World Oil Scenario 2026

 

This article is a continuation of my Blog “World Oil Scenario”, URL htpps://naseemmahnavi.blogspot.com?2013/11/world-oil-scenario.html?m=1 published on November 30, 2013. The apprehensions mentioned then are not only coming true, but an ominous situation is arising. Let us get the facts together first.

Cost of Production

The cost to produce a barrel of crude oil varies significantly across the globe, primarily driven by the accessibility of the oil (onshore vs. offshore), the technology required (shale fracking vs. conventional pumping), and local tax or regulatory frameworks.

As of early 2026, here is how the production costs per barrel generally break down by country:

Country	Production & Operating Cost	Total (Inc. Capex & Taxes
Saudi Arabia	~$3.00	~$9.00
Iran	~$2.00	~$9.10
Iraq	~$2.20	~$10.50
Russia	~$3.00	~$19.20
U.S. (Non-Shale)	~$5.15	~$21.00
U.S. (Shale)	~$5.85	~$23.35
Canada	~$11.50	~$26.60
Nigeria	~$8.80	~$29.00
Brazil	~$9.45	~$35.00
United Kingdom	~$17.30	~$44.30

 With Brent crude oil currently trading around $95/bbl, almost all major producing nations are seeing healthy profit margins. However, for higher-cost producers like the UK, the margin is much thinner than for Saudi Arabia, which enjoys a nearly 90% profit margin on its production costs.

Global Oil Exports

The landscape of global oil exports has shifted significantly between 2005 and 2025. The most dramatic change is the rise of the United States, which moved from being a massive net importer in 2005 to one of the world’s leading crude oil exporters today.

Below is a comparison of net oil exports by country, highlighting the top players and the evolution of the market.

Top Net Oil Exporters: 2005 vs. 2025

Figures are approximate in millions of barrels per day (mb/d) based on historical records and recent 2025/2026 reporting.

Country	2005 Net Exports (Est.)	2025 Net Exports (Est.)	Trend
Saudi Arabia	~7.50 – 8.00	~7.50 – 8.00	Declining (OPEC+ cuts)
Russia	~4.50 – 5.00	~4.50 – 4.80	Stable/Slight Decline
United States	-10.00** (Net Importer)	~4.10 – 4.30	Massive Growth (Shale Revolution)
UAE	2.30 – 2.50	~2.70 – 2.90	Increasing
Canada	~1.30 – 1.50	~3.50 – 3.70	Significant Growth
Iraq	~1.40 – 1.60	~3.30 – 3.50	Doubled
Norway	~2.10 – 2.30	~1.50 – 1.70	Declining
Brazil	~0.10 (Minimal	~1.70 – 1.80	New Major Player

 

Key Market Shifts (2005–2025)

 The U.S. Transformation: In 2005, the U.S. was the world’s largest oil importer, relying heavily on the Middle East and Venezuela. By 2025, due to the hydraulic fracturing (fracking) boom, it has become a top-three global exporter of crude and refined products.

 The Rise of Guyana: Non-existent in the 2005 export market, Guyana has become a “wildcard” in the 2020s, with production and exports surging toward 1 million barrels per day.

 Consolidation of Power: As of 2025, five countries (USA, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and Iraq) produce nearly 50% of the world’s total oil supply.

 OPEC+ Influence: While Saudi Arabia remains the “swing producer,” its net exports have faced downward pressure in 2025 due to voluntary production cuts aimed at stabilizing prices amidst high non-OPEC production (from the US and Brazil).

Current 2025 Context

Global oil trade is currently impacted by geopolitical tensions in the Middle East and ongoing sanctions on Russian energy. While demand for oil remains high in developing economies like India, the transition toward electric vehicles and renewables is beginning to flatten the long-term growth curve for exports in advanced economies.

The crude oil market has evolved significantly between 2005 and 2025. While specific “selling prices” for every exporting country are rarely fixed (as most follow global benchmarks like Brent or WTI), the average annual prices and the premiums/discounts for major export blends provide a clear picture of the shift.

Below is a comparison of the average prices and key export benchmarks for both years.

Global Benchmarks (Annual Averages)

These serve as the “anchor” prices for almost all exporting countries. Most countries sell their oil at a slight discount or premium to these based on quality (API gravity and sulfur content).

Estimated Average Selling Prices by Key Exporting Countries Prices for specific countries are based on their primary export blends (e.g., Saudi Arabia’s Arab Light or Nigeria’s Bonny Light).

