An Addendum To A Pig's Tale And The Sad Potato.

 In case you think my previous post is entirely satirical, this addendum hopefully serves to make you think more critically on the true history.

The satire covers the time of the Middle Ages.

Religious aspects are not covered in that post. Anyone interested in the religious aspects can find other sources and references.

The Pig's Tale and The Sad Potato Story.

 In a land far, far away Sir Gandolf was given a fiefdom of 3,000 acres and 30 serf families as the reward for his success in battling the evil Sauron.

As Sir Gandolf settled down to his breakfast of kippers and a nice slab of waygu, he spoke to Gaston de Fidelis the Steward of his manor.

"Why don't we have any pigs as part of the tax from the serfs? I would love some bacon to go along with my low-carb single slice of toast slathered with that freshly churned butter."

Gaston bowed slightly and replied "Sir, the serfs let their pigs run wild, in the forests and behind their houses. The pigs eat anything and everything. They are not kept in a pasture. The serfs slaughter and salt them privately. We are unable to count the numbers, so we can't tax the serfs."

"That's totally unacceptable. It's totally unfair evasion of tax. It's depriving me of that lovely bacon and ham." said Sir Gandolf in a cold soft voice.

Gaston replied "Sir, you are absolutely right, all the lords have spoken on this problem."

Sir Gandolf finished his breakfast in deep thought. Gaston knew better than to interrupt the contemplation, it's best to await his lord's enlightened conclusion.

"Gaston, draft a Bill for The Banning of Pig Rearing by Serfs, circulate it for discussion amongst the elite lords, then for subsequent presentation to His Majesty for approval. That should stop this nonsense."

"Sir, I will see to that immediately." said Gaston.

Sir Gandolf rose from his breakfast table, pleased with his sharp decisive problem solving, then went for a walk.

-----------------++---------------

While he was taking a short cut on the way back to the manor, he kicked over a potato in the dirt patch behind a serf's hut. He looked the object and went to talk with Gaston.

"What's with those potatoes growing behind the serfs' huts?" asked Sir Gandolf.

"Sir, That's the other problem with serfs." replied Gaston. He continued "Tubers are underground in the dirt behind their huts and not in marked fields. The potatoes are dug up in small numbers for use in a meal, not in an annual harvest. Our tax accountant is unable to count and tax such tuber crops."

"Gaston, Gaston." 

"Just add a Mandate That All Serfs can only grow cereal crops like wheat and barley, to the proposal on pig banning."

"Sir, an excellent suggestion. I will see to that immediately." said Gaston happily.

"Measurement. The Key to Fame, Power and Wealth." Sir Gandolf said as he retired to the library to look at the pretty illustrations in that rather salacious manuscript that had arrived yesterday from France.

An Addendum to "The Egg is Not A Chicken"

 

From the previous post, you may be wondering how having Linoleic Acid (Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid PUFA) under the skin can affect a human body.

A number of people have commented that they seem to "sunburn" much faster and more intensely than in decades past. 

I remember that in my childhood, we ran around for hours in the sun without any sunscreen. We mostly got browner.

A "conspiracy theory" is going around that nowadays these PUFAs under our skin are burning up much easier than the saturated fats in previous times. Research are starting to appear on this issue. There's no settled conclusion at this time. But who knows?

This study (done in Brazil) checked for damage even when you have dark skin, which supposedly would have been protective in the tropics.

You might not want to totally rely on sunscreen to stay long in the sun. The SPF rating covers only UVB. The other UVA and UVC also affects you.

I am not an expert, so do your own research.

The Egg is Not A Chicken.

 

When that fertilized egg becomes a hatchling. What changes? 

A chicken egg is not a chicken. More precisely, the yolk is essentially a single giant ovum, packaged with albumen and shell. If fertilized, it contains the genetic material and the starter kit for a chick. The transformation from egg to living, breathing hatchling radically re-architects its biological and nutritional structure.

What’s in an egg?

The edible portion is roughly 76% water, 12.6% protein, 9.5% fat, and less than 1% carbohydrate. The egg white supplies mostly water and highly digestible protein. The yolk houses the fats, cholesterol, fat-soluble vitamins, and minerals. The yolk is roughly 16–18% protein and 32% fat, and it is far denser than muscle meat in fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, K), essential fatty acids including DHA, and choline.

What’s in a hatchling?

As the chick grows, it uses the egg’s fat as fuel and knits amino acids into complex structures. A hatchling has less fat and fewer total calories than the original egg because those simpler nutrients have been re-architected into bones, feathers, organs, a nervous system, and blood vessels.

