TGFI, Volume 577: dumb people and fertility myths

You’ve heard of TGIF? This is TGFI: Things Glen Found Inter­est­ing

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues like­ly to be of inter­est to Chris­tians in col­lege. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions, so if you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. UC Berke­ley math com­mu­ni­ty left at cross­roads in wake of Ope­nAI Navier-Stokes proof (Litong Deng, Dai­ly Cal­i­forn­ian): “Peo­ple are com­plain­ing that AI is push­ing out this 100,000-line for­mal proof of some major con­jec­ture. I don’t real­ly see what harm this does because you can always ignore this if you want, and then you’re no worse off than before,” Borcherds said. “I think what peo­ple are get­ting upset about is they’re slow­ly real­iz­ing that they are dumb and some­how blam­ing this on AI, even though it’s not real­ly AI’s fault.” Borcherds, who cur­rent­ly teach­es MATH 250A, a grad­u­ate-lev­el course on abstract alge­bra, also said AI would be much bet­ter than him at teach­ing the course. He said AI is more patient and much bet­ter at express­ing itself than he is and doesn’t get mad when stu­dents ask stu­pid ques­tions. Borcherds him­self said he has asked AI “deep math­e­mat­i­cal ques­tions” and gets “much bet­ter answers from it than (he gets) from any human math­e­mati­cian.”
    • Borcherds is a Fields medal­ist (1998).
  2. The Great Fer­til­i­ty Col­lapse (Russ Roberts inter­view­ing Jesus Fer­nan­dez-Villaverde, Econ­Talk): this pod­cast episode is inspired by a paper the guest co-authored, Ter­ra Incog­ni­ta: The Eco­nom­ics of a Shrink­ing World (NBER). This is an absolute­ly fas­ci­nat­ing dis­cus­sion, full of gems like why the UN pop­u­la­tion fore­casts are com­plete­ly untrust­wor­thy and very sur­pris­ing exam­ples of how a lot of what peo­ple assume they know about fer­til­i­ty and demo­graph­ics is exact­ly wrong.
  3. Why Evan­gel­i­cal­ism Is Win­ning (Ross Douthat, The Free Press): “But the basic test of any reli­gion, espe­cial­ly any mis­sion­ary reli­gion, is whether it actu­al­ly per­suades peo­ple to prac­tice and believe. And the evan­gel­i­cal model—the entre­pre­neur­ial pas­tor, the adapt­able church struc­tures, the empha­sis on wel­com­ing seek­ers and accom­mo­dat­ing fam­i­lies, even the sub­ur­ban and mid­dle­brow aesthetic—clearly works under 21st-cen­tu­ry con­di­tions in a way that requires respect and some form of imi­ta­tion. The vices of evan­gel­i­cal­ism need cor­rec­tion and cri­tique. But there will be no 21st-cen­tu­ry revival, for Catholi­cism or any oth­er kind of faith, that doesn’t reck­on with the sources of its unde­ni­able suc­cess.”
  4. What the Bible’s Most Polit­i­cal Book Can Teach Us (Michael J. Rhodes, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “Bib­li­cal scholars—including me, in my book Reimag­in­ing Bib­li­cal Pol­i­tics—have argued Esther might be the most polit­i­cal book in the Bible. The sto­ry revolves around mat­ters of state, and in terms of polit­i­cal action, the book has it all. By the time cred­its roll, we’ve watched Vashti prac­tice civ­il dis­obe­di­ence by refus­ing to obey King Ahasuerus’s com­mand (1:12). We’ve seen Mordechai stage a pub­lic protest—lamenting in sack­cloth and ash­es at the very gate of the king (4:1–2)—and serve that same regime by snitch­ing on courtiers caught plan­ning an assas­si­na­tion (2:21–22). Esther’s polit­i­cal career begins when she makes the best of an awful sit­u­a­tion, hid­ing her eth­nic­i­ty and win­ning favor on the way to becom­ing queen. She acts sub­ver­sive­ly to ensure Haman gets what’s com­ing to him. By the end, Esther and Morde­cai effec­tive­ly hold pub­lic office, writ­ing law from with­in the empire itself (8:1–2; 7–8). If Esther is arguably the Bible’s most polit­i­cal book, it’s also the most ambigu­ous.”
  5. Con­cern­ing Chris­tian­i­ty Today (to which I am a sub­scriber):
    • Chris­tian­i­ty Today, a Voice of Cen­trist Evan­gel­i­cal­ism, Is in Tur­moil (Ruth Gra­ham, New York Times): “Chris­tian­i­ty Today need­ed to be less like Wheaton and more like Tik­Tok, Mr. Adding­ton told his staff, accord­ing to sev­er­al peo­ple who attend­ed the meet­ing. Warn­ing that lay­offs were com­ing, he end­ed his pre­sen­ta­tion with a prayer. A senior edi­tor left the room in tears. Four­teen months lat­er, more than half of the 79 employ­ees at that time have either been laid off or resigned, includ­ing an edi­tor in chief and four of the company’s longest-tenured jour­nal­ists.”
    • Why I left Chris­tian­i­ty Today (Bon­nie Kris­t­ian, Sub­stack): “The last pre-pan­dem­ic meet­ing I took end­ed with an offer to become a colum­nist for Chris­tian­i­ty Today. I hap­pi­ly accept­ed and wrote for CT in that capac­i­ty for three and a half years, then came on staff as a senior edi­tor in the sum­mer of 2023. In late Sep­tem­ber, I gave notice. Fri­day was my last day, and this post is about why I left. If you’re new here, fresh from googling me after read­ing Ruth Graham’s New York Times sto­ry about CT, hel­lo! You’ve come to the right place.”
  6. Roman love (Samuel Hugh­es, Works in Progress): “Pop­u­lar mythol­o­gy holds that a tol­er­ant and affir­ma­tive view of human sex­u­al­i­ty pre­vailed in clas­si­cal Antiq­ui­ty until it was crushed by puri­tan­i­cal and repres­sive Chris­tian­i­ty. I pas­sive­ly accept­ed this view until I read Kyle Harper’s cel­e­brat­ed book, From Shame to Sin: The Chris­t­ian Trans­for­ma­tion of Sex­u­al Moral­i­ty in Late Antiq­ui­ty. Harp­er shows that, although the stan­dard pic­ture is not entire­ly wrong, it is so incom­plete as to be fun­da­men­tal­ly mis­lead­ing.… By putting togeth­er the Jew­ish pro­hi­bi­tion of extra­mar­i­tal sex with Roman monogamy, the ear­ly Chris­tians arrived at the idea that each man should be faith­ful to one woman, just as each woman should be faith­ful to one man. The nov­el­ty of this inno­va­tion is hard to over­state: it is not clear that the ide­al of exclu­sive mutu­al fideli­ty has ever been invent­ed inde­pen­dent­ly in any oth­er major civ­i­liza­tions, though it was even­tu­al­ly to spread to many non-Chris­t­ian cul­tures.”
  7. How to Sur­vive the Robot Apoc­a­lypse (Ross Douthat, The Free Press): “In dep­re­cat­ing the chances of the true robot apoc­a­lypse, I’m describ­ing a poten­tial future in which the gravest dan­gers are held at bay by a per­va­sive human para­noia, where pol­i­tics is a strug­gle between effi­cien­cy-max­i­miz­ers embrac­ing human obso­les­cence and techno­pho­bic pop­ulist rebel­lions, and where civ­i­liza­tion­al safe­ty requires us to rely on inscrutable intel­li­gences to police oth­er inscrutable intel­li­gences into the dis­tant future. A rea­son­able per­son might sim­ply pre­fer a world with­out super­in­tel­li­gent AI. But in a world with super­in­tel­li­gence, none of the doom sce­nar­ios quite per­suade me that humans will be eas­i­ly steam­rolled or go naive­ly into the sil­i­con night.”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