Exporting Country	Primary Export Blend	2005 Price (Avg)	2025 Price (Avg Est.)
Saudi Arabia	Arab Light	~$50.50	~$70.50
Russia	Urals	~$50.10	~$62.00 - $65.00
Nigeria	Bonny Light	~$55.60	~$71.50
Iraq	Basra Medium	~$48.20	~$67.50
UAE	Murban	~$53.80	~$71.00
Kuwait	Kuwait Export	~$49.50	~$68.80
Canada	Western Canadian Select	~$38.00	~$52.00 - $55.00
USA	WTI	~$56.49	~$65.39
Brent Crude	Global Standard	$54.38	$69.00 – $72.00
OPEC Basket	Member Average)	$50.64	$68.00 – $71.00

 

While the nominal price in 2025 is higher than in 2005, it is actually lower when adjusted for inflation. $54 in 2005 has the purchasing power of roughly $85–$90 today. Therefore, oil exporters are technically receiving less “real” value per barrel in 2025 than they did during the 2005 boom. The disparity really lies in the profit margin which is about USD 65/barrel for the Middle Eastern nations it is only about USD 45 for USA and 25 for UK. It could cause serious heartburn in certain circles.

Production 2005, 2025

The landscape of global oil production has shifted dramatically since 2005, primarily driven by the “Shale Revolution” in North America and shifting geopolitical dynamics in the Middle East and Russia.

In 2005, the world produced roughly 82 million barrels per day (mb/d). By early 2026, that figure has climbed to approximately 106–108 mb/d.

Comparative Production: 2005 vs. 2026

Below is a comparison of the top producers from two decades ago versus today’s output (in mb/d).

Country	2005 Production	2026 Production (Est.	Change (%)
United States	5.18	13.58	+162%
Russia	9.23	9.87	+7%
Saudi Arabia	9.58	9.51	-1%
Canada	2.37	4.94	+108%
China	3.63	4.34	+20%
Iraq	1.83	4.39	+140%
Brazil	1.72	3.75	+118%

 

1. The American Resurgence: In 2005, the U.S. was considered a declining oil power, heavily reliant on imports. The advent of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) completely reversed this. The U.S. has more than doubled its output, moving from the #3 spot in 2005 to the undisputed #1 today.

2. The Rise of “New” Giants (Canada, Brazil, Iraq)

Canada:  Production has more than doubled due to the maturation of the Oil Sands projects in Alberta.

Iraq: Following years of conflict, Iraq successfully rehabilitated its infrastructure, jumping from under 2 mb/d in 2005 to consistently over 4 mb/d.

Brazil: Huge offshore “Pre-Salt” discoveries have turned Brazil into a top-tier global player, a status it did not have in 2005.

3. OPEC’s Changing Role

 In 2005, Saudi Arabia was the clear “swing producer” with the highest capacity. While it remains a central pillar of the global market, its share of total production has slightly decreased as non-OPEC countries (like the US, Brazil, and Canada) have captured most of the global demand growth.

 Summary Table: Global Perspective

Metric	2005	2026 (Projected)
Total Global Output	~82 mb/d	~107 mb/d
Top Producer	Saudi Arabia	United States
Total OPEC Share	~40%~$54/bbl	~36%
Oil Price (Annual Avg	~$54/bbl	~$75-85/bbl (current range)

 

Reserves

As of 2026, the global landscape of oil reserves remains a mix of massive conventional deposits (like those in the Middle East) and technically challenging “unconventional” resources like oil sands and shale.

While Venezuela holds the largest total “proven” reserves, much of its oil is ultra-heavy and difficult to extract. Conversely, the United States has revolutionized its position over the last decade through shale (tight oil) development.

Top 10 Countries by Proven Oil Reserves (2026)

The following table reflects the most recent data from the OPEC Annual Statistical Bulletin (released April 29, 2026 and energy monitoring agencies.

Rank	Country	Reserves (Billion Barrels)	Primary Oil Type
1	Venezuela	~303.8	Ultra-heavy crude / Bitumen
2	Saudi Arabia	~267.2	Light/Medium Conventional
3	Iran	~208.6	Conventional
4	Canada	~170.3	Oil Sands (Athabasca)
5	Iraq	~145.0	Conventional
6	UAE	~113.0	Conventional
7	Kuwait	~101.5	Conventional
8	Russia	~80.0	Conventional & Tight (Shale)
9	United States	~74.0	Shale (Tight Oil) & Conventional
10	Libya	~48.4	Conventional
11	China	~27.5	Conventional & Tight (Shale)
12	Brazil	~15.5	Offshore

 

Key Insights on Shale and Unconventional Reserves

 The “Shale Revolution” (United States): While the U.S. ranks 9^th in proven reserves, it is often the world’s #1 or #2 producer. This is because “proven reserves” only count oil that is currently profitable and technically feasible to extract. The U.S. has massive “technically recoverable” shale resources (estimated at over 200+ billion barrels) that are not yet classified as “proven reserves” because they require higher market prices or better technology to move into the “proven” category.

 Canada’s Oil Sands:  Canada’s ranking is consistently high (4^th) because it includes the Alberta oil sands. Like shale, this is “unconventional” and requires significant energy and water to process, making it more expensive than Middle Eastern crude.