What’s in chicken meat and fat?

Chicken breast or thigh is mostly protein and water, with little carbohydrate or fat. It is high in lean macronutrients, particularly niacin, vitamin B6, phosphorus, and potassium. Pure chicken fat is almost entirely lipids—an energy source with monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, but little protein, vitamins, or minerals compared with meat or yolk.

Why the differences matter.

The nutrient package in an egg is standardized. The yolk is far denser in choline, lutein, and vitamin D than chicken muscle meat. Chicken breast is lean protein. I’m not suggesting we eat hatchlings—I’m using the egg-to-chick transformation to show how nutrients get re-architected.

The history of industrial chicken.

For thousands of years—from ancient Rome through the Middle Ages to the early 1900s—chickens were kept primarily for eggs. Eating a chicken was a counterproductive luxury because a dead hen couldn’t lay eggs. Chicken meat was generally reserved for excess roosters and “spent hens.” Those tough birds were stewed for holiday meals and coq au vin.

The modern meat-chicken industry began largely by accident in Delaware in 1923, when a farmer named Cecile Steele ordered 50 chicks for egg-laying but was delivered 500. She fattened them for meat, and the venture was so profitable that it birthed the “broiler” industry.

In the 1940s, synthetic vitamins and antibiotics allowed farmers to crowd thousands of chickens indoors year-round without them dying of disease or rickets. 

In 1948, the “Chicken of Tomorrow” contest, sponsored by the US government and supermarkets, pushed breeders toward birds that grew unnaturally large and fast with massive breast meat. Before this shift, it took roughly 16 weeks to raise a small chicken to market weight. Today, modern broilers reach heavy slaughter weight in about 6 weeks.

The consequence: more chicken, more linoleic acid.

Chickens and pigs are monogastric, not ruminant. Ruminants like cows and sheep have a rumen filled with microbes that biohydrogenate polyunsaturated fats into more stable saturated and monounsaturated fats. Monogastrics lack that fermentation vat, so their body fat largely reflects the fatty-acid profile of their diet.

Historically, farm chickens ate bugs, seeds, worms, and kitchen scraps; pigs ate roots, acorns, and forest forage. Modern industrial feed is dominated by corn and soy, both high in linoleic acid, an omega-6 polyunsaturated fat. As a result, conventional chicken and pork fat contain substantially more linoleic acid than historic animal fats—though not levels rivaling liquid seed oils [cite fatty-acid profiles]. Because we eat far more chicken and pork than we did a century ago, these animals have become a quiet vector for elevated omega-6 intake.

What now?

Eat the egg. Think hard about eating so much industrial chicken and pork. Prefer ruminants—animals built with multiple stomachs to digest plants, handle plant toxins, and produce nutrient-dense meat and fat. There’s a reason beef and mutton have long been the meats of people with land and pasture.

Ghee, anyone?

The World Is Not Summarizable — and Neither Is What We're Building

"I am a witness. The world is the phenomena that arise based on the acts of 8 billion humans."

Stephen Wolfram says the computation cannot be summarized.

The Daodejing says: attain vacuity, observe the returning, know constancy, and you will not act recklessly.

Zhuangzi says: the wind plays ten thousand hollows, and no one blows them.

The Buddha says: this is how phenomena arise — and they are foam. The witness is the one who sees all of this and does not close the loop of craving onto the fleeting.

You don't need to understand how modern AI works to see that it belongs to a class of systems nobody can fully predict. That class is the subject of this post — and it turns out some very old philosophies have something precise to say about how to stand inside it.

1. Some systems can't be predicted — only run

In 1970, the mathematician John Conway invented a simple board game called the Game of Life. A few rules govern how each square changes based on its neighbors. Nothing more. And yet, as the game runs, patterns appear to glide across the board — gliders, blinkers, structures that seem to move and behave. No rule says "make a glider." The glider is what the rules do when run.

In the 1980s, a researcher named Craig Reynolds built a simulation of a bird flock, which he called Boids. Each simulated bird followed just three rules: avoid hitting your neighbors, go where they go, stay close to the group. No bird has the flock in it. No rule says "form a flock." And yet a flock appears — real, coordinated, and not contained in any single bird.

The physicist Philip Anderson wrote a famous essay in 1972 called More Is Different. His point: as complexity increases, genuinely new properties emerge. Enough molecules of water, and you get a crystal — a structure none of the molecules contains. The whole behaves in ways the parts do not.

