Keen On

Gutted by AI larceny and glutted by an avalanche of shows, the podcast economy is in deep crisis. So says Marshall Poe, founder of The New Books Network, a publisher of almost 30,000 independent podcasts. Things really are that bleak, Poe insists. Drawing parallels between today's AI content appropriation and Napster's music piracy in the late Nineties, he argues we've entered an era where "the theft of IP is an accepted business model." AI companies appear to scrape podcast content without permission or payment, then repackage it as their own product. Meanwhile, the market drowns in a vast ocean of shows, with AI-generated podcasts now flooding platforms at unprecedented scale—one company claims profitability with just 20 listeners per episode while producing 3,000 episodes weekly. For independent creators lacking deep pockets or legal teams, podcast economics have become impossible. "The cost of that theft has gone to zero," Poe explains, describing an environment where authentic human voices struggle to su

It’s the most curious paradox of today’s digital revolution. While the computers, the internet, smartphones and AI all appear magical, they haven’t actually translated into equally magical economic progress. That, at least, is the counter-intuitive argument of the Oxford economist Carl Benedikt Frey whose new book, How Progress Ends, suggests that the digital revolution isn’t resulting in an equivalent revolution of productivity. History is repeating itself in an equally paradoxical way, Frey warns. We may, indeed, be repeating the productivity stagnation of the 1970s, in spite of our technological marvels. Unlike the 19th-century industrial revolution that radically transformed how we work, today's digital tools—however impressive—are primarily automating existing processes rather than creating fundamentally new types of economic activity that drive broad-based growth. And AI, by making existing work easier rather than creating new industries, will only compound this paradox. It might be the fate of not just

Should being a billionaire be illegal? Or, at least, actively discouraged? That’s the argument at the heart of Ingrid Robeyns’ intriguing case against extreme wealth, Limitarianism. It’s an argument particularly pertinent in a week when Tesla is offering to make Elon Musk a trillionaire if he can reach certain sales targets. For Robeyns, an ethicist at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, her arguments against extreme wealth are both moral and utilitarian. On the one hand, she argues that nobody truly "deserves" billions because economic success depends heavily on factors beyond individual control - genetic lottery, family circumstances, educational opportunities, and market timing. On the other hand, she contends that extreme wealth concentration actively harms society by undermining democracy, encouraging unsustainable consumption patterns, and creating inefficient resource allocation. While acknowledging that such reforms may take decades to implement, Robeyns floats the idea of wealth caps around

If Donald Trump is a broken clock only right twice daily, then one of those truths might be US policy toward Greenland. According to the Australian based geo-strategist Elizabeth Buchanan, Trump is correct to be preoccupied with American influence over, and perhaps even ownership of Greenland. In her new book, So You Want To Own Greenland, Buchanan argues that the 57,000-person continental super-sized island is becoming central to 21st Century geopolitics. From the Vikings to the (yes) colonizing Danes, she argues, Greenland has always been an important piece of the North Atlantic strategic jigsaw. Today, however, with the melting polar ice cap and its vast mineral resources, Greenland is becoming essential - not just to native Greenlanders, the United States, Denmark and Canada, but also to Russia, China and even India. 1. America's Greenland Interest Predates Trump by 160 Years US interest in Greenland dates back to 1867 and the Seward Purchase ("Seward's Folly"). Trump's fixation isn't erratic - it reflect

So are millennials really the unluckiest generation? Yes and no. At least according to their unofficial biographer, Charlie Wells, the energetic London based Bloomberg reporter and author of What Happened to Millennials. In a way, Wells is a defender of his much-maligned and misunderstood generation. But his new book is also a kind of confessional of five millennials who, in his view, represent the spirit of those who came of age at the turn of the century. Wells’ own soulful mix of forthrightness and insecurity offers a glimpse into the millennial heart. Could it really be the ubiquitous electronic screen that is both the cause and effect of his generation's over-publicized struggles with anxiety? Or are millennials simply the first cohort to have their universal coming-of-age confessions broadcast live for all to see?1. Generational narratives are often outdated Wells argues that millennials are actually 31% wealthier than boomers were at the same age, but the "unlucky generation" story persists. This sugg

