More Facts in the COVID-19 Origin Controversy

  

By now, the COVID-19 pandemic is mostly an unpleasant memory in the minds of those old enough to remember it, except for those suffering from long COVID, those who lost loved ones or knew someone who died in it, or . . . well, maybe it's not just a memory after all.  Whatever your personal experience of it was, there is no question that it was one of the biggest tragedies of the 21st century so far.  And one of the more disturbing aspects of it is that we still don't know exactly how it started.

 

Some disasters can be traced down to the exact time and place of origin—for example, the Great Chicago Fire of of 1871, which began around 8:30 PM on October 8 in or around a barn at 137 W. DeKoven Street.  It is agreed by all interested parties that the COVID pandemic originated in the city of Wuhan, but beyond that the story gets cloudy.

 

Soon after the virus spread worldwide, two main theories of its origin emerged.  One, heavily promoted by the government of China, asserted that it was a zoonotic disease which jumped from its original host animal to people after undergoing mutations making it able to infect humans.  As Wuhan hosted extensive live-animal food markets, this theory was plausible.  The other theory was that experiments or research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had led to a lab leak of a deliberately enhanced virus. 

 

Despite some co-operation from the Wuhan authorities in an investigation by the World Health Organization in early 2021, no definitive evidence has ever emerged that allows a Chicago-Fire-style reconstruction of exactly how the virus got its start in human beings.  And it's possible that no such evidence may exist, or if it still exists, it may never be found. 

 

The Summer 2026 issue of The New Atlantis carries some additional circumstantial evidence that may form important pieces of the puzzle if it is ever solved.  Dan Silver spent the years 2003 to 2023 as a "rapporteur" (basically, an investigator charged by an official body to do a specific investigation) with the international Program for Monitoring Emerging Diseases.  So his full-time job was to look into the origins of SARS, COVID, and similar epidemics, and he learned a lot about obscure sources of information in his work.

 

One of those obscure sources concerns the waste-disposal facilities in and around Wuhan that the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the separate Wuhan Institute of Virology used to dispose of biological hazardous waste.  Normally there were three such facilities.  But Silver has found in public records that in May of 2019, two of the three facilities that normally processed hazardous waste from both organizations were disabled and shut down by fires.  That left only one operational, and it was 190 miles away.

 

In addition, the Wuhan CDC admits publicly that for twenty-five years, it had been accumulating waste products on site, in violation of a Chinese law that says no hazardous waste may be stored for more than a year after it is created.  By the winter of 2019, all this waste had been cleared away in a move to a new facility in Wuhan. 

 

Putting the pieces together, Silver says that by implication, twenty-five years' worth of possibly biological hazardous waste was moved 190 miles from Wuhan to the one remaining hazardous-waste facility some time between the summer and winter of 2019, when the Wuhan CDC completed its move to its new facility.  And it was in the fall of 2019 that the earliest cases of what came to be known as COVID-19 appeared. 

 

While not exactly a smoking gun, these facts at a minimum indicate that the general level of caution regarding such waste was way below what was warranted by the potentially dangerous materials being handled.  A third variation of the two theories mentioned above is the following. 

 

While the Wuhan Institute of Virology was developing "gain-of-function" virus materials (not necessarily complete viruses), they were also famous for collecting viruses in the wild under less than safe conditions.  It's entirely possible that while no engineered virus escaped the lab, some piece of material from their wide-ranging investigations of bat viruses from different regions of China was carelessly disposed of, possibly because of the waste-material disruptions that began the previous summer.  And that material might have been the first to infect a human being with COVID. 

 

This third possibility combines features of the first two.  It allows the virus to have originated by natural and not engineered means, but it also places one of the Wuhan organizations (either the CDC or more likely the Institute of Virology, which performed the collecting) at the center of the process, as a concentrator of naturally hazardous material in a populous area.

 

Again, unless more new data is unearthed by diligent investigators such as Silver, the world may never know the precise way that the COVID-19 virus began its world tour of death and destruction.  Silver reports that China has significantly tightened its enforcement of regulations regarding biological waste and hazards since then, which is a good thing.  Nobody wants a repeat of the COVID epidemic, least of all China, which suffered an extent of damage that is still being revealed. 

 

While we may never know how the virus first spread to humans, we know how to prevent such spread of potentially dangerous viruses in terms of good laboratory techniques and institutional discipline.  Countless disasters of all kinds are caused by what can only be termed sloppiness, whether by an individual or an organization.  When researchers deal with dangerous stuff, they are honor-bound to take all reasonable precautions to protect themselves and the society hosting them.  This doesn't always happen, and human carelessness may in fact be a significant cause of the COVID pandemic.  Regardless of the exact origin, the experience is a constant reminder that little mistakes in certain critical activities can have literally worldwide consequences.

