Humanity is cooler than it used to be

The conventional wisdom has always been that the "normal" temperature of the healthy human body is 98.6°F (37.0°C). In reality, this was never "normal", merely an average, which came to be used as a benchmark or target by doctors around he world. What is actually "normal", of course, varies between individuals and situations.

But 98.6°F (37.0°C) is not even the average any more. A study analyzing 200 years of data has shown that the average body temperate has been falling by about 0.09°F (0.05°C) each decade since the 19th century, an effect that researchers pin on improved living conditions, better public health, and advancements on healthcare which have reduced chronic infections and long-term health issues.

"Normal" body temperature now ranges between 97.3°F and 98.2°F (36.2°C and 36.8°C), with an average of 97.9°F (36.6°C). Not a huge difference, you might say, but the (ongoing) decline in body temperature does have implications for diagnosing conditions and symptoms like fever.

Of course, we should also take into account the fact that body temperature naturally fluctuates throughout the day, and that it is influenced by factors such as age, sex, weight and height. For example, older adults tend to have a lower body temperature (due to reduced muscle mass and slower metabolism), women tend to have higher body temperatures (due to hormonal changes like the menstrual cycle), etc.

Coetzee's Jesus trilogy is strange but compelling

I have just finished J.M. Coetzee's Jesus trilogy: The Childhood of Jesus, The Schooldays of Jesus and The Death of Jesus. And a very strange beast it is, too.

It is a late-period work (The Death of Jesus was published in 2019, and Coetzee's first novel, Dusklands, came out in 1974, some 45 years earlier), so one could perhaps expect a more philosophical approach, and maybe a more experimental one. And that's exactly what Coetzee gives us. Not content to rest on his laurels - he has the Nobel Prize in Literature and not one, but two, Booker Prizes under his belt, along with a slew of other prizes and commendations - he pushes the envelope a bit further with these spare and slightly off-kilter books.

Coetzee's writing style was always disarmingly simple, elegant but economical. That is to say, he doesn't waste words on unnecessary ornamentation and flights of fancy. The Jesus novels continue this tendency. His prose has been called "stripped-down", "disorienting" and "hypnotic", and that's as good a description as any.

It should perhaps be mentioned that these novels are not about Jesus, and there is no character in them called Jesus. The main characters are a boy known as Davíd (not his real name) and his "parents" Simón and Inés. In fact, Simón found Davíd on a refugee boat and took him under his wing, including finding him a "mother". 

There is some element of analogy, though, as people gravitate toward David, despite his outward aloofness and weirdness, and especially as the overblown mythos around him grows after his death, and reports of miracles, a mysterious "message", and more, circulate.

The three settle in an unnamed Spanish-speaking country, and try to make a life for themselves, even as their relationships gradually fall apart. Davíd - the "Jesus" of the book titles, if anyone is, although it is by no means a straightforward allegory - is fiercely bright but uncompromisingly self-centred, aggressively independent, and generally unpleasant. Inés is sharp and equally uncompromising in her own way, and definitely not natural mother material. Simón is perhaps the only sympathetic character: cerebral, self-deprecating, eminently sensible, devoted and loving, but also keenly aware of how far out of his depth he is in undertaking to bring up a child, especially a child like Davíd.

And out of this, Coetzee builds three linked novels. They do have plots, but most of the writing revolves around relationships, emotions, spirituality and ideas. How to live a good life, how to bring up a child in a changing world, how to navigate life in a new country and a new culture, the wisdom of the law, passion vs. reason, that kind of thing. Each book is that rare thing, a page-turner of a philosophical novel. Together, they have confirmed Coetzee as one of our greatest writers.

American EV sales increase while gas car sales decrease

By now, we're well used to the narrative that electric vehicle (EV) sales in the USA have sputtered to an ignominious halt in recent months and years (here's just one example, from a reasonably reputable outfit). Many, if not most, American car manufacturers are cutting back on their EV investments and production schedules, which will probably compound the problem. It's all part of the Republican-led backlash against electric vehicles, green energy and anything vaguely progressive in nature.

Except that it may not actually be true. The latest of Clean Technica's regular reports on the US automobile market show that EV sales continue to increase while ICE (internal combustion engine, i.e. gasoline-powered) cars show a slight downturn.

Quarter 3 (Q3) of 2024 compared to Q3 of 2023 shows that EVs enjoyed a healthy 8% increase in the last year, while ICE vehicles suffered a slight decline (about 1%) over the same period. Compared to Q3 of pre-pandemic 2019, EV sales have increased by a whopping 474%, while ICE cars have actually seen a 15% decline.

