Get happy!!
1. I frequently argue that the money/happiness correlations are misleading, that it is happiness causing prosperity. An expert on happiness now suggests that there is abundant evidence for that proposition:
Choosing to engage in practices like building strong social connections and finding a purpose that fuels you is what actually leads to happiness and fulfillment, not achieving a specific financial goal, Brooks emphasizes.
But being happier in life can lead to financial increases and success, Muller says. “Happiness is the thing that’s actually causing us to succeed,” she notes.
A 2005 systematic review of 225 papers found that being happy can lead to success in different areas of life including income and health.
2. The FT says markets don’t believe that China will invade Taiwan:
An invasion of Taiwan would severely disrupt global chip supply and also have an impact on China, which like the rest of the world relies heavily on TSMC for its supply of advanced chips. The country is TSMC’s third-largest revenue contributor by geography, accounting for nearly a tenth of TSMC’s sales.
A good measure of foreign investor anxiety — the premium that TSMC’s US-listed American depositary receipts trade at compared with the stock listed in Taiwan — suggests investors are becoming increasingly sanguine about geopolitical risks. These trade at more than a 20 per cent premium to local shares for the current quarter, the widest gap in more than a decade.
That sentiment is mirrored in Taiwan, where locally listed TSMC is the most bought stock by overseas investors. Nvidia has also added support by announcing plans to increase its investments in the island.
I’m not so sure about that. All I know is that if China does invade it will do so knowing full well that this makes it likely that it will lose the AI race to America.
3. During the late 20th century, airliners were much safer than cars. Nonetheless, you’d have a major accident every few years, often involving well over 100 deaths. In the 1990s, for example, well over a thousand people died in US air crashes. Ditto for the 1970s and 1980s. Since 9/11, the record of US airliners has become almost insanely good, with only 476 deaths over nearly 23 years. Most of those were in a December 2001 Airbus crash that killed 265, and almost all of the rest were in small commuter planes.
The star for recent US flight safety is Boeing, which has seen only about 10 US deaths since 9/11, only one of which (AFAIK) was due to mechanical problems. If someone in late 2001 had predicted this sort of Boeing safety record for the next 22 1/2 years, they would have been laughed out of the room. Why have Boeing airplanes become so astoundingly safe? Some of you know more about this than I do; please provide explanations in the comment section.
Bonus points to anyone who can explain why almost everyone disagrees with me, viewing Boeing airplanes as having a poor safety record. (Of course given my forecasting record, you can expect a Boeing crash any day now.)
BTW, anyone who says, “Yeah, US Boeing flights are super safe, but flying a Boeing plane in Ethiopia remains dangerous” will be banned for life.
4. In the future, everyone will be rich.
Even today, we drive cars that are far better than the Cadillacs and Mercedes of yesteryear. Ditto for our TVs and phones. I can get Asian food in a strip mall that’s better than an elegant NYC steakhouse of the 1950s. But what about big ass diamonds?
Have no fear. The price of really big diamonds is falling fast. For less than $1500, you can get a 3 carat diamond with pretty good cut, color and clarity, due to rapid progress in lab grown diamonds. (No, these are not cubic zirconia; they are real diamonds. Even experts cannot tell them from natural diamonds without a magnifying class.
5. Biden finally does something good:
To be eligible, the spouses must have lived in the United States for 10 years and been married to an American citizen as of June 17. They cannot have a criminal record. The benefits would also extend to the roughly 50,000 children of undocumented spouses who became stepchildren to American citizens.
Imagine you are a child that has grown up in America, does well in school, and doesn’t even remember the country in which you were born. Then at age 18 you are forced to return to live in what Trump calls a “shithole country”. Biden’s action is great news.
6. And the Senate just voted 88-2 to make it easier to build nuclear power plants.
7. When will AIs be able to do scientific research? It’s already begun!
8. Like Noam Chomsky (and Franco), Hong Kong is not dead yet.
PS. Why two exclamation points in the post title? Nostalgia for when I was young:
Tags:
19. June 2024 at 13:44
Couple of notes on Taiwan and 1 on AI:
1. Could we stop always equating TSMC with Taiwan, as if it’s the only thing that matters? Taiwan has many other attributes such as beautiful scenario, wonderful culture and history, as well as some serious problems: housing, distorted financial sector for low cost mortgages, under developed capital markets, total reliance on imported energy. If we truly care about Taiwan, we should help on other problem areas in Taiwan and not focus exclusively on semiconductors.