 

Sources:  Dan Silver's article "A New Piece of the Puzzle of Covid's Origin" appeared on pp. 67-72 of the Summer 2026 issue of The New Atlantis.  I also referred to an editorial by Jin-Hong Yoo of the College of Medicine of the Catholic University of Korea at https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12040609/. 

Bearing the Responsibility: Update on the UPS Crash in Louisville

  

Around 5:15 PM Tuesday afternoon, Nov. 4, 2025, an MD-11 cargo plane operated by UPS began rolling down the runway of Muhammed Ali International Airport in Louisville, Kentucky.  Flight 2976 was on a routine flight bound for Hawaii, but as the pilot rotated the plane to get it into the air, the left engine separated from the fuselage.  The resulting crash and fire killed all three crew members and twelve people on the ground. 

 

Since then, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) personnel have been investigating the crash.  After two days of hearings last May, the NTSB released a set of documents last Wednesday that reveal new details about why the engine fell off.

 

The structure that connects the engine to the underside of the wing is called a pylon, an elongated assembly that attaches to the wing at two points, one near the structure's center and one on its rear end.  The rear attachment point hangs from a wing structure called a clevis.  The thing that actually connects the wing's clevis to the pylon is an assembly called a spherical bearing.  It's rather like a ball-and-socket joint in the human hip, and allows restricted angular movements that the dynamics of flight make necessary.  But it also carries a large portion of both the static weight of the engine and the dynamic loads when the plane takes off.

 

Surrounding the ball is the socket part called a race.  The race is held to the pylon with a couple of brackets called lugs, a forward and an aft lug.  The lugs are shaped like my grandmother's old mantle clock:  a circular middle part tapering to a flat surface on either side at the bottom, where the lugs attach to the pylon. 

 

Back in 2011, Boeing discovered that metal fatigue exacerbated by a "design recess groove" in the spherical bearing had led to the bearing race cracking in two, like the two layers of a layer cake coming apart.  This had happened on several airplanes already, and while Boeing issued a service letter noting that this was a problem and telling aircraft maintenance personnel how to check for it, there was nothing in the letter implying that such a failure could cause the engine to separate from the wing. 

 

In the May hearings, both Boeing and the FAA admitted that they didn't realize the seriousness of the race cracking, which put extra stress on the lugs that they were not designed to carry.  When the lugs surrounding the bearing let go, probably during the maximum stress of takeoff that would exert extreme downward tension on the mount, the engine was left hanging by only the center mount, which also eventually gave way, possibly because of the fire caused by ruptured fuel lines.  Once the engine left the plane, the situation was hopeless.

 

Why wasn't the MD-11 inspected for this problem in time to catch it and fix it?  An AP report says that several years earlier, Boeing asked the FAA for permission to relax a schedule of major required inspections from every 19,900 cycles of takeoffs and landings to every 29,260 cycles.  The MD-11 that crashed had 21,043 cycles, so it would have been inspected under the old more rigorous schedule.  Inspecting the spherical bearing is not an easy task, and usually the engine has to be removed to gain access to it.  So the problem couldn't have been caught with more frequent minor inspections.

 

And even if it had, neither Boeing nor the FAA believed the bearing-race failure would lead to lug failure and loss of the engine.  Maintenance on the aircraft was performed by STE San Antonio Aerospace, which followed the maintenance procedures required by the FAA-approved schedule.  Unfortunately, that schedule wasn't sufficient to catch the problem in time.

 

Any time a fatal accident occurs and engineering is involved, the public wants to know the cause.  And in rare cases, such a single-point failure that no one expected can be found.  But in most cases, the chain of events leading up to the major accident is complicated.  And usually precursors to it can be found:  warning signs that, while not causing serious harm in themselves, can serve to alert those who are paying attention to a potential major problem that needs to be addressed before it gets out of hand.

 

That is what seems to have happened in the case of UPS Flight 2976.  A faulty design including the recess groove (1) led to bearing-race failures (2) which were discovered but not taken seriously enough by either Boeing (3) or the FAA (4).  After the service note alerted maintenance organizations to the problem, three more planes were found with cracked bearings, although none of them crashed.  This fact probably encouraged a degree of complacency which in retrospect was unwarranted.

 

Following the crash, all MD-11s were grounded until they could have their spherical bearings inspected.  They are now required to be checked after every 4,000 cycles of takeoffs and landings, but UPS has announced that they are retiring their fleet of MD-11s early in any case.