 The Russian Arctic & Bazhenov Shale: Russia holds the world’s largest shale oil formation, the Bazhenov Shale. Estimates suggest it could contain upwards of 75 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil, which could drastically jump Russia’s ranking if the technology and geopolitical climate allow for its full development.

 Accessibility vs. Volume: There is a major difference between having oil and being able to sell it. Venezuela has the most oil, but due to its density and the country’s infrastructure challenges, much of it remains in the ground. Saudi Arabia’s reserves are considered the most “valuable” because they are light, close to the surface, and very cheap to extract.

Note: Figures for “proven reserves” fluctuate annually based on new discoveries, technological advancements in fracking/extraction, and—crucially—the current price of oil, which determines if a reserve is “economically” recoverable.

US Energy export to EU

As of mid-2026, the United States has solidified its position as the primary energy partner for the European Union, a shift accelerated by the 2022 energy crisis and recent Middle Eastern supply shocks.

Current Landscape (May 2026)

The US now provides approximately “one-fifth” of the EU’s total energy imports, covering natural gas, crude oil, and refined products.

1. Natural Gas & LNG

The US has become the dominant supplier of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) to the EU, largely replacing pipeline gas from Russia.

 Market Share: US LNG accounts for nearly 60% of all EU LNG imports and roughly 28% of the EU’s total natural gas supply.

 Trade Volume: Between January and April 2026, over 60% of all US LNG exports were directed to the EU and the UK.

 Strategic Shift: A trade agreement signed in July 2025 committed the EU to importing up to $250 billion in US energy annually over a three-year period to stabilize reserves.

2. Crude Oil & Refined Products

The US has also surged in the liquid fuels market, recently becoming a net exporter of crude oil for the first time since World War II.

 Crude Oil: US crude now represents about 15% of the EU market. This growth accounts for more than one-third of the volume lost following the decline in Russian oil imports.

 Diesel & Refined Fuels: Diesel exports to Europe have seen a massive spike, doubling in early 2026 to reach roughly 396,000 barrels per day.

Export Surge: In May 2026, total US fuel exports hit record highs (over 8.2 million barrels per day) as European buyers sought to offset supply disruptions caused by the recent conflict in Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

3. Key Challenges & Market Drivers

Factor	Impact on EU-US Trade
Iran Conflict	The 2026 “Iran gas shock” and Strait of Hormuz closure forced Europe to lean even more heavily on US seaborne supplies
Price Volatility	Global prices remain high ($95–$105/barrel range), providing record cash flow for US producers but straining European consumers
Infrastructure	While US gas is flexible (shipped by sea), Europe remains exposed to the higher costs of the global spot market compared to old long-term pipeline contracts.
Domestic Pressure	High fuel prices in the US (averaging over $4.50/gallon) have led to political debates in Washington regarding potential export caps to protect domestic consumers

  Strategic Outlook

While the EU is more dependent on the US than ever, it is also diversifying with increased pipeline flows from Norway and Algeria to avoid replacing one single-source dependency with another. However, US LNG remains the “baseload” of Europe’s energy security for the foreseeable future.

 

What will happen if Middle East oil and gas supply are permanently impaired

The prospect of a permanent impairment to Middle East oil and gas supplies—whether due to large-scale infrastructure destruction or sustained blockade—would trigger the most significant restructuring of the global economy since the Industrial Revolution.

Given current geopolitical tensions in 2026, including recent strikes on key facilities like Qatar’s Ras Laffan and Saudi Arabia’s Ras Tanura, here is the likely trajectory of such a permanent shift:

1. Global Economic “Shock Treatment”

A permanent loss of the 20 million barrels per day (roughly 20% of global supply) that flows through the Strait of Hormuz would cause immediate and structural inflation.

 Price Explosion: Experts estimate oil would likely soar past $150–$200 per barrel and stay there, as “easy” oil from the Gulf is replaced by high-cost alternatives (shale, deep-water, or synthetic fuels).

 The “Energy Tax”:  For importing nations, this acts as a massive, permanent tax on growth. Manufacturing costs in Asia and heating/cooling costs in Europe and North America would reset at much higher levels, likely triggering a prolonged global recession.

2. Radical Energy Realignment

The vacuum left by Middle Eastern supply would force a “wartime” mobilization toward energy independence:

 Hyper-Acceleration of Renewables: Solar, wind, and nuclear energy would shift from “green goals” to “national security imperatives.” Any remaining regulatory hurdles for nuclear power would likely be dismantled to ensure grid stability.

 Coal’s Resurgence: ]In the short-to-medium term, many nations would likely revert to coal to bridge the electricity gap, potentially setting back global climate targets by decades.

 Western Supply Dominance: The U.S., Brazil, and Guyana would become the primary arbiters of the remaining global oil supply, drastically increasing their geopolitical leverage.