So why do we humans have such big brains? According to the NYU neuroscientist Nikolay Kukushkin, it’s because of language. In wanting to talk to one another, Kukushkin argues in his new book, One Hand Clapping, we need to be able to think more coherently than other species. Thus our uniquely big brains. Language itself emerged from our increasingly social lifestyle, Kukushkin explains, which developed after our mammalian ancestors spent 150 million years hiding from dinosaurs in what he calls the "nocturnal bottleneck." And what good have our big brains done us? That, according to Kukushkin, is a trickier question. It’s certainly made us more social, even collective, in our politics and culture. But it also seems to have divided us from one another, fostering as much misery and violence as harmony. Indeed, Kukushkin suggests that we've always been "grumpy"—even back when we lived in caves. The difference now is that we have the internet to advertise our grumpiness. More seriously, though, we're the first spec

How should we punish criminals? In Impermissible Punishments, the Arthur Liman Professor of Law at Yale Law School, Judith Resnik, provides a historical narrative of punishment in European and American prisons. Tracing the evolution from Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian Panopticon through post-World War II human rights frameworks, Resnik argues that punishment systems developed as a transatlantic rather than uniquely American project. Her analysis reveals how prisoners themselves, not reformers, first articulated the concept of retained rights during detention. Resnik’s new book chronicles a crucial divergence after the 1980s, when European systems maintained stronger human rights commitments while American prisons retreated from recognizing prisoners as rights-bearing individuals, thereby making prison a problem for its democracy. 1. Prison systems developed as a transatlantic project, not American innovation Punishment theories and practices emerged from shared Enlightenment thinking across Europe and America i

In a week dominated by the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk, Cynthia Miller-Idriss’ insights as the founding director of American University’s Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL) are particularly valuable. Her new book about what she identifies as “the new misogyny and the rise of violent extremism” is entitled Man Up. But its message might be summarized as Man Down in its attempt to temper the violent fringes of what she calls the manosphere. Miller-Idriss, one of America’s leading researchers on violent extremism, argues that misogyny is the cause of today’s troubling rise of political assassinations and mass shootings. Her research across seven countries reveals that hostile sexism ranks among the top three predictors of support for political violence. She traces a disturbing pipeline from seemingly innocuous self-help searches by lonely young men to radicalization by influencers who blend fitness advice with violent scapegoating of women and minorities. Miller-Idriss docume

Today’s $3 trillion investment in AI is not only rational and beyond inevitable - it’s “predestined”. At least according to That Was The Week newletter publisher and techno-determinist Keith Teare. Exuberance is not only required, Keith argues, but absolutely essential in today’s AI mad gold rush. And he’s particularly critical of all skeptics - from traditional tech naysayers (like myself) to mainstream publications like The Economist - which are all a touch questioning of today’s unprecedented boom. What if the $3 trillion AI investment tsunami goes wrong? The Economist asks. But for Keith, it can’t possibly go wrong. The investment has already been made, he argues, and the resultant technology will inevitably benefit humanity. He envisions a world where AI adds $20 trillion to global GDP by 2035, where a kid in rural Africa with an Android phone can access the world's best AI, and where economic growth hits an unprecedented 20% annually. I think this type of teleological argument adds up to about $3 trilli

David Lesch is a poster child for something. I’m just not sure what. On the one hand, given his personal reinvention from Los Angeles Dodgers first-round draft pick to official biographer of Bashar al Assad, some might consider him proof that the American Dream still exists. But others, including even himself , would argue that his incredible pivot from baseball protege to Harvard-educated Middle Eastern expert, reflects the privilege of his social class and perhaps even gender. In any event, the Lesch story is pretty amazing - which is why the San Antonio-based biographer Catherine Nixon Cooke has just published Dodgers to Damascus, the story of his journey from star pitcher to star diplomat. So it was intriguing to not only host Cooke but also David Lesch to discuss his highly unusual journey from the youthful potential of baseball to the grim reality of Bashar al Assad’s Syria. 1. Privilege complicates the reinvention narrative Lesch's transformation from baseball to diplomacy required significant advantag