 

The NTSB is not finished with its investigation, which might take until the end of the year to complete.  It must be a rather thankless task to pick through the huge pile of wreckage reassembled in some hangar in order to figure out what happened.  But such jobs are necessary as long as lives depend on the smooth functioning of the incredibly complicated systems that we rely on for transportation and communication. 

 

Engineering requires tradeoffs:  tradeoffs between economy and increased frequency of maintenance schedules, tradeoffs about inexpensive designs that might not last as long as more costly ones, and on ad infinitum.  The responsibility for missing the critical inspections and repairs that might have averted the crash last November appears to be spread among the four parties of Boeing, the FAA, UPS, and STE San Antonio Aerospace.  Any one of these could have gone the extra distance of doing extra inspections to avert the crash, but no one seemed to know how serious the bearing problem was.

 

Unfortunately, experience is sometimes the best teacher in engineering as in other fields.  And the results of this investigation will probably lead to increased inspections of the kinds of engine mounts that failed.  And that will be a small victory in the never-ending battle to keep minor problems from turning into major ones.

 

Sources:  I referred to an article in the Fresno Business Journal at https://thebusinessjournal.com/ups-cargo-plane-crash-investigation-maintenance-failures/, a more technical article at

https://theaircurrent.com/feed/dispatches/ups-boeing-md-11-ntsb-update-engine-mount/, and the NTSB preliminary report at https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Documents/DCA26MA024%20Investigative%20Update.pdf, as well as the Wikipedia article "UPS Airlines Flight 2976."

Fatal Tesla Crash Into Home Raises More Questions

  

Around 8 P. M. Friday June 19, 76-year-old Martha Avila was standing in the playroom at the front of her daughter's house in Katy, Texas.  Her daughter, son-in-law, and their children were also in the house or in the back yard.  Suddenly a Tesla Model 3 occupied by 44-year-old Michael Butler crashed into the house after reaching a speed exceeding 70 MPH on the short residential street.  The car pinned Avila, who was extracted from the crash by EMS personnel but later died at a local hospital.  Within a few days, Avila's family had filed a lawsuit against Tesla and Butler, and last Wednesday the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) announced it was opening an investigation into the accident.

 

Something obviously went wrong if a car failed to negotiate a right turn of a residential street and instead hopped the curb and plowed into a house.  According to those investigating the crash, Butler, who was also injured, claims that the vehicle was in self-driving mode at the time of the accident. 

 

Elon Musk, Tesla's CEO, has issued a statement on social media saying that the crash "made no sense" as the self-driving mode usually maintains a low speed in residential areas.  Another Tesla official stated that according to vehicle data, "the driver pressed the accelerator to 100% and reached a speed of 73 MPH before the crash." 

 

Clearly, investigators have a job on their hands to figure out exactly what happened.  Rose Hollow Lane, the street on which the Tesla accelerated, is only about 1000 feet long before it makes a right turn going east and becomes another street at the corner where the crash occurred.  Teslas are notorious for their ability to accelerate rapidly, however, so it's possible that the car was traveling at a lower speed at first and then responded to its accelerator, which might have been pressed in error. 

 

In fairness to Tesla, there are plenty of examples of non-self-driving cars crashing into structures and killing people as well.  Tesla releases quarterly statistics on its vehicles that are operating in full self-driving mode, and claims that the number of accidents per million miles is lower than the average for the entire U. S. fleet.  Critics say that this isn't an entirely fair comparison because the Tesla fleet is newer and has more advanced safety features than the average car on the road.

 

All the statistics in the world won't bring back Martha Avila, however, and that is why the family is suing Tesla and the driver of the car. 

 

According to information on Reddit, the driver of a Tesla in full self-driving mode can override the system by pressing on the accelerator.  If that's what happened in the accident, the responsibility cannot be laid exclusively to Tesla, which is why the driver is also being sued as well. 

 

If we allow imagination to roam, perhaps the following scenario occurred.  As the driver went down Rose Hollow Lane, perhaps a squirrel or other small creature darted out in front of the car.  Intending to hit the brake, Butler instead pressed the accelerator pedal.  The resulting goose of energy could have sent the car off the road into the house where Avila died. 

 

Again, we will have to wait for the outcome of the NTSB investigation to find definitive answers to the questions raised by this tragedy.  If the cause turns out to be largely human error which could have happened with a non-self-driving vehicle, then there is nothing out of the ordinary about it except that the vehicle happened to be a Tesla.  If on the other hand, there was something about the self-driving mode that contributed directly to the crash, investigators will want to know what it was, and possibly issue directives to fix the problem.

