Game changing technologies?

[quarky]

Several emerging technologies, as well as emerging global threats, have seriously altered the realities of what it means to be a nation, and how a nation defends itself. Perhaps it is a cliche, but the paradigm is surely shifting.

Unrelated changes are conspiring to congeal and alter the way we approach the future. This haphazard post, hopefully, will open a dialog.

1. Box-cutters. 9/11 changed war. Military muscle may be getting obsolete.

2. Global economic collapse, coupled with the rise of corporations without countries, as well as new rules in the U.S. concerning unlimited funding of campaigns, have blurred the lines between nations. Business as usual, in regard to wars, has the added threat of bankrupting once powerful nations.
Economics has become the new threat, as evidenced by China's hold on the U.S.

3. The rise of the drones has given new potential to small players, including individuals, who can potentially run their own surveillance and aggressive agendas.

4. Cyber security is quickly becoming the biggest weakness in the old guard.
As more and more defense is dependent on cyber tech, the vulnerability of that tech becomes more obvious.

5. Climate change and greenhouse gas emissions has put us all in the same boat. Yet, geoengineering, which may become essential, will require some sort of global governing body. This will be interesting, and as of now, there is nothing in place to address this. Cooperation will be essential, and it will further blur the artificial political barriers.

6. Satellite technology has become essential, and yet, in terms of defense, the old rules don't seem to apply.


The world is changing at breakneck speed, yet, there doesn't seem to be any consensus of opinion on how we proceed from here. Its as though its all unrelated, sub-conscious blundering ahead. I remain optimistically cautious, but would enjoy to hear other's thoughts on the subject.

 

[Merton]

3. The rise of the drones has given new potential to small players, including individuals, who can potentially run their own surveillance and aggressive agendas.

The amount of individual power conferred by ever-advancing technology is very scary, but I'm not sure there's a whole lot one can do about the technology aspect of it. I think all we can hope for is to achieve a kind of philosophical enlightenment (better social organization?) so people don't want to use their power to destructive ends. Of course, I was always told to hope in one hand and **** in the other...

The world is changing at breakneck speed, yet, there doesn't seem to be any consensus of opinion on how we proceed from here. Its as though its all unrelated, sub-conscious blundering ahead. I remain optimistically cautious, but would enjoy to hear other's thoughts on the subject.

Maybe it's just my stupendously low opinion of people or a fact about politics necessarily lagging behind technology, but I think this "blundering" is the main problem; we are reactive, not proactive. Not to get too much into it, but I think that our current level of technology demands a change in our economic systems. When are we going to catch up to this? And, when we finally do, will technology have changed enough to demand another change?

 

[Zax63]

The thing I think about the most is that advancing technologies will remove most opportunities for employment. Between robotics, artificial intelligence, bioengineering, nano technology, and 3D printers the bulk of humanity will simply be incapable of doing anything that can't be done better by machines.

In my dreams this brings on a utopia where there is plenty for everyone* and people can pursue their interests without financial concerns. In my nightmares I see the gap between wealthy and poor opening to ridiculous levels where the poor(80% of the population?) either live on whatever crumbs the wealthy are willing to give, or have little choice but to enter into near slavery to the wealthy if they don't want to starve.

This isn't something that will likely be here in the next decade but I would be surprised if it were not substantially true within 50 years. If it is simply allowed to gradually come about without thinking about the big picture then I think the nightmare scenario will be far more likely than the dream one.


*Within reason, some resources are still limited. Obviously not everyone can live in a beach front mansion with 1,000 acres of ground.

 

[quarky]

It is ironic, in the U.S., at least, that there is so much rhetoric about jobs. Toil is gradually being eliminated, which is a rational goal, yet, there is little rejoicing to be had. People evidently need to stay busy, and they need to make money.

There seems to be little in the way of social movements that might address the end of work, and its implications. The growing divide between the haves and have-nots should be cause for revolution, but there is complacency. Its simply not bad enough now.

