poverty (SDG 1), for example, is essential while adapting to climate change, reducing net CO2 emissions and improving people’s health. I intend to continue on this track if I become chair and I propose the preparation of a special report on climate change and sustainable development, with a full assessment of the many synergies (and the trade-offs) between the 17 SDGs. The world needs more solutions and more inspiration, rather than another doom-and-gloom report.

      The IPCC has transformed the production and communication of climate-change knowledge, greatly enhancing awareness and acceptance of the global emergency. I want to reinforce this authority by making the IPCC the global voice of climate. This requires a comprehensive communication strategy. I initiated work on this when I was vice-chair between 2008 and 2015. But getting the message across remains a challenge. I want to improve the readability of report conclusions and make it easier for decision-makers and the public to digest the IPCC’s output. And I want to encourage feedback from both constituencies. Our reports should not only disseminate knowledge but also spark dialogue.

      Inclusivity will be central to my programme as chair. During my campaign visits to more than 25 countries, I was struck by the diversity of human experience. I met many people who had been deeply affected by climate change, ranging from vulnerable women in fishing communities in Bangladesh, to a boy who had seen his friend drowned in a Belgian river swollen by torrential rains, to ministers from small islands that had seen a quarter of their annual GDP wiped out by a hurricane. I also met those trying to help, from experts in carbon capture and storage in Saudi Arabia to remote-sensing scientists monitoring disasters at the European Space Agency. I have talked to climate modellers trained in physics, just as I am; to social and behavioural scientists studying the mental and sociological obstacles to further climate action; and to pension-fund managers trying to make their portfolios greener.

      Climate change experienced in Alaska, France, Vanuatu or Zimbabwe differs in ways we can only grasp and respond to if we study the situations of those on the frontline in different parts of the world. The IPCC is a global organisation, and to continue to be respected globally it must be even more inclusive than it is today.

      I aim to increase the participation of experts from developing and climate-vulnerable countries, particularly women and early-career scientists, from all relevant disciplines, including economic and social sciences. There is evidence that women are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. It cannot be acceptable that they make up only one-third of IPCC report authors. And we need more young experts—who will have more time to make a difference—just as much as we need the knowledge of indigenous people. We also need to remedy the under-representation of experts from the global south.

      The IPCC is well established as an epistemic authority in climate science and serves as a model of international expertise. But it needs to evolve if it wants to stay ahead of the climate emergency and a fast-changing social and geopolitical context. In the next assessment period, our work must be characterised by greater relevance, stronger communication and, above all, inclusivity. I am determined to serve as the chair who makes the IPCC the most solid, most scientific and most eloquent voice on climate, leaving no one unaware, no one behind.■

      Jean-Pascal van Ypersele is professor of climatology and sustainable development sciences at UCLouvain. He was vice-chair of the IPCC between 2008 and 2015.

  • Migration to Britain hits a record high
    https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/05/25/migration-to-britain-hits-a-record-high

    Migration to Britain hits a record high
    The country is remarkably comfortable with it. So far
    May 25th 2023
    NEARLY SEVEN years have passed since the Brexit referendum in 2016. The desire to “take back control” of Britain’s borders and end free movement of labour from the European Union was what motivated many to vote Leave. In the three years before 2016, long-term net migration—immigration minus emigration—had averaged 285,000. Few would have expected that after Brexit still more people would come. Yet in 2022 net migration, according to eagerly awaited official statistics published on May 25th, rose to 606,000, a record for a calendar year. Perhaps surprisingly, Britons appear pretty comfortable with higher numbers, even if their politicians don’t.
    Since Britain formally left the EU in January 2020, non-EU nationals have accounted for nearly all net migration. Four-fifths of the 1.2m people who arrived in Britain in 2022 were citizens of non-EU countries, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The contribution of EU citizens, which was nearly half of net migration between 2010 and 2019, has fallen steadily since the Brexit vote.

    #Cocid-19#migrant#migration#grandebretagne#politiquemigratoire#immigration#postcovid#postbrexit#travailleurmigrant

  • Burn It With Fire | The Economist | 11.05.23

    https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/05/11/direct-cremations-and-burials-offer-a-different-way-to-mourn

    A growing number of Britons are choosing fuss-free funerals. The share of people opting for direct cremations, which include a basic coffin, transport and burning without family or friends present, has increased fivefold since 2019. They made up almost a fifth of funerals in 2022, according to figures from SunLife, an insurer. Co-operative Funeralcare says one in ten of its customers now opt for a direct cremation or burial, in which the body is buried quickly without a wake or embalming.