3. Geopolitical Power Shift

The “Permanent Impairment” would fundamentally change the map of global influence:

 Decline of the Petrodollar: The strategic logic that has underpinned the U.S.-Middle East relationship for 80 years would evaporate. The U.S. would likely reduce its military footprint in the region, focusing instead on protecting Atlantic and Pacific trade routes.

 Regional Instability: Without oil and gas revenues, many Middle Eastern states would lose the ability to fund their social contracts (subsidized food, fuel, and employment). This could lead to widespread civil unrest and the potential collapse of rentier states.

 China’s Pivot: As the world’s largest importer of Middle Eastern energy, China would be forced to aggressively secure overland energy pipelines from Russia and Central Asia, potentially leading to a more rigid “bloc-based” global economy.

4. Supply Chain and Logistics

The disruption isn’t just about the fuel; it’s about the byproducts:

 Fertilizer and Food: Natural gas is a primary feedstock for nitrogen-based fertilizers. A permanent shortage would lead to a global food security crisis, as fertilizer prices would remain permanently high, making modern industrial farming far more expensive.

 Petrochemicals: Everything from medical plastics to electronics components relies on oil-derived chemicals. We would see a forced pivot toward bio-plastics and recycled materials.

Summary Table: Short-term vs. Long-term Effects

Impact Area	Short-term (1-2 Years	Long-term (10+ Years
Oil Prices	$200+ per barrel	Stable at high “cost-of-production” levels
Global GDP	Severe contraction/Recession	Slow growth due to higher energy baseline
Energy Mix	Panic-buying of coal/wood	Dominance of Nuclear & Renewables
Food Security	High risk of famine in poor nations	Transition to high-

 

Impact on Israel

While the rest of the world would face a devastating energy deficit, Israel’s position in a "permanently impaired" Middle East would be unique—marked by extreme domestic resilience but severe geopolitical and economic isolation.

Based on the current status of the regional conflict in 2026, here is how Israel would be affected:

1. The "Energy Island" Advantage

Unlike its neighbors, Israel has spent the last decade preparing for "energy independence." In a scenario where Gulf oil and gas are gone, Israel becomes one of the few stable energy producers in the region.

 Offshore Gas Fortress: Israel’s three major fields—Leviathan, Tamar, and Karish—provide more than enough natural gas to power its entire domestic electricity grid and desalination plants. As long as these offshore platforms remain physically protected, Israel can maintain its "lights on" status while global grids fail.

 Desalination Stability: Because Israel’s water supply is almost entirely dependent on energy-intensive desalination, its domestic gas reserves are literally its lifeline. A global oil collapse wouldn't necessarily lead to a water crisis in Israel, provided the gas infrastructure holds.

2. The Crude Oil Vulnerability

While Israel is self-sufficient in gas, it is highly vulnerable in crude oil. Israel produces almost no oil and relies on imports from countries like Azerbaijan (via Turkey), Kazakhstan, and Brazil.

 Import Costs: Even if these countries continue to sell to Israel, the global price of oil (projected at $200+) would shatter the Israeli transport sector and military budget.

 The Strategic Reserve: Israel relies on a 1975 agreement where the U.S. helps maintain its strategic oil reserves. In a permanent impairment scenario, the U.S. might be forced to prioritize its own domestic needs, leaving Israel to find extremely expensive alternative suppliers.

3. Economic and Diplomatic Realignment

 The Export Leverage: Currently, Israel exports gas to Egypt and Jordan. In a world without Gulf energy, this gas becomes infinitely more valuable. This could either:

   A) Strengthen regional ties as neighbors become desperate for Israeli energy.

   B) Make Israel a "high-value target" for regional actors who view its energy abundance as a strategic threat or a prize to be seized.

 Industrial Shift: Israel’s tech and manufacturing sectors would face a massive price hike for raw materials (plastics, chemicals) derived from oil, potentially shifting the economy even more heavily toward software and high-value defense tech.

4. Heightened Military Risk

A permanent impairment of Gulf supply almost certainly implies a high-intensity regional war.

 The "Targeted Platforms" Risk: As seen in recent 2026 reports, the “Leviathan” and “Karish” fields are primary targets for Iranian and Hezbollah precision missiles. If these fields are permanently damaged alongside the Gulf’s, Israel’s "energy island" advantage disappears instantly, throwing the country into a total blackout and water crisis.

 Defense Spending: Israel would be forced to permanently allocate a massive portion of its GDP to the "Iron Beam" (laser defense) and naval protection of its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

Summary: The Great Decoupling

Factor	Impact on Israel
Electricity	Resilient (via domestic gas)
Water	Stable (gas-powered desalination)
Transport	Increased Leverage (as a rare regional energy exporter)
Diplomacy	Increased Leverage (as a rare regional energy exporter)
Security	Extreme Risk (offshore platforms become the nation's "Achilles' heel")

 

In short, Israel would likely survive better than most in the short term due to its gas, but it would be living in a permanent state of siege, defending its platforms as the most vital strategic assets in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Conclusion

With the above background in view, it is not difficult to understand the motives behind the recent political and military moves worldwide.