What will banks do with all the McMansions if people cant pay the mortgage?
There's something fairly utopian, right around the bend, yet, it is far from being embraced. It is barely mentioned; drowned out by the echoes of a dying belief system.
There is a massive disconnect between the emerging wonders and the Protestant ethic.

The American dream, vague as its always been, isn't as dreamy as it used to be.
Materialism, in general, is being challenged by sophisticated technology. Why have a record collection these days? Why have an encyclopedia? Why buy a new car, should public transportation rise to the occasion? And it needs to, especially in regard to CO2.

How do we keep selling weapons, if peace is achieved?
If drugs are made legal, what are the effects of the lost revenues?

Its as though entrenched interests are preventing a Renaissance.
Gay marriage is a contentious issue, which is laughable, yet, when I was in college, 87% of Americans were opposed to inter-racial marriage, of the hetero type. In Virginia, it was illegal.

How do we move forward against this massive load of pointless resistance?
We can't just kill all the old and stupid people.
Will the U.S. have to give fascism another try?
It has surely been heading that way.

We need a plan.

(Apologies for rantish post.)

 

[Spaghetti]

quarky I like the way you think. It seems there is the technology and enough resource to go around, but people are probably still too naturally greedy and want to hold onto all they have rather than spread it around. I am probably wrong though, as usual.

 

[DavidS]

1. Box-cutters. 9/11 changed war. Military muscle may be getting obsolete.

Seriously? A knife is a game changer now? I had the impression those had been widely available and employed for some millenia. Didn't Octavian's uncle have a problem with one of those? Even using a few to gain control of a facility to precipitate disaster is hardly new... ask Priam.

I suppose military muscle may be getting obsolete. Similarly, I may be getting ridiculously wealthy. Or not. One is more easily evaluated than the other.

 

[DavidS]

How do we keep selling weapons, if peace is achieved?

Those content with the peace will buy weapons to prevent changes.
Those unhappy with the peace will buy weapons to impose changes.
Until the latter believe they've bought enough, the peace will endure.

 

[Merton]

Its as though entrenched interests are preventing a Renaissance.

I think it's exactly that. Again I don't want to turn this into an economics thread, but, as you've already mentioned, the Digital Age has changed the way we think about information and property, and our political organizations aren't responding accordingly. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I think they realize that the changes we require will mean they lose power, and hence why the country is getting continually more authoritarian.

We can't just kill all the old and stupid people.

If only!

 

[Dinwar]

Most of the list gives me the sense of "....and?"

Seriously? A knife is a game changer now? I had the impression those had been widely available and employed for some millenia.

Julius Ceaser rather famously had problems with 13 of them. And they were one of our first tools. To call a knife a game-changer is to reveal one's lack of understanding of the game. The terrorists on 9/11 did nothing truly new: they used weapons that have been around since humans became human (maybe a bit before; I don't recall offhand) and threatened people with them. The novel part of their tactic consisted of the plane, but when you consider the fact that ramming things has been a tactic since boats were invented and that the Greeks started using explosives, the tactics the terrorists chose fall well into line with historical events.

Read the Horatio Hornblower series, particularly "Mr. Midshipman Hornblower". The terrorists turned planes into fireships, essentially; hardly a new trick.

As far as the arguments "We're eliminating labor; the economy will collaps!" I recommend finding a copy of "John Henry" and listening to it. This argument is as old as the Industrial Revolution. It has been proven wrong so often that I find it difficult to attribute its continued existence to anything other than historical illiteracy.

The global economic "collaps" is nothing new. Tulips once caused one, for example. And it wasn't an economic collaps--if you want to see a REAL economic collaps, look at the Americas from about 10 years prior to Columbus landing to about 5 years after. THAT is a collaps. What we've experienced was a dip. A painful one, yes--but nothing like a collaps.