    Direct cremations have been around for over a decade, says Deborah Smith of the National Association of Funeral Directors, a trade group. They took off during the pandemic, as families were forced to choose unattended services. But demand is now driven by other factors. Many just want a more affordable farewell. The cost of a traditional send-off in Britain, including the undertaker’s fees, can be upwards of £5,000 ($6,315). A direct cremation is around £1,500 ($1,900). Britain’s competition regulator introduced a law in 2021 that requires funeral providers to make prices clear, helping customers compare services.
    [...]
    Some worry that pithy slogans disguise how austere direct services can be. Funerals are intentionally public events, says Kate Woodthorpe, director of the Centre for Death and Society at the University of Bath. People wear black and weep in view of the coffin. “There’s a risk, without that, [that] the bereaved will carry on as if nothing has happened.”

  • The economics of thinness | The Economist
    Christmas Special, Dec 20th 2022
    https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2022/12/20/the-economics-of-thinness

    It is economically rational for ambitious women to try as hard as possible to be thin

    Mireille Guiliano is a slim and successful woman. She was born in France and studied in Paris before working as an interpreter for the United Nations. She then worked in the champagne business and in 1984 joined Veuve Clicquot whose performance was, at the time, rather flat. She fizzed up the ranks and launched their American subsidiary. In 1991 she became its chief executive and ran it with great success. In her apartment overlooking downtown Manhattan, she offers a glass of water before quipping “You know how much I love water.” She is correct; drinking plenty of water is a key rule in “French Women Don’t Get Fat”, her bestselling book on how to lose weight and stay slim “the French way”.

    In the book she describes her discomfort when as a teenager she gained weight while spending a summer in America. Her uneasiness comes to a head when she returns home to France and her father, instead of rushing to hug her, tells her she looks “like a sack of potatoes”. She goes on a new diet plan, remembers her old French habits (lots of water, controlled portions, moving regularly) and tips the scales back in her favour.

    #paywall

    le commentaire du tweet du 23/03/2023 qui annonce l’article :

    According to some surveys the expectation that they should be thin is learned by girls as young as six. The tragedy is that there is no escape

    https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1638920594715443202

  • A battle royal is brewing over copyright and AI | The Economist
    https://www.economist.com/business/2023/03/15/a-battle-royal-is-brewing-over-copyright-and-ai

    Même si je ne suis pas certian de partage les conclusions et certaines remarques, il y a une manière intéressante de poser le problèm et des exemples significatifs.

    Consider two approaches in the music industry to artificial intelligence (AI). One is that of Giles Martin, son of Sir George Martin, producer of the Beatles. Last year, in order to remix the Fab Four’s 1966 album “Revolver”, he used AI to learn the sound of each band member’s instruments (eg, John Lennon’s guitar) from a mono master tape so that he could separate them and reverse engineer them into stereo. The result is glorious. The other approach is not bad either. It is the response of Nick Cave, a moody Australian singer-songwriter, when reviewing lyrics written in his style by ChatGPT, an AI tool developed by a startup called OpenAI. “This song sucks,” he wrote. “Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past.”

    Mr Cave is unlikely to be impressed by the latest version of the algorithm behind Chatgpt, dubbed gpt-4, which Openai unveiled on March 14th. Mr Martin may find it useful. Michael Nash, chief digital officer at Universal Music Group, the world’s biggest label, cites their examples as evidence ofboth excitement and fear about the ai behind content-creating apps like Chatgpt (for text) or Stable Diffusion (for images). It could help the creative process. It could also destroy or usurp it. Yet for recorded music at large, the coming of the bots brings to mind a seismic event in its history: the rapid rise and fall of Napster, a platform for sharing mainly pirated songs at the turn of the millennium. Napster was ultimately brought
    down by copyright law. For aggressive bot providers accused of riding roughshod over intellectual property (ip), Mr Nash has a simple message that sounds, from a music-industry veteran of the Napster era, like a threat. “Don’t deploy in the market and beg for forgiveness. That’s the Napster approach.”

    The main issue here is not ai-made parodies of Mr Cave or faux-Shakespearean sonnets. It is the oceans of copyrighted data the bots
    have siphoned up while being trained to create humanlike content. That information comes from everywhere: social-media feeds, internet searches, digital libraries, television, radio, banks of statistics and so on. Often, it is alleged, ai models plunder the databases without permission. Those responsible for the source material complain that their work is hoovered up without consent, credit or compensation. In short, some ai platforms may be
    doing with other media what Napster did with songs—ignoring copyright altogether. The lawsuits have started to fly.