Not quite what we are led to believe by the propaganda. Clean Technica is not the only one to point out this discrepancy in media reporting. Yes, EVs are starting from a much smaller base (especially when considering pre-pandemic 2019, when the technology was really still in it's infancy), and yes, the rate of increase is slowing. But let's at least tell it like it is.

2025 is coming, and all bets are off

We're approaching the end of the year - and what an ugly year! - the time when the financial eggheads and whizzes at the Globe and Mail usually issue their oh-so-confident predictions for the year ahead.

This year, though, Ian McGugan is telling it like it is. After a 2024 in which most of those oh-so-confident predictions came unravelled, Mr. McGugan is throwing up his hands and making absolutely no predictions for 2025.

Basically, things are just too volatile and, well, unpredictable. As Mr. McGugan points out, four erratic and egocentric individuals - Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping - are, between them, effectively holding the whole world to ransom, and everyone is hanging on their every word, because a word from any one of them can mean the difference between success and failure, even life and death. To even try to make predictions in the face of such powerful fickleness would be pointless. All bets are off.

I think Mr. McGugan is right on the money. I don't remember a time when the future was so unpredictable, so grim, and in so many different ways. The old adage "May you live in interesting times" has never felt so sinister and portentous.

Is Amazon really evil?

I try not to use Amazon. I prefer to shop locally, where at all possible. If I have to shop online, I at least try to shop Canadian. Usually, I am successful (this Christmas, zero Amazon purchases), although I am not above ordering through Amazon where all else fails, which very occasionally it does.

As well as trying to shop locally from an environmental viewpoint, I disapprove of many of Amazon's business practices, and the way it has steam-rollered through whole swathes of perfectly good businesses and whole sectors, Canadian and otherwise.

But is Amazon actually "evil" as my daughter has it?

I remember when Amazon was just an innovative online bookshop. Now it is a global, hydra-headed behemoth - cheap, efficient, comprehensive and fast - with fingers in pies they really have no good reason to be anywhere near. It is America's second largest private employer (after Walmart), and sells over a third of all products sold online in the USA (and probably everywhere else). Its IT department powers vast portions of the Internet, from Netflix to the CIA. It is ridiculously successful. But evil? Should we be boycotting Amazon?

Billionaire owner Jeff Bezos has grown his company into a commercial titan with a reputation for abusing its workforce (long shifts for inadequate pay, enforced overtime, constant electronic surveillance, summary firings for lagging productivity, workers pressed to their physical limits, unreasonable demands for employee self-sacrifice, inadequate safety measures, propagation of the gig economy, stern opposition to unionization, etc). This is known. All of that might well be enough for you to vow not to touch Amazon with a bargepole.

But there's more. Amazon has been accused of using its market power to deliberately stifle competition, to harm small businesses, to violate anti-trust laws, and generally to take advantage of its quasi-monopolistic position. The environmental impact of its shipping operations is huge and wasteful. It has been criticized for cynically using tax loopholes to avoid paying its fair share of taxes. Its data collection and use policies have raised concerns about privacy and security. Its involvement in the shadier side of America's homeland security machine (including its facial recognition technology) has raised hackles among some. The list goes on.

I will continue to try to avoid Amazon as much as possible. We are, though, probably long past the point where it is possible to bring the company down, or even hold it to account. And the possibility remains that Amazon is just an uber-successful company with a rather more-rapacious-than-some go-get-'em corporate philosophy, and not actually evil, as The Economist argues (and others). Me, I'm inclined to go with the "evil" characterization, on balance.

UPDATE

Still not made up your mind about Amazon's evilness (or not)? The company has just closed all of its warehouse facilities in the province of Quebec ("fulfillment centres", sorting centres, delivery stations) rather than accept a unionized workforce at one of those facilities. It is laying off 1,700 workers as part of its corporate culture of discouraging trade unions, because they might, you know, try to improve working hours and conditions, call for better pay, that kind of thing. Instead, Amazon will pivot to a third-party delivery model (think exploited gig economy and no employment benefits).

Sound a little over the top? That's the Amazon style. The company has zero tolerance for unionization, and this move is a clear warning to other Amazon warehouses in Canada and elsewhere that unions will just not be tolerated, so don't even go there.

Still on the fence?

Chrystia Freeland - folk hero or party apparatchik?