2. This past weekend was the 100 year anniversary of Whampoa military academy. Yet what was important was not the military aspect (though that certainly figured into history of Republic of China and Communist China), but something that was highlighted in the current state of affairs: despite the openly antagonistic military stance across the Taiwan Strait, there are thousands of normal exchanges across the channel every day. Tourists go across both directions, student exchanges are happening, business commerce is ongoing and cultural interactions are plentiful. This is totally different from what’s happening across DMZ in Korea, or between East and West Germany. So while the military stance is serious and could escalate, take advantage of peace and let the exchanges bloom.
3. Can anyone define what is the AI race? From what I can see, the current AI is either overtly focused on language models that can generate some coherent responses, or can navigate cars in limited settings, but is far from capable in doing even basic thought experiments. (I tried to get AI to write some complicated code and it didn’t work out very well). AI is also littered with data contamination issues that show the “intelligence” is just not there. I am willing to wager a hundred bucks that by 2030 we won’t have fully autonomous driving capability in cars (level 5) or AI that can coherently propose a hypothesis (without external input) and then prove it or disprove it.
19. June 2024 at 14:34
LC, Good comment. I visited Taiwan last year and am a big fan of the place. (I also love Taiwanese films.)
I’m agnostic on AGI–don’t know enough to comment on the prospects.
19. June 2024 at 15:09
#4 I hope this is true but I wonder. In the last five or six decades, this has not been the case for many residents along the West Coast and certain other high cost housing areas. Kevin Erdmann has done some work explaining how residential rent increases strip out any real income gains. A version of this seems to play out all along the Anglosphere. Canada, once a middle class heaven, has become formidably expensive.
Automobiles are more durable than they used to be, but then the average age of a car on the road in the US is now more than 12 years.
I have doubts that living standards are higher in Detroit now than in the 1960s.
19. June 2024 at 15:54
You’re a bonafide moron.
1. No, they’re not real diamonds, dummy. That’s why experts can tell the difference. It’s like saying lab grown meat is real meat. It’s not. What part of “we cannot make a glucose molecule in the lab” do you not understand? It’s not natural. It’s fake. If you can’t create the most basic glucose molecule in a prebiotic state, then you cannot create natural meat. You’d have to grow life to get natural meat, which we cannot do. We’re not even close. This is just common sense.
2. If millions of white people went to nigeria illegally, then stayed ten years illegally, then were given citizenship, you would claim that white people are evil, and that they colonizing the nigerians. You were scream “replacement”. “They’re being replaced”. But whenever white people are denied a home, you virtue signal your pleasure. The very idea of white people living in a diaspora seems to give you a hard on. You’re anti-white bigotry is as equally repulsive as your hatred for the law.
Case in point: there is a proper way to get a visa; It’s called filling out a form at the embassy. It’s not hard. Millions of immigrants have done it properly. Only thugs walk across the border, evade authorities, then clamor for citizenship.
Keep in mind that any executive order can be withdrawn by the next executive. Biden’s dictatorial pen is not the final word. We are a country of laws; those laws are passed by congress, not Sumner style, dictatorial thugs in the oval office.
19. June 2024 at 17:32
Scott: ‘Bonus points to anyone who can explain why almost everyone disagrees with me, viewing Boeing airplanes as having a poor safety record.’
Firstly, I do think it’s unfair to look just at Boeing flights in the US. Surely deaths per global hours flown is the important metric?
Secondly, I assume the implied question is rhetorical? Obviously Boeing has been in the news a lot the past 5+ years for accidents, whilst I can’t think of any involving Airbus. Recency bias is a powerful thing.
Sara: ‘1. No, they’re not real diamonds, dummy.’
Sara, what is a diamond? Thanks in advance.
19. June 2024 at 20:02
LOL. Sara thinks the term “real” means “natural”
Tacticus, You said:
“I do think it’s unfair to look just at Boeing flights in the US.”
I don’t dispute that Boeing planes are dangerous in Ethiopia. I do dispute the claim that they are dangerous in America. Apples and oranges, unless you think safety is the same in the two countries. (It isn’t.)
In any case, the safety record of Boeing planes is phenomenally good, even if you include international flights.
19. June 2024 at 23:09
I think that Boeing’s safety record for the past few decades is the result of good regulations and good engineers who responded correctly to our psychological fear of flying by making a product that is nearly death-proof under many conditions. However, the executive suite at Boeing has been more interested in stock prices than fighting for extra margins of safety. I suppose you could call it Stockton Rush Syndrome—and it led to a company culture where people in a hurry don’t check to see if the plane is bolted together correctly.