 

Other self-driving vehicles such as Waymo rely on multiple types of sensors, while Teslas have so far relied exclusively on vehicle cameras, possibly for reasons of cost.  Whether such a compromise will be viable going forward may depend on how frequently crashes occur which could have been avoided through the use of a wider variety of sensors.

 

The course of autonomous driving in the U. S. has not followed the forecasts of its initial optimistic promoters.  The SAE five-level autonomous-driving scale which ranges from Level 1 (e. g. cruise control) to Level 5 (fully self-driving in all conditions everywhere) shows that there are only a few places in the world where Level-4 cars such as Waymos operate specific routes in favorable conditions.  As we noted in this space a few weeks ago, Waymo temporarily suspended operations in San Antonio and other locations where its vehicles ran into trouble with flooded streets.  So for most people, self-driving cars are not something they encounter voluntarily, unless they take a Waymo taxi where they are available, or take a ride with a Tesla owner who wants to show it off.

 

It looks like the ideal Level-5 self-driving car is still in the future.  And even if it arrives, it may remain in a niche market favored by the handicapped, the elderly, and other people who simply can't drive at all without it, or have to hire a cab.  For the rest of us, the price we'd have to pay for even a Level-4 self-driving car is way more than what it is worth to us not to have to bother turning the wheel and operating the pedals when we're in the car.  And that may remain the case for the indefinite future.

 

As for Tesla, which still promotes its "Full Self-Driving" mode of operation in what seems to be a misleading way, the requirement for the driver both to let the computer drive the car and still remain ready to take over if something goes wrong means that the driver's attention is theoretically required all the time, but practically almost none of the time.  I don't know about you, but I would find it very hard to just sit behind the wheel and pay attention to the road just as much as if I were driving, only not drive.  It may be a situation like this which led to the accident that killed Martha Avila.

 

Time will tell, and if the NTSB investigation report reveals anything new, we hope to bring it to you in this space.  But not right away.

 

Sources:  I referred to reports at https://abcnews.com/US/tesla-allegedly-autopilot-mode-crashes-texas-house-woman/story?id=134062374, https://www.fox26houston.com/news/tesla-sued-after-katy-crash-leaves-76-year-old-woman-dead, https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/tesla-crash-katy-texas-ntsb/285-42522116-a98b-4e89-8bae-7db39b5d642d, and a reference to a Forbes report (unfortunately behind a paywall) at https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2025/11/14/tesla-finally-releases-fsd-crash-data-that-appears-more-honest/. 

The GUARD Act and Recovering Covenant Economics

  

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) is something of a gadfly to Silicon Valley.  Even in his days as Missouri's Attorney General, he investigated the likes of Google for violating state consumer-protection laws.  In an editorial published online recently by the journal of religion and public life First Things, he stakes out an existential claim that artificial intelligence (AI) is the defining technology of our day, and threatens to break the founding covenant of the United States:  to hold respect for persons made in the image of God supreme over considerations of money and power.

 

One way he proposes to do this is through passage of a proposed GUARD Act, designed to protect children from the depredations of AI that have led to sexual exploitation, depression, and even suicide in many cases.  Co-authored with Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal, the act would impose strict age verification to prevent those under 18 from accessing certain AI systems, prohibit systems that are known to promote sexual and violent acts directed at oneself or others among young people, and impose severe meaningful penalties for violations of these regulations.  The bill has been approved by the Senate's Judiciary Committee and awaits action by the full Senate and House.

 

While the GUARD Act would go far in the direction of preventing some of the most horrific side effects of the AI revolution we are now living in, it addresses only the tip of an iceberg of threats that Hawley perceives.  In the editorial, Hawley outlines the history of the United States, beginning not with 1776, but with the 1630 voyage of the Puritans led by John Winthrop from England to the Massachusetts Bay Colony.  Opinions differ as to whether the noble sentiments in a sermon delivered during that trip amounted to an actual covenant agreed to by the refugees, or simply aspirations that were not universally shared.  But details aside, Hawley traces the same spirit of democracy guided by Christianity through Lincoln's Homestead Act granting 160 acres of public land to all comers, Samuel Gompers' promotion of the 8-hour workday, and the twentieth century's adoption of social insurance of various kinds. 