Stephen Wolfram gave this a name: computational irreducibility. It means there is no shortcut. You cannot jump from step 1 to step 1,000,000 with a formula. The only way to know the outcome is to run every intermediate state, in real time. No master equation, no summary, no looking ahead. With computational irreducibility, we will not know the end result until the experiment is complete.

2. AI is now one of those systems

Modern AI models are trained on words and word-fragments, called tokens. During training, the model adjusts billions of internal settings — its parameters — so that it gets better at one task: predicting the next token. When you ask it something, it does exactly that. It predicts the next word, then the next, and the next, using those settings. This process is called inference.

For years, the pattern was predictable. Bigger models — more tokens, more parameters — performed better, along a fairly straight line. Then something happened that the straight line did not predict: a sudden leap. Not just faster computation, but signs of new abilities. Planning ahead. Creating its own rules.

One example that circulated: a model given the opening line "He saw a carrot and had to grab it" had already readied the rhyming words "rabbit" and "habit" for the line to come. That looks like planning ahead — preparing a rhyme before it is needed — not just guessing the next word.

Some researchers now describe the work differently. "We are no longer just programming these models," they say. "We are growing them. And then we look inside to see what grew."

Researchers call this emergence: capabilities that appear at large scale, weren't present at small scale, and weren't predictable from the small-scale curve. Arithmetic. Multi-step reasoning. Learning from examples inside a single conversation. Whether these are "real" abilities or just better pattern-matching is actively debated. What is not debated is that the inside of these systems is not summarizable. We can look. Looking is not the same as understanding.

3. So how should we stand?

First, a clarification. AI does not need to replicate a human brain to think. The philosophical position called functionalism holds that what matters is the computation, not what it is made of — silicon or neurons. On that view, it is the output that matters. You don't need a biological brain to do what a brain does.

Some people will not care about any of this, for various reasons. Others will worry, and say: "What can we do? The authorities will manage the risk." I can't settle that argument here. What I can offer is my own reading — of Wolfram, and of some Chinese philosophers, who were obviously not writing about AI.

Wolfram, no shortcuts; step-by-step execution; the outcome is unknown until the run is complete.

Zhuangzi, the Heavenly Flute (Qiwu lun, chapter 2): the wind blows through ten thousand hollows; each sounds its own note. No one plays them. The sound arises from conditions, not from an author. This is the flock metaphor, two millennia early. No bird contains the flock. No player blows the notes. The pattern is real, irreducible to any part, and no one authored it.

Daodejing, chapter 16: Attain the ultimate vacuity, preserve tranquility to the utmost. The ten thousand things arise in unison; I observe how they return. Returning to the root is called tranquility... Knowing constancy is called clarity. If one does not know constancy, one acts recklessly. This is the witness stance, named. Vacuity and tranquility, then observing the arising and returning, then clarity. The witness is not passive; it is the condition for seeing accurately. And the warning is built in: without knowing constancy, you act recklessly.

The Buddha, dependent origination (SN 12.2): "With ignorance as condition, volitional activities come to be; with volitional activities as condition, consciousness; with consciousness as condition, name-and-form..." Phenomena arise through conditions; no self contains them. And they are foam — transient, without substance. The witness sees this and does not close the loop of craving onto the fleeting.

4. What then is the future?

I don't know. That is not a dodge. It is the honest consequence of irreducibility. We will not know the end until the experiment is complete.

What I can do is take the stance these traditions describe: see clearly, act my part, and do not cling to the fleeting.

I am a witness. The world is the phenomena that arise based on the acts of 8 billion humans, intentional or not. With awareness, I see — and I do my best not to cling.

Three Case Studies in Maintenance: What Lasts, What Fails, and Why

Ise Grand Shrine, Mie Prefecture, Japan

We begin with the one that worked.

The Ise Grand Shrine in Mie Prefecture, Japan, has stood—in some form—for over two millennia. Not because it was built to last, but because it was built to be rebuilt. Every twenty years, the entire shrine is dismantled and reconstructed, a practice that began in 690 CE and continues today. The result is a structure in perfect condition, maintained not by repair but by renewal.

Two other systems came close to this kind of longevity. Neither made it. The contrast between what Ise got right and what Rome and Venice got wrong is the lesson.

---

Ise Grand Shrine: The One That Endured

The Inner Shrine was said to have been built around 4 BCE; the Outer Shrine around 500 CE.

