If you get your news from either the Right silo and/or the Left silo (and you don't have much choice), you are being propagandized at least as much as you are being informed. What to do? Well, you need to cultivate intelligent, erudite, unbiased sources that will correct the most egregious misstatements. I am unaware of any sources, other than myself, who are even trying to do this. The Right silo is noticeably biased and the Left silo is, currently, ridiculously so. There are, of course, smaller, nascent silos around the Singularity and the Gaian movement.

That does not mean that all intellectually sophisticated commentators will agree. I recognize that Polymathica represents a nascent silo and, because of that, there are some values bias to it. Consequently, a diversity of points of view can exist within the intellectually sophisticated communities and their expression will, undoubtedly, be worthwhile. I hope that over time, the activity of independent public intellectual will enjoy success and this will encourage others who cherish intellectual sophistication over ideology to join me.

Right now, I am trying to get followers and supporters for myself. However, my hope is that, with success, we can leverage the resulting network effects to enable other commentators.

Where are the Donbas separatists?
To quickly review, in 2014, the Ukrainian provinces of Lugansk and Donetsk declared independence over a new Ukrainian government intent on joining the EU and NATO. These Eastern provinces have a pronounced pro-Russian flavor to them and their residents overwhelmingly speak Russian. The national government attempted to move into these two provinces and quell the independence movement militarily. The effort was very violent and, at best, a middling success, with occupation of much of the countryside and Mariupol, which became the Provincial Capital after the separatists secured Donetsk.

The Ukrainian position is that no part of Donbas should be independent while the separatists and Russia hold the position that all of the two provinces, and perhaps parts of other provinces, should be independent, generally against EU and NATO membership and with more deep ties with Russia. The reality is that, prior to the recent Russian invasion, the separatists had control of much of the Donbas, but Ukraine held much of it, too. Now, Russia has entered Ukraine, primarily in the Donbas, with a substantial military force. Their stated goal is to secure all of Lugansk and Donetsk provinces for the separatists and recognize them as independent nations. Both the Left and Right silos (of the West) have been reporting that Putin's actual goal is to move westward and annex as much of Eastern Europe as possible.

Putin has stated that his only interest is in Eastern Ukraine. He is not being taken at his word, because, in the past, Hitler did, in fact, state that Germany only wanted to annex a portion of Czechoslovakia. An agreement was signed and Prime Minister Chamberlain declared 'peace in our time'. Of course, it proved to be a pretext and Hitler went much further. Is this the case for Putin? It is impossible to tell for certain, but we do have some inferential evidence to suggest not.

The curious matter is, however, that the Donbassian separatists have somehow magically disappeared from both the Left silo and Right silo narratives. After putting up a fierce fight, they apparently all went home secure in the knowledge that the Russians have it handled. We know that prior to Russia's military incursion, the separatists did attack Mariupol several times but were unable to capture it.

This is an example of ways in which we know that we are getting a narrative rather than fair reporting. There are logical holes in the stories we are being told. On all sides, the Western politicians and press are reporting this conflict as Russia invading Ukraine without purpose and to the universal condemnation of all Ukrainians. However, there was no battle for Donetsk or Lugansk reported. Does that mean that the Russians were invited in by the separatists? While we can't conclude that with certainty, the absence of reporting means it would be a reasonable conclusion. In other words, in truth, this is a civil war that Russia has entered on the side of the separatists and NATO is supporting on the side of the central government with resources, weaponry and intelligence, but not with direct military intervention. I believe that the separatists are not being mentioned because accurate reporting would introduce a degree of moral ambiguity that the Western powers, government and press alike, don't want.

As the Western governments and press obfuscate with regard to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, a more global issue is not being addressed. To do so would highlight a philosophical issue that they want ignored. Crimea and now the Donbas do not want to be part of Ukraine if Ukraine's goal is to join the EU and NATO. However, they are a part of a larger trend. A portion of Moldova has declared independence, there was two years of war that, because of Russian protection, ended in a stalemate. The Northern portion of Cyprus is predominantly Turkish while the Southern portion is Greek. A defacto division has existed for 50 years without resolution. In 2017, pro-independence parties took control of the Catalonian provincial legislature and declared independence from Spain. The leaders were charged with crimes and they fled the country. Apparently, Catalonians wanted independence but weren't willing to fight for it.