 

Opposed to this tendency to regulate economic and technical innovations for the good of all is a progressive notion that the modern world is too complex to leave its governance to the masses.  Hawley proposes what he calls "covenant economics" in opposition to the government-by-expert notions promoted during the Progressive Era and exemplified by the takeover of the economy by Woodrow Wilson during World War I.  Nowadays, he points out, the progressive elite in government and the economic elite who runs Silicon Valley are largely the same class, and are working to make the country "K-shaped."  Meaning, a few lucky people go up one bar of the K and get to run everything and own most of everything, while the unlucky masses have to take the lower arm, which is whatever the elites dish out for them, whether it's unemployment checks compensating for losing one's job to AI or new and fun ways to amuse oneself to death. 

 

Hawley is under no illusions that his own party is going to avert this crisis any better than the Democrats.  He makes no reference to the Trump administration, but he doesn't have to, as it's clear to anybody with working eyes by now that Trump favors Trump, and to hell with everybody else. 

 

But one of the primary Christian virtues is hope.  Only by continuing to take the machinery of government seriously can people like Sen. Hawley make a difference:  drafting laws, passing them in the face of opposition, and rallying like-minded people to just causes.  The prospects for the GUARD Act in a climate in which President Trump has endorsed a laissez-faire attitude toward AI are not good.  But things can change, and if it passes it will be one small step in the direction of covenant economics, and away from the domination of average people by a small, super-powerful elite who increasingly seem to think they live on a different planet than the rest of us.

 

Sen. Hawley is right to look to history for precedents of covenant economics.  What I'd like to see from history is a precedent for our present situation:  one in which a megalomaniacal political leader is largely in cahoots with a small upper class of very wealthy and powerful individuals who dominate politics as well as economics, and how the population of that country got out from under domination.

 

One has to go back to the days of Louis XVI, the last king of France before the Revolution of 1792 abolished the monarchy, to find a similar divide between the ruling classes and the rest of the population.  Ironically, Louis's downfall was caused partly by his adoption of what we would now call liberal ideas, such as supporting the rebellion of the American colonies. 

 

Revolutions are always a last resort, and nothing I write here should be construed as advocating for one.  Once a revolution starts, even its promoters can't tell where it's going to end up—it's like the boys in Mark Twain who started a boulder rolling down a hill just to see what it would do.  As long as the creaky democratic machinery of the U. S. Constitution still works, we should use it to move things in directions that put into practice the idea the country was founded on:  in Lincoln's deathless words, that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

 

In one sense, regulation of AI is like nailing Jell-O to the wall.  It's everywhere, changing all the time, and a key problem in legislating about it is getting enough of a handle on it to say something that will last longer than a few months.  But the pernicious effects of AI are clear enough:  the loss of jobs by millions of people who have done nothing wrong other than not to be born to privilege; the fear, whether justified or no, that the proliferation of data centers is creating burdens of higher electric and water rates as a byproduct of rich people getting even richer; and the harm that AI can do to children and teenagers.  Sen. Hawley wants to draw lines in the sand that tell AI's promoters "here, and no farther."  We can pray that his efforts will be joined by other legislators of good will to turn the vast tide of AI in a direction that will benefit all the citizens of the United States, and not just continue to enrich a few at the cost of the many.

 

Sources:  Sen. Hawley's essay is on the First Things website at https://firstthings.com/the-american-covenants-answer-to-ai/.  I also referred to an AI summary (!) of the GUARD Act and Wikipedia articles on John Winthrop and Louis XVI.  AI isn't all bad. . . .

Saronic Drone Boat Saves Helicopter Crew

  

On Monday night, June 8, Iranian forces shot down a U. S. helicopter with a two-member crew aboard off the coast of Oman near the Strait of Hormuz.  Presumably they bailed out with life jackets or some other means of flotation, but their prospects for rescue were uncertain, to say the least. 

 

The U. S. Navy chose to direct a Corsair unmanned sea drone, made by Saronic Technologies, to the last known location of the flyers.  The Corsair was inspired by Ukraine's successes with unmanned sea drones used to attack Russian naval assets.  It's a 24-foot-long boat that can carry a payload of up to 1,000 pounds.  Early Tuesday morning, it successfully located the helicopter crew members, who climbed aboard it and rode on it to another location where a helicopter picked them up and took them to safety.  They were in the water for about two hours before being rescued.

 

This success story shows how unmanned drones are taking on more roles in modern warfare all the time.  The Corsair's rescue was the first time in history that an unmanned sea-going drone was used in a successful rescue attempt. 

 

A BBC report on the rescue quotes naval expert Bryan Clark, of the Hudson Institute, as saying the drone was probably manually piloted during the search.  The boat has a 360-degree camera and onboard radar, both of which would have been helpful in locating the downed flyers. 