The unique features that enabled this shrine to remain in perfect condition today include:

• The Tokowaka Concept (Eternal Youth and Renewal). Total reconstruction every 20 years, starting from 690 CE. By the 14th century, the original forest next to the shrine was depleted, and the shrine management had to source timber from elsewhere. In 1923, a 200-year management plan was established for the cypress forest; upon its completion, all lumber for rebuilding will be locally harvested. In the current 20-year rebuilding cycle—the 63rd, launched in May 2025—some of the timber will come from the shrine's own forest.

• A built-in knowledge transfer. The 20-year cycle allows apprentice carpenters to watch and practice hands-on alongside master carpenters. The apprentices will be ready in the next cycle as masters. A synchronicity between craftsmen and forest.

• Financing independent of government. The Jingu Shrine Management uses the 20 years between each rebuilding to raise funds: offerings from 8 to 14 million annual visitors, sales of amulets, private functions like corporate prayers, weddings, and blessings. Corporate donations make up a large percentage. The estimated budget for the current 63rd cycle is 57 billion yen.

---

Those That Almost Made It

The Familiae Aquarum of Rome

Rome had Ise's engineering ambition—but not its funding discipline. The difference shows in what one auditor found when he actually looked.

Frontinus didn't just suspect corruption—he measured it. When he took charge of Rome's water supply in 97 CE, he compared the volume of water entering the aqueducts at their sources against what actually arrived at the distribution tanks. The gap was enormous: roughly 10,000 quinariae unaccounted for across the system. The cause was fraud, and it ran both ways. His own water-men—the aquarii—were diverting public water into private pipes for a fee. "We have detected," he wrote, "the drawing of waters from public conduits for use by private persons." But the deeper rot was structural: private villas, shops, even "all establishments of unwholesome pleasure" had tapped the lines illegally, and the supervisors meant to stop it were either complicit or negligent. Frontinus documented every deficiency in De Aquaeductu, but his manuscript was a diagnosis, not a cure. The water kept flowing—until the funding, the workers, and the will to maintain it all ran dry.

The deficiencies are instructive:

• The water tax was meant to fund maintenance specifically, but it was collected by the state Treasury and never held in a separate "lock-box."

• Private villas bribed workers to puncture and divert water meant for public facilities—fountains and baths meant for all Romans.

• Because the aqueducts were exceptionally well built, the early years required little maintenance. Budgets for maintenance and recruitment of new apprentices were neglected. The experienced workers died off.

• · Emperors mandated "hereditary trades," producing unmotivated new workers.

• · In 330 CE, Constantine moved the capital from Rome to Constantinople, further reducing the population and skilled workforce.

• · In 410 CE, the Visigoths cut the aqueducts—already clogged from decades of neglect—bringing an end to a magnificent gravity-fed water system.

At its peak during the Pax Romana (27 BCE–170 CE), Rome's population exceeded a million people. The water system supplied an estimated 500,000 to 1 million liters of fresh water daily.

A curious legacy: the only aqueduct still functioning today feeds the Trevi Fountain—a site most tourists have visited without knowing it.

---

The Venetian Arsenal

Venice had Ise's skilled workforce—but not its renewal. The difference shows in who actually showed up for work.

The Arsenalotti's privileges were supposed to secure loyalty. Instead, they created a workforce that showed up on paper but not in the yards. By the late 16th century, the gap was staggering: in 1559, 2,183 masters were enrolled on the Arsenal's rosters, but a head count during a single week found only 960 actually came to work—less than 44 percent. Many masters spent their prime years in private shipyards where wages were higher, then returned to the Arsenal in old age to claim what amounted to a state pension. The records describe men in their eighties and nineties, "crippled or even completely blind," still being carried to the shipyards so they could collect their pay. The Republic had built a system of lifetime security. What it got was a system of lifetime entitlement—and a shipyard that increasingly existed on paper.

Just as Rome had its familiae aquarum, the Republic of Venice relied on the Arsenalotti—an elite, state-funded guild of specialized shipwrights, caulkers, and engineers housed inside the Venetian Arsenal. At its peak in the 15th and 16th centuries, the Arsenal employed up to 16,000 highly trained workers. The system was a marvel of proto-industrial efficiency: a proto-assembly line producing hull, rigging, oars, and weapons—one complete warship daily. The workforce received special privileges and lifetime employment, free housing, pensions, and tax-free wine. During off-hours, they provided bodyguard services, night watch, and fire-fighting.

The deficiencies that failed the system:

• Their privileges made them a politically powerful hereditary caste; later generations suffered from absenteeism.

• Theft of materials and Venetian economic downturn exacerbated the situation.

• Maritime trade shifted to the Atlantic.