20. June 2024 at 00:16
Where is the evidence we’re all going to be rich? Real incomes have declined since the inception of the Federal Reserve. Americans could buy more on a blue collar job in 1912 than they can today.
Boeing’s entire 737 fleet was grounded over regulatory concerns. They had two crashes in 2018 and 2019. Just this year, they had doors flying off an Alaska airlines flight (another 737), and a southwest Airlines flight experienced turbulence that nearly ripped the cabin in half (737) which should not happen with proper construction. And you think that’s safe?
They had a mass exodus of engineers who didn’t want to work under DEI thugs, and so that’s part of the problem.
We see the same trend in medical schools. Top academics are retiring to escape the thugs, and exam thresholds are being lowered nationwide to accomodate DEI administrators.
All the good talent is now applying to work for Musk’s companies or other companies advertising on redballoon.work because they want to work in a meritocracy.
You claim we’re past peak woke? Again, where is the evidence? There is a DEI agent in every department now. How is that an improvement? These are commies looking over our shoulders. That’s what you think is ‘past peak’. Dude, it’s worse than ever. You’re old and retired and have no clue.
20. June 2024 at 02:44
Alas, bond markets also didn’t think World War I was about to break out.
And perhaps they were even right: perhaps World War I genuinely had a low probability of breaking out when it did. But unlikely events happen all the time.
20. June 2024 at 02:49
LC,
> 3. Can anyone define what is the AI race? From what I can see, the current AI is either overtly focused on language models that can generate some coherent responses, or can navigate cars in limited settings, but is far from capable in doing even basic thought experiments. (I tried to get AI to write some complicated code and it didn’t work out very well). AI is also littered with data contamination issues that show the “intelligence” is just not there. I am willing to wager a hundred bucks that by 2030 we won’t have fully autonomous driving capability in cars (level 5) or AI that can coherently propose a hypothesis (without external input) and then prove it or disprove it.
I’m very happy to take the other side of that bet! What odds are you offering? Are you willing to lose your bet if either of those two things happen, or do I have to pick one of them to bet on today?
Could you give me details on your hypothesis generation and testing? Because by some definitions we already have these systems and had them for quite a while. But I also don’t know what you mean by ‘external input’ or ‘coherently’?
You can reach me at eg m@mozak.com for details.
I agree that currently existing AI systems are still in their infancy. What’s exciting is how much progress they have mind in the last few years.
Ricardo,
> Americans could buy more on a blue collar job in 1912 than they can today.
How do you measure that? There’s entire product categories that weren’t even available back then. (And perhaps only a handful that were available in 1912 but aren’t available today.)
20. June 2024 at 03:49
‘I don’t dispute that Boeing planes are dangerous in Ethiopia. I do dispute the claim that they are dangerous in America. Apples and oranges, unless you think safety is the same in the two countries. (It isn’t.)’
Perhaps I’m being pedantic, but your rhetorical (?) question was about Boeing planes, not about Boeing flights in the US:
‘Bonus points to anyone who can explain why almost everyone disagrees with me, viewing Boeing airplanes as having a poor safety record.’
In any event, I agree that overall Boeing planes are extremely safe, especially when flying in the developed world.
I do think, however, that they need to do something drastic to turn around their public profile. Moving their headquarters back to Seattle would be good – the perception is that they’re more focused on defence contracts than passenger planes these days.
20. June 2024 at 06:13
Funny that Dr. Sumner should mention Noam Chomsky within ten words of AI. Chomsky would tell us that there is very little of what one would call “intelligence” in AI: https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/noam-chomsky/
And Chomsky should know – he earned his chops demonstrating how language structure is reducible to a finite set of rules thus paving the way for todays large language models.
Of course, Dr. Sumner knows all this, he’s just joking (or trolling.)
It would be great though, to have AI proof your paper and remove any bits that showed you mindlessly cut and pasted form ChatGPT. Also great if publishers used AI to find such blunders during review.
20. June 2024 at 08:10
Hi Scott:
Can you elaborate on the sentence, “All I know is that if China does invade it will do so knowing full well that this makes it likely that it will lose the AI race to America.” If invading Taiwan disrupted China’s chip supply from TSMC, why wouldn’t it also disrupt America’s supply?
20. June 2024 at 10:03
Jerry, you might want to note that modern linguists pay basically no attention to Chomsky. His theories have simply not stood up to criticism. If you want to be entertained, in fact, ask a linguistics professor what they think of Chomsky after they’ve had a few drinks.