Things aren’t quite as sunny on the environmental front as some recent guests suggest. According to the award winning science writer Peter Brannen, our planet is in an unprecedented crisis. We’re burning 500 million years of the earth's history in a few decades, Brannen warns, so we should all quit pretending that our recycling will miraculously save the planet. That said, though, his latest book, The Story of CO2 is the Story of Everything, is the complex narrative of how carbon dioxide (CO2) both made and might unmake our world. So CO2 is simultaneously the good guy and the villain in our environmental story. Without carbon dioxide, Brannen warns, Earth would freeze into an uninhabitable ice ball. But too much creates a Venus-like greenhouse hell in which all life would be quickly extinguished. We hang in a delicate sweet spot that took nature millions of years to manufacture —and we humans are now disrupting this ecological balance at breakneck speed. The result is what Brannen calls a terrifying planetary

If Geoffrey Hinton is the Godfather of AI, then Bruce Schneier might be described as the Godfather of Security. A celebrated cryptographer and computer security expert, Schneier’s latest co-authored (with Nathan Sanders) book is entitled Rewiring Democracy and speculates on how AI might transform our politics, government and citizenship. American democracy, Schneier notes, runs on archaic 1776 technology in today’s digital 2025 world. Rather than fighting against AI then, he suggests, Americans should adapt this new technology to update how they do politics in the 21st century. But Schneier offers the crucial caveats that AI can neither solve fundamental human problems nor transcend ideology. "A value is just a bias we like," he warns about the impossibility of a “valueless” AI system. While cautiously optimistic about AI's potential to democratize power—from helping local politicians without resources to enabling mass citizen assemblies—he warns that without fixing underlying political and economic structure

There are few more prolific Americans than the Harvard scholar, activist and athlete Cass Sunstein. The author of almost 30 books (including the best-selling Nudge) as well as an influential advisor in the Presidencies of Biden and Obama, Sunstein’s new book, On Liberalism, is an unambiguously full throated defense of freedom. Both Reagan and FDR are part of the same big tent liberal family, Sunstein argues, in this defiantly bipartisan reminder of foundations of modern American freedom. There’s not a lot of nudging On Liberalism. He warns that while liberalism faces "severe pressure" today, its core commitments to freedom, pluralism, and the rule of law must unite American citizens across political divides. The alternative, he says, is an unAmerican scenario of unfreedom. In a word: illiberalism. 1. The Liberal "Big Tent" Includes Both Reagan and FDRSunstein argues that liberalism isn't just for the left—it's a broad tradition unified by commitments to freedom, pluralism, rule of law, and security (freedom f

Can we humans make it to 2125? According to Gary F. Bengier, author of Journey to 2125, our species faces three existential threats over the next 100 years. His horsemen of the apocalypse are climate change, nuclear war and robots. No great surprises there. Where Bengier is more original is his stress on narrowing the manifold threats to humanity. Focus, focus, focus is Bengier’s species survival mantra. The ex-eBay technologist turned philosopher argues we're distracted by too many doomsday scenarios. His classic Silicon Valley solution: ignore the noise, solve these three core problems, and humanity might be able to "muddle through." But, as always in these cliffhanger narratives, there's a potential catch—nuclear war could destroy the resources needed to fight climate change, while robot factories in the business of building more robot factories could short circuit capitalism itself. Ooops. So there’s no guarantee that any of us - even (or especially) those Kurzweilian crazies who believe we can live fore

For anyone who has seen Michael B. Jordan’s excellent new movie Sinners, it’s clear that any sort of deal with the devil - what has become known as the Faustian Bargain - is still very much alive. So relevant, in fact, that cultural historian Ed Simon has a book, just out in paperback, about its enduring relevance entitled Devil’s Contract. From Shakespeare and Goethe to Thomas Mann and Donald Trump, Simon argues, the Faustian Bargain is more than just a literary trope. In fact, he suggests, it is as relevant today, in our social media age of the Mephistophelian Donald Trump as it was in the German Reformation of the equally populist Martin Luther. The Art of a Deal with the Devil. And we all know how it ends. Go and see Sinners. Spoiler warning: not without the spilling of a great deal of innocent blood. 1. The Faustian Bargain is Fundamentally About Irrationality Despite knowing the terrible consequences, Faust signs the contract anyway. As Simon explains, "if you know that the devil is real and that the De