The encouragement of Ukraine to engage in a protracted war with Russia has resulted in Europe’s Russian energy supplies being cut off and search for new sources. USA immediately came forward with its surplus oil and gas to the rescue of Europe and is harvesting generous profits.

The turmoil in the middle east and closure of the Strait of Hormuz has resulted in further gains for the US. To a shortsighted American, it may appear that the destruction of Middle eastern energy sources would result in American domination of the world. But the above analysis shows otherwise. If things keep moving the way they are, Capitalism and its military alliances may be the biggest losers. What the American people do to their leaders is really up to them.

 

 

The First Religious Book

 

Question: Which religious book was compiled fully and distributed publicly first?

Gemini’s answer:

Determining which religious book was “compiled fully and distributed publicly first” depends on how you define “compiled” and “distributed.” Because early religious texts were often written by hand and circulated locally for centuries, there isn’t a single “winner” without clarifying the criteria.

Here is the breakdown based on different historical milestones:

1.      The Quran: First to be Fully Compiled and Formally Distributed

In terms of a major world religion officially gathering its entire scripture into a single, standardized volume and distributing it as a matter of state policy, the Quran holds the strongest claim.

 * Compilation: While the Quran was revealed over 23 years (610–632 CE), it was compiled into a single book (a mushaf) shortly after the Prophet Muhammad’s death.

 * Standardization & Distribution: Under the third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan (c. 650 CE), a single authoritative version was produced. Several identical copies were professionally scribed and sent to the major centers of the Islamic world (like Mecca, Medina, and Damascus) to ensure uniformity.

 * Why it stands out: Unlike the Bible, which took centuries to “close” its list of books (canon), the Quran was a fixed, singular volume within decades of its inception.

2. The Bible: First to be Mass-Produced via Printing

If “distributed publicly” means mass-produced for the general population to own, the Christian Bible was the first.

 * The Gutenberg Bible (1455 CE): This was the first major book printed with movable type in the West. This revolutionized distribution, moving scripture from the exclusive hands of monks and kings into the public sphere.

 * Ancient Codices: Before the printing press, the Bible existed as “Codices” (like the Codex Sinaiticus, 4^th century CE). However, these were massive, expensive, hand-written projects intended for specific churches or emperors, not for wide public “distribution.”

3. The Diamond Sutra: The Oldest Dated Printed Book

If we define “book” as a printed physical object, a Buddhist text actually beats both the Bible and the Quran.

·       The Diamond Sutra (868 CE): This is the world’s oldest known dated, printed book. It was produced using woodblock printing in China. While it is a single sutra (not a “full compilation” of all Buddhist teachings), it represents the earliest technological effort to distribute religious text through mechanical reproduction.

Summary

Milestone 1: First state-mandated distribution of a fixed canon

 Religious Text: The Quran (Uthmanic Codex)

Approximate date: 650 CE

Milestone 2: Oldest dated printed religious book

Religious Text: The Diamond Sutra  Approximate date: 868 CE

Milestone 3: First mass-distributed printed book (Western press)

Religious Text: The Gutenberg Bible

Approximate date: 1455 CE

Milestone 4: Oldest surviving complete manuscripts (Handwritten)

Religious Text: Codex Sinaiticus (Bible)

Approximate date: 4^th Century CE

Blogger’s note:  Gemini has missed out on the fact that every revelation narrated by prophet Muhammad was quickly memorized by hundreds of his followers in addition to being recorded by scribes.  At the time of his death, there were thousands of huffaz who had committed every verse of the Quran to memory and were living books. In early 2026, the number of huffaz (memorizers of Quran) worldwide is estimated between 10 and 15 million.

 

 

 

First University

 

Question: 

When were the first madrassah and the first university built?

Gemini’s Answer:

Defining the "first" of these institutions depends on how you distinguish between a religious school, a center of higher learning, and a modern degree-granting university.

The First Madrasah

The term madrasah simply means "school" in Arabic. While informal learning circles (halqas) existed in mosques from the birth of Islam in the 7th century, the first "formal" madrasahs—defined as purpose-built buildings with state-funded teachers and dormitories—appeared later.

 * Informal Origins (7th Century): The Suffa at the Prophet's Mosque in Medina is often cited as the spiritual precursor to the madrasah system.

 * The Formal System (11th Century): The Nizamiyya of Baghdad, founded in 1065 CE by the Seljuk vizier Nizam al-Mulk, is widely considered the first of the "great madrasahs." It set the standard for institutionalized education, providing free tuition, food, and lodging for students.

The First University

The definition of a "university" is often a point of friendly debate among historians.