 

Remotely-controlled floating vehicles are nothing new.  In 1898, Nikola Tesla demonstrated a radio-controlled model boat in a small tank at his New York City laboratory, and filed numerous patents on it in the hopes of interesting the day's naval powers in it.  Although World War II saw some work with remote-controlled planes, the communications technologies of the day were not up to the challenge of sending the massive amounts of data needed to both convey an adequate picture of the vehicle's environment and to exert precise control over it. 

 

With computer networks and satellite communications, those challenges have been overcome.  Now drones play an essential role in the Russia-Ukraine war, as well as the conflict between Iran and the U. S.  While the emphasis has been on hostile drones carrying weapons or doing surveillance, it's good to know that drones can be used for search-and-rescue operations as well.  One wonders when the U. S. Coast Guard will get into the drone business in a major way, to avoid endangering their own personnel during hazardous searches for lost boats.

 

Saronic, the company recently awarded $392 million to produce Corsairs and similar products, is a newcomer to the defense industry, with much of its operations based in Austin, Texas.  It is not surprising that the big innovations in technological warfare are coming not from the large, established firms such as Boeing and General Dynamics, but from newer upstarts such as Palantir and Saronic.  This is a pattern that plays out in most new technical fields, and says something about the sociology of invention and organizational innovation. 

 

Reportedly, the U. S. Navy has about fifty Corsairs all told, and it was a good thing that one of them was deployed close enough to effect the rescue earlier this week.  Should the Navy be worrying about acquiring larger seagoing drones to do more than just rescue a few downed flyers? 

 

This is a debate that has been going on for some time in the engineering ethics community:  the question of autonomous warfare, in which unmanned devices and systems do the things that soldiers and sailors used to do. 

 

In the case of a benign action such as a rescue, I think everyone would agree that sending a seagoing drone to do the job is better than risking human lives, as long as the drone succeeds.  In peacetime, drones and remotely-controlled robots are resorted to in situations such as building collapses that are simply too hazardous for people to enter.  This advantage compensates for the expense and limited abilities of drones and robots compared to a human being. 

 

In the case of war, drones become another tool or weapon that is ultimately controlled by those in charge of fighting.  The fear of turning loose a completely autonomous drone or robot in the battlefield is that it will be unable to discriminate between enemy fighters who are legitimate targets, and innocent bystanders such as housewives or children, who should be exempt from attack, although that ethical principle has been violated countless times in the last several decades.  Also, an autonomous drone might turn against its own operators. 

 

Those are some of the hazards that have kept drones out of warfare historically, although in places like Ukraine where the need to fight trumps almost all other considerations, these hesitations have been swept aside.  Not too long ago, a group of Russian soldiers were captured by remotely controlled Ukrainian robot fighters.  The capture was a legitimate act of war, and whether the Ukraine soldiers were standing right there with guns or safely ensconced in a control room miles away didn't make any difference to the Russians.

 

Drones are making war into a new kind of ball game, and any country which wants to remain militarily competitive can't afford to ignore that fact.  What seems to be happening now is a kind of innovation that is integrated into the whole matrix of the battlefield, rather than standing out as a totally novel kind of warfare, the way the invention of nuclear weapons did. 

 

"War is hell," according to General Sherman, whose depredations in the South were notorious for their thoroughness and harshness.  He should have known.  While it would be wonderful if all war ceased, the realities of international politics mean that all available technologies will be pressed into service of military priorities.  It's nice to know that a technology which Ukraine developed to blow up Russian ships has been modified to serve as a rescue vehicle.  And there may be other positive benefits that wartime technological developments bring in the future. 

 

But for now, we should expect to see more firsts of many kinds involving drones and autonomous weapons.  While they are not so effective as to make war unthinkable, they may make it safer for those who fight, and that would be a good thing.

 

Sources:  I referred to a BBC News account "What we know about US sea drone used in helicopter crew rescue mission," which appeared at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2xvnd5eqwo.  I also referred to the Saronic website at https://www.saronic.com/.  A description of Tesla's experimental radio-controlled boat appears on pp. 229 of W. Bernard Carlson's supreme biography, "Tesla:  Inventor of the Electrical Age" (Princeton Univ. Press, 2013).

Aristotle, Aquinas, and AI

What have a Greek philosopher who lived about 2300 years ago, a Dominican friar, theologian, and philosopher who died in 1274 A. D., and artificial intelligence (AI) got to do with each other?  Sounds like the beginning of a bad joke.  What I have to say is no joke, however, because if we don't heed the wisdom of these two parties, which has been almost totally forgotten, we are liable to make some mistakes shortly that will be exceedingly costly in terms of missed opportunities, misdirected hopes, and maybe even lives.