There is a danger that outgoing Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland comes to be seen as some sort of folk hero or avenging angel after she dramatically resigned from the Liberal Cabinet this past Monday. Let's not get too carried away here, though.

Sure, she stood up to an increasingly tyrannical Justin Trudeau, by resigning and refusing to push through the latest of his "costly political gimmicks" (the GST holiday, which will be implemented anyway, and a planned $200 per head cash rebate, which probably won't).

But Ms. Freeland has been in the country's driver's seat economically for the last four or five years, and she has willingly presided over an unprecedented government spending spree, culminating in the latest budget deficit of $61.9 billion (over 50% more than her earlier forecast of $40 billion). It's a bit rich for her to suddenly have qualms about an additional $3 billion. 

Sure, some of that unprecedented spending was necessary, and some of it was desirable. And no, it doesn't substantially worsen Canada's debt to GDP ratio, which remains the best in the G7, and certainly multiples better than the USA's. But some of it does seem to be bloat. 

So, has Ms. Freeland been a paragon of a Finance Minister, struggling to rein in the worst of Mr. Trudeau's spendthrift tendencies? Not really. She has been right there with him.

Was she, as Minister of International Affairs and Foreign Affairs, even instrumental in saving Canada from Donald Trump's worst instincts during the renegotiation of the Canada-US-Mexico free trade deal in 2018, and the catalyst for the Canada-EU trade deal signed in 2016, as I have been reading recently? Hard to say, and there are those who say her contribution has been overstated.

Whether Ms. Freeland will use this break with Trudeau as a platform to launch a Liberal leadership bid remains to be seen. Personally, I don't think I can stomach her slow-motion, explaining-to-a-five-year-old public speaking technique, however smart she may be. 

It's undeniable that Ms. Freeland is currently riding a wave of approbation and acclaim, though, not least due to the judicious early publication of a flattering biography (Chrystia: From Peace River to Parliament Hill). But I think that her reinvention as a feminist icon may be be premature, or at least hyperbolic. Rather, I see her as a loyal Trudeau acolyte, a high-level functionary, but not really a dynamic live-wire and visionary.

Granted, she has managed to avoid significant scandals, despite being at the forefront of the Liberal government for the best part of a decade, which is probably a feat worthy of celebration. But she doesn't inspire me, and I think the Liberals need a clean break with the old guard if they want to be taken seriously in a few years time. 

And anyway, who else is there to take over leadership of the Liberals? Françoise-Philippe Champagne? Anita Anand? Dominic Leblanc? Mélanie Jolie? Christy Clark? Mark Carney? None of them really inspire me, and polls suggest that they don't inspire Liberals either. There is currently no saviour-in-waiting. The Liberals are clearly toast, for a few years at least.

Breaking news: expedition to prove that the Earth is round

A group of prominent flat-earthers made a (very expensive) trip down to Antarctica to see first-hand whether there was indeed 24-hour sunlight there at this time of year.

For some reason, they seem to accept the premise that, if there is 24 hours of sun at the Pole, then that is sufficient evidence that the Earth is indeed round (spherical), not flat. Why they would accept that particular piece of evidence and not all the other evidence pointing towards a round earth is not clear. 

And why they felt the need to go to the South Pole, not the much more accessible (and much cheaper) North Pole at a different time of year, is also not clear. But then, they were not actually paying for it - some Colorado church was picking up the tab, again for unknown reasons. And why they couldn't go just partway to the Pole and see the hours of sunlight increase to arrive at the same conclusion is likewise a mystery....

There are many more baffling aspects to this expedition, which are just too depressing to go into here. But, hey, this is not a scientific endeavour after all; logic need not apply. As one of the flat-earthers explains, "Actually, what I am is somebody who has left the cult of science". Hmm. But wait, testing a hypothesis by empirical observation? Isn't that pretty much the definition of the scientific method.

You'll be relieved to know that they did indeed find 24 hours of sunlight at the South Pole, and that at least some of them now accept that the Earth is indeed round. Phew!

Good riddance to Jordan Peterson

Right-wind firebrand Jordan Peterson is leaving Canada to live and work in the USA. He says of Canada, "It's become uncomfortable for me", both in his local neighbourhood and in his work as a psychologist (the Ontario College of Psychologists has ordered him to undergo mandatory social media training or risk losing his license). Uncomfortable for YOU? How do you think WE feel?

Good riddance! One less idiot to deal with here. I'm sure he'll be much happier in Trump's America. Hell, he'll probably get a cabinet position.