Institution	Location	Date Founded	Status
University of Al-Qarawiyyin	Fez, Morocco	859 CE	Recognized by Guinness World Records and UNESCO as the oldest existing, continually operating educational institution in the world. Founded by Fatima al-Fihri, it began as a mosque and evolved into a major center for sciences and religion.
University of Bologna	Bologna, Italy	1088 CE	Often called the “first university” in the Western sense because it was the first to use the term universitas and operate as a corporation of students and masters independent of religious orders.
Taxila / Nalanda	Ancient India	5th Century CE	These were massive centres of higher learning (Taxila in modern-day Pakistan; Nalanda in India) that functioned like universities centuries before the others, though they did not survive to the modern era.

The Verdict

 * First Madrasah: The Nizamiyya in Baghdad (1065 CE) is the most famous first "formal" madrasah.

 * First University: Al-Qarawiyyin (859 CE) holds the title for the oldest operating institution, while Bologna (1088 CE) is the first to fit the specific European legal definition of a university.

Note: It’s worth noting that Al-Qarawiyyin was founded by a woman, Fatima al-Fihri, who used her entire inheritance to create a legacy of learning that has lasted over 1,100 years.

 

 

 

 

 

Boy’s Names in England and Wales

 Recently, I came across a list of the 20 most popular names of boys born in 1924 in England and Wales. I was surprised that the most common names 50 years ago when I was there for higher studies where all missing. There was no John, David, William, Mathew, Henry, Peter, Paul, Luke, Mark, Thomas etc.

To my surprise the top name was Muhammad. How come that 50 years after I have left that country my name has become so popular. Let me clarify here that in many parts of the world, the name Muhammad is a prefix to indicate that one is a Muslim, rather than a first name. Mohammed Musa Khan is commonly known as Musa, and the people in the multireligious community know that he is a Muslim.

So, I decided to check the latest and previous records of male infant names in England and Wales for the last 100 years. In 2024 there were a total of 594,677 live child births of which nearly half or 298,000 were male i.e. boys. Of these 5,721 were named Muhammad, 1,760 were Mohammad and 986 were Mohammed. Even the traditional biblical names were duplicated with their Arabic equivalents such as Ibrahim for Abraham, Yusuf for Joseph, Musa for Moses etc. Jesus did not figure even in the top 100.

Notes:

1.     More than 50% of the births were to parents outside of a marriage or civil partnership.

2.     There is no data for transgender births. They are registered as either male or female.

 

 

CIA and Terrorism

Gemini was asked about CIA's involvement in world terrorism. It answewd as follows. The question of the CIA’s involvement in "terrorism" is a complex intersection of Cold War history, clandestine operations, and unintended consequences. While the CIA’s official mandate is to combat terrorism, various critics, historians, and international bodies have pointed to specific operations that they argue meet the definition of state-sponsored terrorism or have directly led to the rise of terrorist groups. To understand the scope of this involvement, it is helpful to look at three distinct categories: 1. "Blowback": Unintended Consequences The term "blowback" was actually coined by the CIA to describe the negative, unforeseen consequences of a covert operation. * The Mujahideen (Afghanistan): During the 1980s, the CIA funneled billions through Operation Cyclone to support Afghan rebels fighting the Soviet Union. While the CIA maintains it only supported indigenous Afghan fighters, many of the radicalized "Afghan-Arabs" who joined the fight eventually formed the core of Al-Qaeda. * The Contras (Nicaragua): In the 1980s, the CIA backed the Contras against the Sandinista government. The Contras were frequently accused of using "terrorist tactics" against civilians, including the destruction of health clinics and schools. 2. State-Sponsored Regime Change Historians often cite CIA-led coups as examples of political violence that destabilized regions, sometimes creating power vacuums filled by extremist groups. | Operation | Target | Outcome | |---|---|---| | Operation Ajax (1953) | Iran (PM Mossadegh) | Reinstalled the Shah; fueled the anti-Western sentiment that led to the 1979 Islamic Revolution. | | PBSUCCESS (1954) | Guatemala (Pres. Árbenz) | Led to decades of civil war and state-sponsored violence against indigenous populations. | | Bay of Pigs (1961) | Cuba (Fidel Castro) | Failed invasion using CIA-trained exiles; led to increased tensions and the Cuban Missile Crisis. | 3. Controversial Counter-Terrorism Tactics Following the 9/11 attacks, the CIA’s methods came under intense international scrutiny for violating human rights laws. * Enhanced Interrogation: The 2014 Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture detailed methods like waterboarding and sleep deprivation used at "black sites" (secret prisons). Critics argue these methods were not only illegal but also served as a powerful recruitment tool for groups like ISIS. * Targeted Killings (Drones): The use of armed drones to eliminate high-value targets in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia has been criticized for "collateral damage" (civilian deaths), which international legal experts argue can constitute war crimes or acts of terror in the eyes of local populations. The Official Stance The CIA and the U.S. government reject the label of "terrorism," arguing that: * Legal Authority: Their actions are authorized by the President and overseen by Congressional committees. * Mission: Their primary role is Counter-Terrorism—collecting intelligence to prevent attacks like 9/11 and dismantling global networks. * Prohibitions: Executive Order 12333 explicitly prohibits the CIA from engaging in assassinations (though "targeted killings" of combatants are legally distinguished from assassination by the U.S. government). > Important Note: In the world of intelligence, one person's "freedom fighter" is often another's "terrorist." The CIA’s involvement usually falls into the gray area of Covert Action, which is designed to achieve foreign policy goals while maintaining "plausible deniability." > Would you like me to look into a specific region, such as Latin America or the Middle East, to see how these operations affected those areas over the long term?