As for the satellites and drones, war has changed since war started. It's the Red Queen Theory--we're all running as fast as we can to stay where we are. This is quite literally older than humans--it's older than MAMMALS. Check out the coevolution of marine mollusks and decapod crustaceans. Things change, and stay the same; that's the nature of war.

None of this is game-changing; all it does is highlight the rules of the game that people tend to ignore, because they assume the status quo is eternal.

 

[Dinwar]

We can't just kill all the old and stupid people.

If only!

Any time you find yourself wishing for the deaths of a whole class of people, you are by definition in the wrong.

 

[Merton]

Dinwar: yes, it was a joke. Probably should've thrown a smilie on there.

 

[quarky]

Obviously, the box-cutter isn't new technology.
But the methodology in the attacks changed a lot about conventional warfare.

Dinwar, I think you dismiss too easily the uniqueness of the present situation.
Dismissing my approach to this is credibly understandable.
I banged this out, off the cuff, from a variety of concerns and reactions to lots of recent TED talks and other perusings.

Nevertheless, I respect your opinions and contribution.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Anything that moves is a weapon.
And some things that don't move.

The best military camouflage is to not look like a soldier.

Use the strengths of your enemy against him and his allies.
(It's easy to call in an air strike on anyone you choose if you know the right number to call.)
Economic warfare is easy. Agro warfare easier yet.
You can't guard every wheatfield in America. Monsanto ain't the only outfit engineering plant pathogens.

You don't need a bomber to shut down a city. A couple of hijacked cars, a few phoned in bomb threats, an empty bag in an airport, a wedge on a suburban railway line.

Complex targets are easy.

What's new, is using the strength and complexity of urban society against it.

The horseman isn't at the gate any more.
He's in an office in a bank.

 

[AlBell]

Dinwar: yes, it was a joke. Probably should've thrown a smilie on there.

Well, in that case, I'm glad I didn't post that it would imo be a better world if the mothers of many liberal posters had chosen abortion.

j/k.

 

[Dinwar]

Dinwar: yes, it was a joke. Probably should've thrown a smilie on there.

Ah, okay. Sorry about that, then, and thanks for the clarification!

Dinwar, I think you dismiss too easily the uniqueness of the present situation.

Nope. Again, many of your arguments have literally been presented for CENTURIES, and have been wrong EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. I've provided the evidence to demonstrate that (which you haven't shown to be false, or even bothered to address it). Now you're dismissing that data for the exact same reason they did in the past--"But WE'RE special!" They weren't then, and we're not now. Not really. Most of the issues we're dealing with have been around for generations, or even millennia, though in slightly different form. But does it really matter if the automation is a steam shovel or a 3D printer? The essential concept--the performance of a task by a machine rather than a human--is exactly the same. The world wasn't destroyed the last time these changes occurred, or the time before that, or the time before that, or the time before that, or the time...., so it's highly unlikely to be destroyed now.

Again, look at the beginnings of automation in industry. People were terrified that they'd lose jobs. Turns out that's not what really happened. Jobs CHANGED, certainly--but they still existed.

And no, "I don't want to put any extra effort in" (which is what "I refuse to take extra training" boils down to) isn't proof that jobs are being lost. The idea that it is is merely a manifestation of the Divine Right of Stagnation.

But the methodology in the attacks changed a lot about conventional warfare.

This is a perfect example. NOTHING about those attacks is new. Not a single, solitary aspect. Not the knives, not the vehicles, not the tactics, NOTHING. People have been gaining control by a rapid, coordinated use of force for tens of millennia (it's the whole theory behind warfare). People have used transportation vessels as weapons for centuries (again, fireships and Medieval navel tactics). People have crashed planes into things to destroy them since planes were first utilized (Japanese in WWII, for example). People have infiltrated enemy states for as long as there have been states to be enemies with (do I really need to explain this one?). Read "The Book of the Five Rings" to see most of these tactics explained by a samurai. Read I believe Manuscript I13 to see the European version.

The ONLY novel aspect of it is that we saw it in real time. That's it.