20. June 2024 at 13:32
Tacticus,
Thanks for the reply. Do you have a reference for Chomsky’s linguistic irrelevance? All I can say is that if Tyler Cowen was willing to spend time interviewing him, he isn’t likely to be all that irrelevant.
20. June 2024 at 14:15
David, You could make a good argument that Boeing and Airbus are too safe, and that cheaper planes from each company would reduce highway deaths.
Ricardo “Where is the evidence we’re all going to be rich?”
Cheap diamonds.
Matthias, You said:
“Alas, bond markets also didn’t think World War I was about to break out.”
Yup, and Covid is another example.
Jerry, The point wasn’t to criticize Chomsky, it’s that no one on Earth knows what intelligence is.
Carl, The issue is not Taiwan, it’s that China would be completely cut off from Western technology if they invaded Taiwan. It’s not in their interest. (Which as we saw with Putin, doesn’t mean they won’t do it.)
20. June 2024 at 23:29
Hong Kong’s market has rebounded, but at what cost? Wouldn’t you prefer to be a Filipino living in a bahay kubo near the beach than in a luxury high-rise under the CCP?
Just look at what they did to Jimmy Lai. I’ll choose happiness and liberty over wealth and tyranny any day of the week.
21. June 2024 at 02:53
Jerry, Chomsky hates the approach built on statistics and probabilities that power modern machine learning. If anything, hd worked against modern LLM, not towards it. Please get your history right.
21. June 2024 at 03:00
Jerry, for some background see eg https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7094 from the Other Scott.
21. June 2024 at 03:19
Jerry, to be more precise the link to https://norvig.com/chomsky.html that you can get form the article by the Other Scott is probably what you want.
21. June 2024 at 07:23
#1- Its an old chicken and egg argument and I think it has obvious exceptions but I tend to favor what you cite here. There were some interesting studies done on children that survive extreme conditions and abuse and went on to lead very successful lives. I think they called them super kids or something similar. Anyway, amongst the traits they had in common were positivity and happiness.
Steve
21. June 2024 at 11:12
Sean, You said:
“Hong Kong’s market has rebounded, but at what cost?”
I’m not sure what point you are making. That wasn’t the “cost” of the rebound, the repression probably hurt the HK market.
21. June 2024 at 19:14
If China conquers Taiwan, they would not be cutoff from Western technology or from the rest of the world. That is because China cannot
conquer Taiwan without having the world’s strongest navy, and they cannot conquer Taiwan without having proven that the US is incapable of defending its allies from
China. Part of the reason why China’s leaders want Taiwan, and why China’s neighbors fear losing Taiwan, is that China would control the most important trade routes in Asia. And given that taking Taiwan requires that China directly defeat the US military, or scare the US so badly that it is unwilling to fight, China will be able to coerce most of the other countries in Asia to do their bidding or face blockades, war, sanctions, etc. So European countries would be in a quandary because China and the new Sinosphere would threaten them with counter sanctions; how well could European economies function if they cannot buy any microchips from China, Taiwan, South Korea or Japan? Also, from what I have read Japan has a new company that it can do the same things as ASML, but at a fraction of the cost. So Chinese Taiwan would be able to keep chugging along making microprocessors.
If China is able to conquer Taiwan they will get to make the rules of the global order, not the US. So the only rational reason for China’s leaders not to attempt to conquer Taiwan is that the chance of failure (and the accompanying costs) are too high. The only costs that the US will be able to impose on a victorious China are sanctions that only the US follows, and attacks within China during the war.
21. June 2024 at 21:19
Lizard, I basically disagree with everything in that comment. The idea that China would attack our allies (Japan, S. Korea, etc.) is just crazy.
If China moves against Taiwan it’s a disaster for China, win or lose.
“And given that taking Taiwan requires that China directly defeat the US military,”
This is just fantasy. If they attack the US it’s WWIII. Remember Pearl Harbor?
22. June 2024 at 04:36
China has more people, and can produce far more weapons, missiles, drones, ships, airplanes, etc. than the US, and can produce more than even the US plus the US’ allies in Asia. I agree that if China attacks the US it is WWIII. The US defeated Japan because the US had more people and was able to manufacture more weapons, etc. And the US in the 1940’s was very different than the US of today. As Sumner keeps arguing, the US of today has entered into banana republic territory. If China’s leaders choose military confrontation with the US, how many red hats will be willing to sacrifice much to build the weapons, etc. necessary for the US to prevail in a war with China? How much will the social justice left will be willing to sacrifice? Remember “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”. China has more guns than anyone else. So if China prevails in a conflict with the US, why should any US ally trust that the US can defend it? And if they can’t trust the US, how can they stand up to China, when China has the most powerful military and largest economy?
