That John Horgan fellow — he’s always going on and on about the end of something or other. This time, it’s about the end of war. There’s a little bit of “duh” about it — modern science can end war, all it has to do is end scarcity, or as it says, “Given adequate food, fuel, and gender equality, mass conflict just might disappear” — but also a good question. Are people intrinsically warlike by nature, or will they favor peace if given the opportunity?

I’m inclined to agree that people would rather avoid war, and that ending resource scarcity (which I’m not convinced that science can do) would reduce the incidence of war, but I think the article ignores one central source of conflict: ideology. Baboons and bonobos don’t seem to have it, but we do, and it can trigger wars for that other resource, human minds. We want people on our side. The Thirty Years War, the American Civil War, the Cold War … were those fought because one side wanted the other side’s food or land or minerals? Or over the spread of ideas that weren’t satisfied by science?

I have a suspicion that if we had a world of peace and plenty, where everyone was brought up to abhor war, and in which there was no biological imperative for conflict, we’d still have people coming up with ideas they’d be willing to die for … and we’d conjure up new tribes out of the contented hordes and set them to battling with one another.

Yesterday, the Minnesota legislature introduced H.F. No. 3922, another of those “Academic Freedom” bills that are actually attempts to infringe on academic freedom. It’s full of high-minded language, but 1) they have not demonstrated that there is a problem, 2) they simply restate principles academics already hold, but 3) they turn those principles into opportunities for meddling legislators to police our campuses. It’s sponsored by Olson (R, 16B), Heidgerken (R, 13A), Drazkowksi (R, 28B), Erickson (R, 16A), and Emmer (R, 19B). I think you can see the common link in their party affiliation; these are conservatives who want a way to sneak their crude and stupid views into our universities. If they’re your representatives, blast them with email. If they’re not your representatives, write to the ones who are and tell them that this bill must die.

In a special election and against long odds, Bill Foster has been elected to the house of representatives from Illinois. Not only is it another addition to the coming Democratic conquest of Washington DC, but the guy is a physicist. We need more scientists stepping into political leadership!

A couple of small towns in Vermont passed an unenforceable law to declare Bush and Cheney criminals. I like it. Personally, I favor something more like Megan’s Law, in which Bush and Cheney would forever after be required to register with local law authorities where ever they go, with their names, photographs, addresses, and a list of their offenses made public. (I’m actually not a big fan of Megan’s Laws, but if we’re going to publicly track one kind of monster, I think far more wicked monsters should be subject to the same penalties.)

It’s good to hear that God has retracted his endorsement of Mike Huckabee. That’s one pious fraud out of the race.

There’s still one more servant of theLord in the running, though, and I’m still conflicted about it. I’ll vote for him, alright, but contrary to the assertions in that link, his pious musings have elicited a peep or two of protest from this nonbeliever.

We now have an estimate of the cost of the Iraq war. Remember when our administration was blithely proposing that it would require a few billion dollars?

The authors present a damning “Nightline” transcript in which one official, Andrew Natsios, blandly told Ted Koppel that Iraq could be completely reconstructed for only $1.7 billion. (With the war now costing $12.5 billion a month, Natsios’ estimate would have been accurate if he had stipulated that it would pay for four days’ worth of reconstruction. Which, considering the delusional nature of most of the Bush administration’s pre-invasion estimates, may have been how long it thought it would take to rebuild the country.) Other officials settled on a figure of $50 billion to $60 billion. Larry Lindsey, Bush’s economic advisor, went way out on a limb, suggesting that the war might cost $200 billion — a figure derided by then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as “baloney.”

So how much has it cost? $3 trillion. That’s a bit of money.

In 2005, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the war had so far cost about $500 billion. That figure was obviously far higher than initial Bush administration estimates, but Stiglitz and Bilmes suspected it was still much too low. After researching the issue, they published a paper in January 2006 that conservatively estimated that the true cost of the war would be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. Even at the time, they regarded that estimate as excessively conservative, but didn’t want to appear extreme. Stiglitz and Bilmes’ book, which is based on that paper, doubles their earlier estimates to $3 trillion, making Iraq the second most expensive war in U.S. history, trailing only World War II, which cost an adjusted $5 trillion (and in which 16.3 million Americans served in the armed forces, with 400,000 dying). But the authors regard even their new figure as conservative: Their estimates range from $2 trillion, in the best-case scenario in which the U.S. withdraws all combat troops by 2012 and fewer veterans need medical and disability pay, to more than $5 trillion. Add in the cost to the rest of the world, and the price tag could exceed $6 trillion.

Bush was the evil incompetent who got this wasted effort started, but I can’t blame him alone: anyone remember that immense principled effort the Democratic party made to oppose the ramp-up to war? Nah, neither do I.