Gemini on Ranking People

 I asked Gemini “How can AI compare the intelligence of a group of people and rank them?” Here is the answer.

Comparing and ranking human intelligence with AI is a complex and highly controversial topic. While AI can analyze data to create rankings based on specific, predefined criteria, it cannot truly measure or understand the multifaceted nature of human intelligence. Here's a breakdown of how it could be approached, along with the significant ethical issues involved.

How an AI System Could Rank People

An AI system would need to be trained on a massive dataset to identify patterns and rank individuals based on a specific, narrow definition of "intelligence." It would not be able to measure something as broad as general intelligence but could evaluate performance on specific tasks or against a set of predetermined metrics.

 * Data Collection: The system would need a wealth of data about each person. This could include information from resumes (education, work experience), performance on tests (like IQ tests or skill assessments), and even behavioral data from things like online activity or job interviews. For example, AI can analyze video interviews for specific keywords, tone of voice, and even facial expressions.

 * Feature Engineering: An AI model would need "features" to analyze. These are the specific metrics it would use to make its comparisons. Examples include:

   * Academic Achievement: Grades, degrees from specific universities, or test scores.

   * Skill Proficiency: Performance on coding challenges, design portfolios, or other practical tests.

   * Problem-Solving Speed: The time it takes to complete a puzzle or solve a logical reasoning problem.

 * Algorithm and Ranking: Once the data is in place, the AI would use a machine learning algorithm to weigh these features and create a ranking. A simple algorithm might give more weight to a higher GPA, while a more complex one could look for correlations between certain skills and successful performance in a specific role.

For instance, in a corporate hiring scenario, an AI could be trained on data from successful employees to identify the most common traits and skills. It would then rank new job applicants based on how closely their resumes, test results, and interview performance align with those of the "model" employees.

🚩 Major Ethical Implications

Using AI to rank people based on intelligence is fraught with ethical dangers. The biggest concerns revolve around bias, transparency, and the reduction of human worth.

 * Algorithmic Bias: AI systems are only as good as the data they're trained on. If the historical data is biased, the AI will learn and amplify those biases. For example, an AI trained on hiring data from a male-dominated industry might learn to favor male applicants, unintentionally discriminating against women. This can perpetuate societal inequalities.

 * The "Black Box" Problem: Many AI models, especially deep learning networks, are "black boxes." This means their decision-making processes are not easily understandable by humans. If an AI ranks someone lower, it can be nearly impossible to explain why, which raises significant issues of fairness and accountability.

 * Oversimplification of Intelligence: Human intelligence is incredibly complex and includes creativity, emotional intelligence, critical thinking, and social skills. An AI can only measure what it's been explicitly programmed to look for, which would likely be a very narrow, data-driven definition of intelligence. It would miss the nuances that are often most important in human interactions and problem-solving.

 * Loss of Human Dignity and Autonomy: Reducing a person's worth to a single, AI-generated number can have a dehumanizing effect. It removes the human element of evaluation and judgment, potentially leading to a society where people are sorted and categorized by an opaque, automated system.

The I in AI

 

The advent of AI demonstrates the zenith of the evolutionary process. Just like high precision machines are built using comparatively lesser precision machines, more and more powerful computers and compact data storage devices are built using equipment and software of the previous generation.

Thanks to the human quality of not being jealous to one’s own creations, we have produced machine that can lift tremendous weights, travel at very fast speed and acquire data, calculate, and write it out much faster than us. We are proud of them.

The usefulness of artificial intelligence is undeniable. The logical process of searching data related to a topic with discernment and presenting it in a well-organized format and grammatically correct language is a great help to the process of learning.

The icing on the cake is that AI machines have the capacity of self-learning and reprogramming in the light of the data they acquire on instruction of others. By developing computer coding ability, they are to an extent replacing their own masters and creators.

The other and equally serious concern is whether or not some sort of bias can be built into an AI program and whether or not it can identify and nullify it in due course.

