I really, really like this series, and am thankful it comes around each year. (Even though Medium's markup sucks.)

TIL about TATT and MUS.

[C]ould it be possible that health care in a small farm future wouldn’t necessarily be inferior, because we have the wrong image of what health care involves?

More fascinating ideas from Chris Smaje:

Why focus so much on the undeserving poor, rather than on the undeserving rich? Accounts of the undeserving rich do exist in our politics, but they’re not nearly so prominent as their counterpart. The numerous ways that the fortunes of the world’s rich people and rich countries are extracted from the poor ones go too little remarked. Out of wealth comes the power to keep writing the rules in favour of wealth, and thence the need to keep dusting its crumbs from the table in the form of stigmatizing welfare policies.

When a Goebbels or Streicher declares that Jews drink the blood of baptized children, the strategic defense against such is not to join the argument and say, no, actually, they do not, and then drone out an analysis of the Tsarist forgeries in which the claim originates. The solution is to call the lying motherfucker a taintsniffing shitmonger and send his tweet to digital oblivion. Mock, block and roll.

I'd certainly pay $8 to read more of this.

Identifying strongly at the same time as feeling even more isolated.

People sometimes forget that podcasting, like blogging, started out as an egalitarian medium infused with the anti-hierarchical values of the open-source movement in software. If it is to retain a little of that democratic character in the face of rampant corporatization and Hollywoodization, it needs a flourishing middle class of independent makers who have the freedom to focus on their audio work, follow their creative instincts, and choose honesty over fake neutrality. 

Sweetly naive cartoon.

“UK citizens’ feelings about their incomes were a substantially better predictor of pro-Brexit views than their actual incomes.”

Just one of several interesting observations in this piece.

Tim Harford's lukewarm review of William MacAskill's book.

If he is right, how could I justify giving £10 to a food bank today when I could set up a charitable trust, let the money accumulate centuries of compound interest before lavishing the proceeds on future generations? Are we morally obliged to live at subsistence levels to maximise the resources available for investment and research so our great-great-great-great-grandchildren will thrive? Such questions have been discussed and analysed at great depth in the literature on climate change. It is surprising to see them waved away with a few sentences here. 

Is it that surprising, really?