 

The particular wisdom I speak of is known by the technical term of scholastic metaphysics.  It was, and still is, a way of viewing the universe, and it dominated the West for over a thousand years.  The Scientific Revolution vigorously uprooted it and threw it in the trash pile, to oversimplify a very complicated history.  And now it is almost completely forgotten except by a few lucky people such as yourself, if you keep reading.

 

The aspect of scholastic metaphysics I wish to explain concerns the nature of things.  Here's an example, taken from an article by journalist Mary Harrington in the June/July issue of First Things.  Take a dog, any dog.  It may be black, white, spotted, or bald.  But none of those attributes change the fact that it's a dog.  The scholastic metaphysical term for the dogness of a dog is its substantial form, also known as essence.  The aspects of a thing that can change without changing its substantial form are called accidents.  That's a weird use of the word, I know, but I'm not going to argue with Aristotle, who came up with these ideas, and Aquinas, who put them in terms compatible with Christianity.  The substantial form of a thing is its organizing principle.  The accidents are characteristics that can change without altering the substantial form.

 

What about people?  We have an organizing principle called the soul.  No matter what accidental characteristics we have—whether a person is fat, thin, from Teaneck, New Jersey, or in a coma—that substantial form remains. 

 

What about computers, and all the systems that are known by the general term of AI?  AI is, of course, artificial—that is, it is a man-made artifact.  Unlike living things, an artificial object has no substantial form that is prior to what its human makers say it is.  We can cobble together a bunch of transistors, call it a computer, and get it to do certain things for us.  But computers, and the AI systems supported by them, are simply assemblies of accidents.  This makes AI systems fundamentally different in kind from human beings. 

 

What emerges from looking at humans and AI from the viewpoint of scholastic metaphysics is this:  human beings are just a clean different kind of thing from AI systems.  And treating AI systems and humans as though they were basically the same kind of thing, simply piles of atoms arranged differently—which is how modern materialistic science encourages us to think—ignores a vital difference between the two.  Human beings have souls as their organizing principle, and AI systems do not.  No imaginable or unimaginable future progress in AI can change that fact.

 

This viewpoint flies in the face of the transhumanist agenda so popular in Silicon Valley, which looks forward to the day when human beings can transcend their messy, disease-and-death-prone meat-cage origins and live forever in an eternal bit-world of computer-borne bliss that will take over the universe.  (I may have left something out in that description, but I think I got most of it.)  Human beings are the rational animals that result from propagation by other human beings.  Anything you might upload from a human being to a computer is not going to be that human being.  And treating it, or any other AI product, as if it were human is a category error that can lead to heinous consequences.

 

In Harrington's words, trying to teach sand to think is not only futile, but if we start treating the result as though it had a soul, we are in danger of losing our own souls.

 

This may sound like just another anti-technology rant, but it's not.  AI can do truly amazing and useful things, but only if its human users keep in mind what it is and don't try to endow it with quasi-human agency.  A tool should be under the control of its human users at all times.  That control may be loose and barely perceptible sometimes, but it has to be there.  If we begin to bow down to AI entities as though they were thinking humans like us, we will soon regret it.  An automobile provides useful service when under control, but if it gets out of control it becomes a dangerous missile.  The same thing is true of AI.

 

Thinking in terms of scholastic metaphysics seems strange to most people unfamiliar with it, and it takes a while to realize that it's just as useful as it ever was.  I have had a passing acquaintance with it ever since I read a book on Thomistic philosophy in the 1990s.  The thing that drove me to that book was a statement by a former theoretical physicist turned pastor, who said that the Catholic Church's notion of transubstantiation of the bread and wine of the Eucharist into the body and blood of Christ was based on an outmoded theory of matter.  I wanted to know more about this outmoded theory, and it turned out to be scholastic metaphysics. 

 

What modern science did to scholastic metaphysics is a classic case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  There was a lot of useless bathwater in Aristotle's physics—rocks having a desire to fall downward and so on—but there was also great wisdom in his metaphysics.  The wisdom of scholastic metaphysics can save us from making lots of mistakes that could be avoided if we just keep in mind that however clever and human-like AI appears, it's really just words written in the sand.  And we wrote the words to start with. 

 

Sources:  Mary Harrington's article "Thomophobia" appeared on pp. 19-27 of the June/July 2026 issue of First Things.  For those wanting to know more, she refers to Edward Feser's book Scholastic Metaphysics (Editiones Scholasticae, 2014, $34 on Amazon).