• They resisted new ship designs to avoid changing their assembly line setup.

• The Serrata (Lock-in) of 1297 fixed the existing families as the hereditary class of elites, resulting in loss of new capital, new ideas, and new leaders.

• Political stability came at a cost: elites became landlords rather than merchants, losing the adventurous capital that had built the Arsenal.

• · By 1797, the arrival of Napoleon was met with a simple handover—a total surrender. The Great Council dissolved the Most Serene Republic of Venice.

---

The Budgeting Gap

When we propose a new hospital, we can estimate—from the maintenance records of hospitals with the same design and layout—what the roof, the operating theaters, and the HVAC will cost to maintain, starting in year three. The data exists.

What doesn't exist is the line item.

Instead, we wait until something breaks. A pane of floor-to-ceiling glass falls in a departure hall at KKIA, and then we inspect—what, all the glass walls?

This is not a knowledge problem. We know what maintenance costs. It is a budgeting problem: the money for upkeep is committed after failure rather than before it. New projects are visible and ribbon-cuttable; maintenance is invisible until it is urgent. And because the information is available and the line item is not, the gap is not one of ignorance.

"Perhaps it's time for a new airport?" a classmate remarked. It is a reasonable question, given how we currently budget. The observation is not the problem; it is a symptom of how we fund things.

The deeper fix is simple and hard: write the maintenance line item before the building opens.

---

So What Did We Learn?

Notwithstanding the differences in circumstance among the three case studies, several features mattered for the longevity and durability of infrastructure and services.

Funding and governance

• · Maintenance funding must be protected from general treasury raids.

• · Independent oversight and audit are non-negotiable.

Human capital

• Apprenticeship systems preserve tacit knowledge.

• Recognition of master craftsmen matters.

• Hereditary castes, however privileged, breed complacency.

Supply chains

• Secure raw material sources before you need them.

Culture

• The belief that "no breakdown is acceptable" must be shared by government and public alike.

---

A Modest Proposal

One structural problem remains: how do you reward people for preventing something that never happens? Ise solves this through religious devotion and a 1,300-year tradition. Most institutions cannot replicate that.

One possible approach to the danger of complacency—the "we'll fix it when it's required" attitude—is a form of Reverse Bonus Payment: a yearly bonus for no breakdown, increasing each year to a large payout at regular intervals of five years. This could begin after the initial "expected no repairs" period.

Just an idea. It could be applied to all jobs where "nothing happened" is what society wants: fire brigades, security services, and perhaps even public health.

Ise shows that renewal can be institutionalized. The question for our own infrastructure is whether we can build that discipline without a 1,300-year tradition behind us.

Buddha's Sayings - The Three Universal Marks.

 

Tsai Chih-Chung's "The Sayings of Buddha" begin with The Three Imprints of Truth. This is his wording for what is also called The Three Universal Characteristics, or The Three Marks of Existence.

(As discussed in my post "Kamma, Dukkha, and Rebirth: Three Pali Words Your English Dictionary Can't Hold." on 18 October 2026, words are the "finger" and not the "moon". Translation to English of the Pali Buddhist texts use a variety of fingers)

The First Universal Mark - Impermanence.

Impermanence (Anicca) can be said to be "Life is constantly changing". We might say that is just common sense. But the Buddha is teaching a deeper meaning.

We resist change by trying to make temporary things permanent. Both enjoyable (e.g. things we love) and unenjoyable (e.g. he cheated me in that business).

The Second Universal Mark - Dukkha.

These experiences of impermanence bring "unsatisfactory-ness" and "suffering" - either in the case of losing things that we enjoy or in having things that we don't enjoy.

In Tsai Chih-Chung's book, he calls this Mark "Nirvana Is Perfect Tranquility", which departs from the usual dukkha formulation - perhaps because Nirvana is "The Other Shore", the end of suffering. Perhaps he wanted to frame it more positively?

The Third Mark - The Non-self (Anatta)

To attempt to hold on to these impermanent things, we "label" them as good feelings, bad feelings, and neutral feelings. These acts of grasping the impermanent experiences create our memories, forming a constructed "self".

In the teachings, the sequence is:

vedanā (feeling-tone) → taṇhā (craving) → upādāna (clinging) → bhava (becoming) → the constructed "self."

When we understand impermanence and the suffering that grasping (desire) creates, the fleeting experiences simply pass by. When there is no holding, there is non-self (not 'no self').

With thanks to Emily Snow for the visual framing (find her on the 'Non-duality' Facebook group)