The fundamental question is whether the Westphalian model of nation states, which generally requires that other nations stay out of the internal affairs of other nations, allows nations to, intermittently, force minorities to remain against their wills. Does the Westphalian model require other nation states to not recognize any seceding community? Is that interpretation consistent with a 'liberal' nation. Obviously, between South Ossetia, Crimea, Donbas and Transnistria, Russia doesn't think so. In nearly all situations, what I call EUNA (EU and North America) does believe so. While they speak out against a few situations save for the situation in the former Yugoslavia, which NATO supported and recognized the many breakaway republics and even bombed Belgrade over Kosovo independence, it is generally accepted that it is consistent with the Westphalian model and liberal democracies, to make secession illegal and to use force to stop it.

This is extremely important because the global explosion of unregulated communication channels are leading to an era in which many communities will resist the dictates of larger governments. This is certainly being seen in the U.S. where States are blatantly disregarding national laws, policies and regulations. The war over Donbas will end, one way or the other. But, if the underlying principle of independence is not resolved, the world is going to become a very violent place.

Dystopia or Exponential Growth or Something Else?
You may have noticed that the majority of the Liberal Press are glass half empty kind of guys and that the Conservative Press generally has a glass half full kind of outlook. I, of course, except those cultural issues that they consider to be evidence of Western decline. There is, however, the Singularitarian Press that will try to sell you on unlimited scientific, technological and economic exponential growth. It began with Ray Kurzweil, with his 2005 book, 'The Singularity is Near'. His argument was that growth occurs exponentially and consequently, over time, measures of economics, technology, life expectancy, etc. will approach infinity. From this, he concluded that civilization would reach a 'singularity', which occurs when a mathematical function approaches infinity in one of its variables. He predicted it, originally, to be an event around 2045. Because singularities are approached but never reached, there certainly was an inherent contradiction in his message.

Exponential Growth

While many people accept the threats of climate change, nuclear war, population bomb, resource exhaustion, etc. they really don't behave as if they believe any of them will happen, at least not in their lifetime. However, they don't really believe the Singularitarians either. They are accused to believing that tomorrow will be like today, only more so. This can be described as a linear growth world view. However, that doesn't appear to be exactly true. For example, for the approximately 115 years of the High Industrial Age, say from 1875 to 1990, Real GDP per Capita grew at the rate of 2.1% per year. However, if you tell the typical person that in 115 years, Real GDP per Capita will be $619,615, they won't really believe it. In reality, they subscribe to a diminishing return model as below.

Diminishing Returns

Futurists and Economists have studied the nature of change as it has taken place throughout history. What they have discovered is that almost invariably, change follows what is called a sigmoidal function. The best known one is the logistic function, better known as the S-curve. However, there are many varieties of sigmoidal functions. They all share the characteristic of growing exponentially at the start, but then there is a point of inflection turning the curve into something like the diminishing return function. So, the typical person's world view can be described as, 'Things changed quickly in the past, but will probably calm down going forward'. In other words, their assumption is that the world is at the point of inflection. While not always correct, it is less stupid that the Singularitarian world view. The real question is, are we at the point of inflection. Of course, until the point of inflection is reached we can't fully know if we are at X=-4, X=0 or X=4. When it comes to computer technology, it is becoming clear that X>0. With regard to anti-aging, It is tempting to conclude that we are lat X<0, but we really can't know.
The Logistical form of a Sigmoidal Curve

This article is somewhat different than most, that are clearly addressing a specific contemporary issue. This one looks at a general bias in the Right silo, the Left silo and various other more nascent silos, such as Singularitarian and Transhumanism. Nearly all news stories will either express or imply a view of the future based upon the expected profile of change.

For example, I believe that growth in affluence over the next century will be consistent with X<<0. I do not do so based upon statistical trends but rather due to a review of robotics and artificial intelligence. It militates for the perspective that we are, essentially, at the beginning of another explosion of real GDP per capita. It is almost certainly a trend that will be sigmoidal and will reach an inflection point and approach an asymptote. That, however, is a very complex issue that I will address in an upcoming book, 'The Death of Capitalism'.

My Newsletter is too large for Locals. I have, therefore, truncated a portion of it, here. You can read it in its entirety at MichaelWFerguson.Substack.com