How to bring peace to Gaza and Ukraine? Maybe the United Nations can help. Or, sadly, maybe not. But there really was a time, in the second half of the 20th century, when the United Nations could help bring peace to supposedly insoluble wars. The U.N.'s glory days were in the Sixties when it was run by a former Burmese school teacher called U Thant. His incredible story is told by his grandson, the Cambridge University historian Thant Myint-U, in a new book appropriately called Peacemaker. Thant Myint-U reminds us of a halcyon time when the UN Secretary-General could summon presidents at will, mediate between nuclear superpowers, and command respect from Castro to Kennedy. Today's forgotten history reveals how U Thant's intervention during the Cuban Missile Crisis helped prevent nuclear war—a role not-so-surprisingly airbrushed from most American and Soviet accounts. Yes, even in the glory years of the Sixties, the bureaucratized U.N. was far from perfect. But under a dedicated peacemaker like U-Thant it coul

Lead in gasoline powered cars have killed more people than those that died in World War Two. That’s the astonishing claim of David Obst who, in his new Saving Ourselves From Big Car, lays out a strategy to kick our self-destructive automobile addiction. The former investigative reporter, who worked with Seymour Hersh on the My Lai massacre story and represented Woodward and Bernstein for All the President's Men, argues that the auto industry suppressed knowledge about lead's deadly effects for 70 years. More controversially, Obst claims electric vehicles are no better due to the lead in batteries. The only safe future is one without cars, he insists, pointing to car-free communities like Tempe, Arizona and Taipei, Taiwan as models for breaking what he calls our addiction to automobiles.1. Lead in gasoline killed more people than World War II Obst claims that from 1927 to the 1990s, lead additives in gasoline caused more deaths globally than WWII, citing World Health Organization statistics - though interviewe

There is no more shakespearean parable of the tragic rise and fall of the postwar American meritocratic elite than Robert Strange McNamara. War hero, Harvard Business School, head of Ford, begged by JFK to take a role - any role - in Camelot. Then came the equally meteoric fall as JFK and then LBJ’s Secretary of Defense - Vietnam and all its death and deceit. With his brother William, Philip Taubman has written about what he calls McNamara’s “double life” in his new biography, McNamara At War. In this “new history”, they uncover new documents showing that McNamara was privately telling his aide John McNaughton in April 1966 - just nine months after advocating for massive escalation - that he "wanted to bring the boys home so bad I can hardly stand it." Yet this analytic whiz-kid, a poetry loving smart machine in a grey suit, continued prosecuting this unwinnable war for nearly two more years. The Taubmans suggest, therefore, that the catastrophic American defeat in Vietnam wasn’t simply a military failure. I

Dumb globalization: America’s worst bet. That, at least, is the view of the Washington Post financial writer David J Lynch and author of The World’s Worst Bet. From Clinton to Bush, Lynch argues, America has bet stupidly on globalization and, not surprisingly, has lost. It’s no coincidence, he suggests, that the American dream has also unraveled in this tumultuous period. While globalization lifted billions from poverty worldwide and enriched coastal elites, Lynch contends that America's failure to help displaced manufacturing workers created the resentment that ultimately put Trump in the White House. The promised assistance to globalization's losers never materialized, leaving entire communities devastated by both catastrophic job losses and the equal catastrophe to tens of million Americans of the 2008 financial crisis. So what to do? Lynch argues that both Trump's tariffs and Biden's industrial policy are fighting yesterday's battles. Instead, America needs robust labor market policies—wage insurance, pla

In our angry MAHA times, how can we get people trusting science and scientists again. According to MIT’s Alan Lightman, one of America’s greatest scientific writers, we need to both demystify science and humanize scientists. Lightman is the co-author, with Martin Rees, of The Shape of Wonder, a timely collection of essays about how scientists think, work, and live. We need to learn from scientists like Albert Einstein, Lightman - himself the author of the 1993 classic Einstein’s Dreams, suggests. He argues that Einstein's "naive" willingness to challenge millennia of thinking about time exemplifies the wonder that drives great science. Lightman discusses why scientists have become entangled with "elite establishments" in our populist moment, and argues that critical scientific thinking—from balancing checkbooks to diagnosing a child's fever—belongs to everyone, not just scientists. So make America smart again (MASA), by demystifying science and humanizing scientists.1. "Naive" questioning drives breakthrough