 

Autonomous Cars Need Waymo Time Out for Floods

  

Pardon the bad pun.  But imagine that you've taken one of the new driverless Waymo taxis from the San Antonio airport right after a big rain.  The car exits the freeway, and on the access road ahead you see where a nearby stream has overflowed, and water the color of coffee with cream is rushing across the road.  The Waymo vehicle keeps going.  You can't be sure, but the water looks deeper than you'd like, and if you were driving, you'd follow the poetic advice to turn around rather than drown.  You look for a panic button in the car:  there is no such thing.  You think about just opening a door and jumping out, but the car's going too fast for you to try that without risking your neck.  Just as the front wheels hit the water, you feel the car skidding, and you decide to try jumping out anyway.  Only now the water pressure on the door is too great, and it won't open. . . .

 

This didn't actually happen.  But it could have. 

 

On April 20, after heavy rains caused flooding on several roadways in San Antonio, an unoccupied Waymo vehicle was swept away from an interstate access road in floodwaters arising from Salado Creek.  The vehicle was later found about half a mile downstream. 

 

Following this and another incident earlier in the month, when a Waymo car became stuck in high water in San Antonio and had to be towed out, Waymo suspended all service in San Antonio and five other cities in three states, including Nashville and Atlanta.  Another Waymo car got stranded in Atlanta during heavy rains as well.  Waymo is working on updating its software to prevent such incidents in the future, but as of today, service still appears to be suspended in Austin and Atlanta, although it has been restored in San Antonio.

 

Waymo is to be commended for taking swift action in the face of obvious problems that could kill passengers in a peculiarly horrifying way.  Especially with high-tech operations of super-wealthy companies such as Alphabet (the parent firm of both Waymo and Google), profit sometimes takes a back seat to safety, and that is as it should be. 

 

Up-to-date information on high water in roadways is currently available through various means, including municipal emergency services and mapping organizations such as Waze.  But especially in Texas, floodwaters can rise within minutes, and few systems can respond that fast.  It looks like the challenge of directly detecting the presence of high water on a road through on-board sensors is something that is either too hard to do, or too unreliable.  So Waymo and other autonomous-vehicle operators may rely mostly on third-party data about where it's too dangerous to drive because of high water. 

 

Despite the drama surrounding the flooded Waymo cars, this is actually part of a process I would call normal engineering.  No matter how many problems a designer anticipates before a new technology is fielded, there will always be some issues that don't show up until the technology has been in use for a while.  This is doubly true for a complex multidisciplinary system such as an autonomous vehicle.  The world is simply too complicated for non-omniscient engineers to anticipate every single thing that might go wrong before deploying a system in the field.

 

Many of the locations where Waymo suspended service were new to the company, so Waymo had its first encounter in those cities with this spring's rainy season.  While California also has flash floods, I don't think they are as prominent a part of the landscape as they are in central Texas, for example. 

 

If I'd been riding in a Waymo car headed toward a flooded road, I wouldn't have had a lot of options.  There is no panic button as such in a Waymo.  But on the Waymo website there is a section titled "Pulling over, collisions, and security events."  They do list an option to ask the car to pull over out of traffic, but the decision as to how and when to do that is up to the system, not the passenger.  There is a way to contact "Support" (presumably a human being on the monitoring staff that every autonomous-vehicle company maintains), but having a conversation with someone possibly thousands of miles away as water surrounds the car is probably not the first thing you'd want to do.

 

All things considered, it was the wisest course for Waymo simply to shut down all service until their engineers can figure out a way to keep their cars out of water, hot or otherwise. 

 

This is also a good example of how semi-serious incidents can flag a problem that could easily lead to more serious consequences, such as customer fatalities.  If you look into the details of many historic engineering disasters, you will commonly find that less serious precursor incidents often happened in the days or years leading up to the big disaster.  This isn't always the case.  But it happens often enough that system designers should train themselves to take very seriously any safety-related problems that constitute narrow escapes.  And they should address the issues allowing such narrow escapes before some unlucky person encounters the combination of circumstances that proves deadly.

 

In shutting down all service in certain cities until the flood problem can be addressed satisfactorily, Waymo did the right thing.  This doesn't guarantee that nobody will ever drown in a Waymo car.  But in taking such a public move that obviously cost the company revenue, Waymo has both given itself time to fix the problem, and has sent a strong message to the public that they regard passenger safety as paramount. 

 

Sources:  I referred to articles in the Austin American-Statesman at https://www.statesman.com/business/technology/article/waymo-freeway-robotaxi-safety-pause-22272052.php, the BBC News website at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgplyxxl75o, and Waymo's own safety information at https://support.google.com/waymo/answer/9449023?hl=en.