22. June 2024 at 07:27
Lizard, Your claims about China’s expansionist tendencies seem pretty far-fetched (obviously excluding Taiwan.) And how likely is it that China would choose to attack a country with 5000 nuclear weapons? That would be insane.
In 1978, China fought Vietnam. How’d that go?
22. June 2024 at 07:48
” If they attack the US it’s WWIII.”
I realise this is very cold comfort etc. But the first thing that happens in militaries on the outbreak of a proper shooting war (not just an overseas adventure) is that all the careerist bureaucrats who rise to the top in peacetime get fired and are replaced by actually competent fighting military.
Now, if a real war did break out perhaps we could extend that principle to the entire governmental apparatus. Bring back the adults.
No, no, of course it wouldn’t be worth it, not a real shooting war. Well, maybe, just a little bit.
22. June 2024 at 10:42
If Taiwan weren’t strategically important, why would the US care so much about it? Hell, why would China’s leadership care enough about it to devote something like 5% of GDP to military spending? If China reduced its military spending by even 20% and devoted that instead to say, AI R&D they would win AI race hands down. They could pay every top researcher and potential researcher to move China no problem. China’s actions, and those of the US’ decision makers all seem to indicate that they believe the future of Taiwan will have a vast impact on the balance of power between the new Sinosphere and the US-led order. Why do you think that control of Taiwan won’t dramatically change the balance of power, and why does Biden think it will? The US doesn’t treat Chinese takeover of Philippine or Japanese island (shoals) that seriously.
China also has nuclear weapons. Russian has proven that MAD is totally compatible with non-nuclear wars. Also, China did choose to go to war with the US in 1952, when the US not only had nuclear weapons, but recently used them. And one of the most popular films in China in the past decade is about Chinese soldiers fighting US soldiers.
22. June 2024 at 10:56
An example to illustrate my point about the importance of Taiwan. Biden has repeatedly said that the US will go to war with China if China attempts to conquer Taiwan. China has plenty of nuclear weapons and is building more each year. Is Biden insane for saying the US would attack China’s military in that situation? And for comparison, he has never given any indication that the US would go to war with Russia to defend Ukraine, even though there are quite a few similarities, and even though Russia’s war clearly violates international law in a way that an attempt to conquer Taiwan does not.
Or to give another example; if China wasn’t so clearly a threat, how would it be possible for South Korea and South Korean leadership to overlook Japanese refusal to apologize for Japanese colonialism in order to become allies?
22. June 2024 at 16:46
Being rich will not make you happy, but being poor might make you miserable. The worst is to have once been rich and have a radical change of fortune and now be poor.
Boing has had a sharp uptick in non-fatal incidents in recent years ranging from faulty angle of attack indicators to improperly installed doors. A large number of small incidents suggests a greater likelihood of a large accident. There have also been whistleblower complaints coming from from the engineers and assembly workers indicating that management has chosen to cut costs at the expense of quality.
Diamonds have value because they are expensive. They are expensive because they are rare. They are a Giffen good. As lab diamonds get better and more common, the first reaction will be to try to exclude them. The next will be for diamonds to lose their value altogether.
23. June 2024 at 11:15
@ssumner:
It’s a little beneath you to compare China in 1978 to China now, militarily (or in most other ways)
23. June 2024 at 13:01
Tim, “Well, maybe, just a little bit”
The risk is that the war would not remain small. Current attitudes remind me of 1914 in Europe. Biden talks about fighting China over Taiwan. I’m sure the Russians thought it was a good idea to fight Austria/Hungary over Serbia. It wasn’t.
Lizard, You said: “The US doesn’t treat Chinese takeover of Philippine or Japanese island (shoals) that seriously.
I disagree. The US has indicated that our security treaty with Japan includes those small islands.
“China has plenty of nuclear weapons and is building more each year. Is Biden insane for saying the US would attack China’s military in that situation?”
Sorry, I don’t wish to go to war with a heavily armed nuclear power. I think people underestimate just how bad a nuclear war would be. We are not talking 10 times worse than the Ukraine war, more like 1000 times worse. If there’s even a 1% chance of the war spiraling into a nuclear exchange, then don’t risk it.
“if China wasn’t so clearly a threat, how would it be possible for South Korea and South Korean leadership to overlook Japanese refusal to apologize for Japanese colonialism in order to become allies?”