  • Jacob Assures New Bride ‘Rachel’ He Was­n’t That Drunk At Wed­ding Last Night — UPDATE: Oh No — (Baby­lon Bee)
  • Explain­ing Col­lege Foot­ball Con­fer­ences (John Crist, YouTube): two min­utes
  • 50 Years In, What’s the Point of U2? Bono and the Edge Have Answers (David March­ese, New York Times): “What you just said about com­ing up with the fic­tion­al names — this always killed me about the band. Bono! Edge! And then … Adam and Lar­ry. Was there any dis­cus­sion that they should have names too? The Edge: We need to explain the whole name thing. We laughed a lot at that age. We would laugh at each oth­er and our­selves and that was the deal. So the names were not nec­es­sar­i­ly designed for their hero­ic aspect. Bono’s very first name was in fact Stein­rich Van Hait­ian Bang Bang Bang, and then I was Inchicore for a while before I became the Edge. Adam for a while was known as Mrs. Byrnes, and Lar­ry for some rea­son was the Jam Jar. We were bor­row­ing a lot from Mon­ty Python.”
  • Kid Rock Talks Eminem Col­lab ‘Heal My Faith’ & Killing ‘Divi­sion’ (Gary Graff, Bill­board):  “This (album) is about for­give­ness and sec­ond chances,” Rock said, “try­ing to heal some of the divi­sion in our coun­try. I’m just putting a pos­i­tive mes­sage out there in the world…showing a lit­tle more grace, try­ing to kill some of the divi­sion. I am not with­out sin, and I can’t say I ever will be. But I’m mak­ing a con­scious effort to spread this bet­ter mes­sage — and I’m also still Kid motherf–king Rock. At the end of the day, I’m both of those guys. I’m not fun­da­men­tal­ly changed, you know? I’m still Kid Rock; I’m gonna drink a beer, smoke a cig­ar… I’m just on the jour­ney. I feel halfway to Jesus; I hope to be all the way there, but I’m not sure. I don’t know where it all leads. It’s almost as new as me as it is to every­one else.”

Why Do You Send This Email?

In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar pro­duced shrewd war­riors “who under­stood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a sim­i­lar way, we need to become wise peo­ple whose faith inter­acts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may con­tin­ue the tra­di­tion of Issachar.

Disclaimer

Chi Alpha is not a par­ti­san orga­ni­za­tion. To para­phrase anoth­er min­is­ter: we are not about the donkey’s agen­da and we are not about the elephant’s agen­da — we are about the Lamb’s agen­da. Hav­ing said that, I read wide­ly (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ide­o­log­i­cal Tur­ing test and in part because I do not believe I can fair­ly say “I agree” or “I dis­agree” until I can say “I under­stand”) and may at times share arti­cles that have a strong par­ti­san bias sim­ply because I find the arti­cle stim­u­lat­ing. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with every­thing an author says in an arti­cle I men­tion, much less things the author has said in oth­er arti­cles (although if I strong­ly dis­agree with some­thing in the arti­cle I’ll usu­al­ly men­tion it). And to the extent you can dis­cern my opin­ions, please under­stand that they are my own and not nec­es­sar­i­ly those of Chi Alpha or any oth­er orga­ni­za­tion I may be per­ceived to rep­re­sent. Also, remem­ber that I’m not report­ing news — I’m giv­ing you a selec­tion of things I found inter­est­ing. There’s a lot hap­pen­ing in the world that’s not mak­ing an appear­ance here because I haven’t found stim­u­lat­ing arti­cles writ­ten about it. If this was for­ward­ed to you and you want to receive future emails, sign up here. You can also view the archives.