    It is a legal minefield with implications that extend beyond the creative industries to any business where machine-learning plays a role, such as self-driving cars, medical diagnostics, factory robotics and insurance-risk management. The European Union, true to bureaucratic form, has a directive on copyright that refers to data-mining (written before the recent bot boom). Experts say America lacks case history specific to generative ai. Instead, it has competing theories about whether or not data-mining without licences is permissible under the “fair use” doctrine. Napster also tried
    to deploy “fair use” as a defence in America—and failed. That is not to say that the outcome will be the same this time.

    The main arguments around “fair use” are fascinating. To borrow from a masterclass on the topic by Mark Lemley and Bryan Casey in the Texas Law Review, a journal, use of copyrighted works is considered fair when it serves a valuable social purpose, the source material is transformed from the original and it does not affect the copyright owners’ core market. Critics argue that ais do not transform but exploit the entirety of the databases they mine. They claim that the firms behind machine learningabuse fair use to “free-ride” on the work of individuals. And they contend that this threatens the livelihoods of the creators, as well as society at large if the ai promotes mass surveillance and the spread of misinformation. The authors weigh these arguments against the fact that the more access to training sets there is, the better ai will be, and that without such access there may be no ai at all. In other words, the industry might die in its infancy. They describe it as one of the most important legal questions of the century: “Will copyright law allow robots to learn?”

    An early lawsuit attracting attention is from Getty Images. The photography agency accuses Stability ai, which owns Stable Diffusion, of infringing its copyright on millions of photos from its collection in order to build an image-generating ai model that will compete with Getty. Provided the case is not settled out of court, it could set a precedent on fair use. An even more important verdict could come soon from America’s Supreme Court in a case involving the transformation of copyrighted images of Prince, a pop
    idol, by the late Andy Warhol, an artist. Daniel Gervais, an ip expert at Vanderbilt Law School in Nashville, believes the justices may provide long-awaited guidance on fair use in general.

    Scraping copyrighted data is not the only legal issue generative ai faces. In many jurisdictions copyright applies only to work created by humans, hence the extent to which bots can claim ip protection for the stuff they generate is another grey area. Outside the courtrooms the biggest questions will be political, including whether or not generative ai should enjoy the same liability protections for the content it displays as social-media platforms do, and to what extent it jeopardises data privacy.

    The copyrighting is on the wall

    Yet the ip battle will be a big one. Mr Nash says creative industries
    should swiftly take a stand to ensure artists’ output is licensed and used ethically in training ai models. He urges ai firms to “document and disclose” their sources. But, he acknowledges, it is a delicate balance. Creative types do not want to sound like enemies of progress. Many may benefit from ai in their work. The lesson from Napster’s “reality therapy”, as Mr Nash calls it, is that it is better to engage with new technologies than hope they go away. Maybe this time it won’t take 15 years of crumbling revenues to learn it.

    #Intelligence_artificielle #ChatGPT #Copyright #Apprentissage

  • Russian demography: the nightmare is going to get even worse | The Economist | 04.03.23

    https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/03/04/russias-population-nightmare-is-going-to-get-even-worse

    War in Ukraine has aggravated a crisis that long predates the conflict

    Hello from London,

    Some news stories are so sudden or obvious that you can’t miss them. Others, such as the one we just published on the catastrophic state of demography in Russia, take some careful unravelling—but could prove to be just as dramatic. When my colleague first spelled out how dire are the trends for Russia’s population, and offered some details, I found the story to be astounding.

    The life expectancy for young men is now as low as for men in Haiti—and lower than in Bangladesh. The overall population is tumbling. By the estimates of our data colleagues, the covid-19 pandemic has taken a deadlier toll in Russia than in almost any other country. Add the effects of war—both the tens of thousands of men killed in Ukraine and the hundreds of thousands who have fled into exile—and the population looks terribly skewed. Women now outnumber men in Russia by the millions, for example.

    For the long-term health of Russia, this matters. Other countries such as Japan have seen a slump in their population size or fertility rates, and managed the decline. But the sudden loss of young people, especially highly educated ones, is acutely painful for economies to deal with. To me, this again highlights how little Vladimir Putin cares for the fate of his own people. Whatever motivates him—some deluded sense of his place in Russian history, perhaps—it is not the well-being of ordinary Russians. I just hope that, one day, Russians will find a way to be rid of him.

    For another perspective on Russia, let me recommend our latest By Invitation guest essay. This is by John Foreman, who recently returned from Moscow where he had served as Britain’s defence attaché. He pulls no punches in assessing the failings of Valery Gerasimov, the Russian chief of the general staff. Even when the Russian army seems to make some progress in the war—it may yet seize the town of Bakhmut in the coming days—those gains come at enormous costs in terms of lost men and equipment.