Two can play this game. If China is so clearly a threat, why does Taiwan spend so little on its military? (And China is obviously a much greater threat to Taiwan than to South Korea.)
Doug, No, diamonds are not a Giffen good. Lab diamonds are rapidly taking market share from natural diamonds.
msgkings, I realize that China is much more powerful today. My point was that just having a numerical advantage in numbers doesn’t by itself imply military supremacy. Check out some of the Israeli wars as well.
23. June 2024 at 20:35
Jewish woman nearly beaten to death by woke mob, but we’re “past peak woke”?????????
https://x.com/tedcruz/status/1805042611675152407
Like I said, you’re retired so you don’t know what’s going on in academy. And outside of academy, you watch A LOT OF movies (that’s very apparent), nba games, and appear to binge watch CNN.
It’s clear that you’re not getting accurate information.
You do realize that the legacy news, including articles written by the economist, and other legacy magazines are predominately propaganda right?
You need to consume more independent media on X, otherwise you’ll continue to make these empty-headed statements.
The guy with raw footage doesn’t omit, curate, and edit. It’s real news.
24. June 2024 at 13:57
I find singling out Boeing to be pretty unconvincing. Why have 9/11 as an arbitary dividing line? There’s a very small sample size – just doesn’t seem like enough data to make conclusions about individual manufacturers. Here is the last 3 decades of fatalities according to the wikipedia list you link (hopefully formatting works):
Boeing Airbus Other Total
2014-2024 5 2 28 35
2004-2014 4 2 147 153
1994-2004 809 265 421 1495
Of course expanding to global statistics would give a better sample size, but apparently you think only the USA is relevant for some reason?
25. June 2024 at 06:55
Rob, You said:
“global statistics would give a better sample size,”
Yes, you can combine US and Ethiopian safety data, but I’m more interested in flying in the US, which is where I live. Or do you think Boeing planes are equally dangerous in the US and Ethiopia?
In any case, use whatever global data you wish and the answer is exactly the same—Boeing planes have become almost absurdly safe since 9/11. (And I don’t blame 9/11 on Boeing.)
25. June 2024 at 10:43
‘The risk is that the war would not remain small. Current attitudes remind me of 1914 in Europe. Biden talks about fighting China over Taiwan. I’m sure the Russians thought it was a good idea to fight Austria/Hungary over Serbia. It wasn’t.’
Considering how complex and complicated the outbreak of WWI was, to the point that we’re still arguing about it 110 years later, I’d be careful about using it as too much of a mental reference, other than that life is complicated…
In any event, by the time Russia actually mobilised, they knew they were going to be setting off something major, that it would not just be Russia and Serbia versus Austria-Hungary.
Regarding diamonds, I think it’s unwise to look at lab versus natural demand as being solely about price. For many younger people, it’s as much about the ethics as well. They’re deeply concerned about conflict minerals or the treatment of mine workers generally – which are obviously not issues with lab grown gems.
25. June 2024 at 10:46
Tacticus, All good points. Would you agree that the Russians did not know that it would be such a big deal that the Tsar would be overthrown? That’s what I was thinking about.
25. June 2024 at 13:08
It’s always difficult to make comments about what ‘the Russians’ thought/knew, since obviously individual decision makers thought/knew different things. (Even though I use such language in my own work, I try not to.)
Considering the revolutionary ferment of the times, however, then especially prominent in Russia, some of the Russian leadership were certainly aware that the war could lead to domestic disaster.
For example, after being told of the mobilisation, the Minister of the Interior, who had overseen a massacre of striking workers the prior year, said that the ‘deep masses’ of the people were more interested in a revolution than war with Germany, ‘but we cannot escape our destiny.’ He then crossed himself and signed his assent to the mobilisation orders.
Would Russia have acted differently if the leadership had KNOWN the Tsar would be overthrown? I don’t know. Perhaps they would think that was the Tsar’s destiny? Russian Orthodoxy has a very different worldview than either Catholicism or Protestantism, to say nothing of non-Christian views.
In the end, perhaps this is a better answer to your question: https://youtu.be/cwyrRZhCPR4?si=J4Uk7bskLVuZyezs&t=215
25. June 2024 at 18:28
Tacticus, Fair enough. But whatever their attitude in 1914, in my view it was a disastrous decision for Russia to go to war with Austria/Hungary. War should be avoided if at all possible.
26. June 2024 at 05:15
Oh, it was absolutely a terrible decision to go to war against the Habsburgs from my perspective!