Not many people know that much of the islamophobia experienced in the Christian world during the past quarter century was the result of faulty Arabic, Persian and Urdu to English translation software developed by Microsoft through subcontract to Indians who embedded anti-Islamic bias into the programs.

It is very likely that a number of Israeli agents proficient in coding may have infiltrated into the Silicon Valley in order to ensure the AI programs being developed are biased in favour of Israeli genocidal theocracy.

There are also apprehensions that as the artificially intelligent computers learn all the tricks of human trade, and start running most of the state, industrial, commercial, educational, health and military systems, they may unilaterally decide to do away with the less efficient human beings. It would be a behaviour very similar to human conduct.

I see a silver lining in the clouds of AI. Human feelings such as love, ambition, hatred, greed, lust, and conditions such as pleasure, pain, and weakness have a significant role in human decisions which machines do not have, and hence are supposed to take purely impartial decisions.

Although apparently, machines do not have any such feelings, we do not know weather analytical trends resembling feelings can be developed by self-learning computers. What we do know is that an over-heated chip can send the wrong signals. It is, therefore, necessary to constantly monitor the response of every artificially intelligent machine to critical inputs and have emergency protocols that can safely and systematically turn them off for human intervention.

Casualties in Gaza and Israel.

Gemini search on casualties in Gaza and Israel since 7 Oct 2023.

 According to various sources, the casualty figures for the conflict in Gaza and Israel since October 7, 2023, are as follows:

In Gaza:

 * Total deaths: The number of reported deaths varies, with figures ranging from over 62,000 to more than 76,000. This includes those confirmed killed and those missing and presumed dead.

 * Wounded: More than 156,000 people have been injured.

 * Children and women: Nearly half of the casualties are reported to be women and children. A study published in The Lancet estimated that a significant portion of the deaths from traumatic injuries were women, children, and the elderly.

 * Indirect deaths: It is noted that the total death toll could be significantly higher when considering "indirect" deaths from factors such as disease, malnutrition, and lack of medical care.

In Israel:

 * Total deaths: The death toll from the October 7 attacks has been revised by Israeli officials to 1,139 people. This figure includes both civilians and security forces.

 * Wounded: At least 8,730 people have been injured.

Additional Information:

 * West Bank: There have also been casualties in the occupied West Bank, with reports of nearly 1,000 Palestinians killed and over 7,300 injured.

 * Journalists and Aid Workers: The conflict has also resulted in a significant number of casualties among journalists and humanitarian aid workers.

ICC, ICJ and Israel

 Topic search by GEMINI.

South Africa has brought a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), while the International Criminal Court (ICC) has also been involved in a separate investigation related to the conflict in Palestine. It is important to distinguish between these two international legal bodies.

International Court of Justice (ICJ)

 * The Case: On December 29, 2023, South Africa filed an application with the ICJ, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, accusing Israel of violating its obligations under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

 * Allegations: South Africa's complaint alleges that Israel's military actions in Gaza demonstrate a genocidal intent against the Palestinian people, citing a pattern of conduct that includes killing, causing serious bodily and mental harm, and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction.

 * ICJ's Role: The ICJ hears disputes between states and its judgments are legally binding. South Africa invoked its standing as a signatory to the Genocide Convention, which creates an erga omnes obligation, meaning all state parties have a common interest in preventing genocide.

 * Provisional Measures: South Africa requested the court to issue provisional measures, which are emergency orders to prevent further harm while the court considers the full merits of the case. On January 26, 2024, the ICJ issued a ruling on these measures.

 * ICJ's Judgment (Provisional Measures): The ICJ did not order a complete ceasefire. However, it did order Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of acts that could fall under the Genocide Convention. This included ordering Israel to:

   * Prevent and punish any incitement to genocide.

   * Take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance.

   * Preserve evidence related to the allegations of genocide.

   * Submit a report to the court on all measures taken to give effect to this order.

The ICJ's ruling found it "plausible" that Israel's actions could amount to genocide, but this is not a final determination on the merits of the case, which is ongoing and is expected to take years.

International Criminal Court (ICC)

 * The Investigation: The ICC, which prosecutes individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, has had an ongoing investigation into the "Situation in the State of Palestine" since March 2021.

 * Jurisdiction: The ICC's jurisdiction was accepted by the State of Palestine, which became a state party to the Rome Statute in 2015. This allows the court to investigate alleged crimes committed in the Palestinian territories, including Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, since June 13, 2014, regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator.

 * Arrest Warrants: In November 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for senior Hamas leaders and then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Israeli Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant. The warrants for the Israeli officials were on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including "starvation of civilians as a method of warfare" and "willfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health."

 * Relationship to the ICJ Case: It is important to note that the ICC and the ICJ are separate and distinct institutions. The ICJ case is a dispute between states (South Africa v. Israel) regarding the interpretation and application of a treaty. The ICC investigation is a criminal proceeding against individuals for alleged international crimes.