This doesn't change war, any more than the introduction of the gun did (before anyone says it, look up "hand cannon"--the gun didn't change jack until a few centuries after it was introduced). In fact, the 9/11 hijackings can be thought of as the latest in a long tradition of warfare tactics.

Nevertheless, I respect your opinions and contribution.

If you have to say this, you don't mean it, in my experience.

 

[quarky]

I suppose i could lose respect if I have to. Meanwhile, here's a few things that are new:

The population. Its the biggest ever. Any argument with that?
The easy picking resources, especially oil, of course, but also arable land and good water.
The climate change. You dismissed that part rather unceremoniously. Surely you aren't a denier in the ppm of atmospheric CO2?
The technology that links us together and allows common folks to take pictures of various activities and quickly send them around the world...This isn't new?

I think you're just feeling grouchy.
That last line was a bit over the top, though, admittedly, flattery normally has an agenda.

In my opinion, you've got some explaining to do.
This is nothing about this time or any other being special.
Its very different, but all times are.

We're closing in on a tipping point, much like yeast in fermentation.
We've never been here before.
This isn't about the Mayan calendar, or something Edgar Cayce said, ferchristsake.

 

[Roboramma]

Hey Quarky, have you read Why The West Rules: For now by Ian Morris?

Here's a review: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/books/review/Schell-t.html?pagewanted=all

Morris is a historian/archeologist. The book attempts to look at all of human history and the broad patterns within it to understand, a) why the world is the way it is today, and hopefully b) where it's going.

While I wasn't completely convinced by all of his arguments, I found it quite compelling. Some of the discussion of China, and it's near-miss on an industrial revolution was very interesting, as was his discussion of the forces that prevented progress in the past, and how changes either brought them to the forefront or made them obsolete.

I also find his viewpoint that particular times and cultures "get the thought they need" interesting. Basically he suggests that ideas arise in response to the world that people find themselves in, and we should thus look at those underlying environments as the sources of ideas, rather than looking at the ideas as somehow coming out of nowhere to create the world.

This all may seem tangential to your thread, but his conclusions regarding where we are going are, I think, entirely relevant. Worth a read if you've not already.

 

[quarky]

Hey Quarky, have you read Why The West Rules: For now by Ian Morris?

Here's a review: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/books/review/Schell-t.html?pagewanted=all

Morris is a historian/archeologist. The book attempts to look at all of human history and the broad patterns within it to understand, a) why the world is the way it is today, and hopefully b) where it's going.

While I wasn't completely convinced by all of his arguments, I found it quite compelling. Some of the discussion of China, and it's near-miss on an industrial revolution was very interesting, as was his discussion of the forces that prevented progress in the past, and how changes either brought them to the forefront or made them obsolete.

I also find his viewpoint that particular times and cultures "get the thought they need" interesting. Basically he suggests that ideas arise in response to the world that people find themselves in, and we should thus look at those underlying environments as the sources of ideas, rather than looking at the ideas as somehow coming out of nowhere to create the world.

This all may seem tangential to your thread, but his conclusions regarding where we are going are, I think, entirely relevant. Worth a read if you've not already.

I'll check it out. Thanks for the link.

 

[rdaneel]

This touches upon something I had thought to bring up in the self driving car thread. This, I think, is going to be as big a game changer as the transition from horses as the primary mode of transportation, and I wonder if there is going to be as much resistance from interests vested in the status quo as there was then.
Mainly because at some point the technology will get good enough that the driver becomes unnecessary, which means that many people are going to be put out of work, that's just part of progress, but I would expect there's are going to be plenty of people who are going to raise their lances and charge the windmills anyway.

 

[Merton]

Well, in that case, I'm glad I didn't post that it would imo be a better world if the mothers of many liberal posters had chosen abortion.

j/k.

But... but... we're so damned sweet.

Ah, okay. Sorry about that, then, and thanks for the clarification!

No problem. I know that humor doesn't translate well across the Internet... especially with some of the crazy **** people believe.