 >>>>
Can our open society survive? That is the big question we are going to need to answer. My guess: probably not in its present form. We are going to need to make big changes. Why? The attack on 9-11-01 challenged basic assumptions about a free society. We assumed that police action alone could handle most sub-national threats. We were wrong. The scale of violence has changed. We are now faced with asymmetric warfare: a nation or group of nations vs. a small group of individuals. In my view, the rapid onslaught of new technologies (nanotechnology, AI, and biotechnology) will radically increase the asymmetric nature of warfare until it reaches the ultimate extreme: one person against the world.
In twenty years, the computer you have on your desktop will be 1 million times more powerful than it is today. That, in combination with the trend towards converting the physical world into information (nanotech and biotech) will make it possible for a single individual to do extraordinary harm.
In that in that scenario, the nature of conflict changes. We can't assume that the other side has any desire to survive the conflict (we are very lucky the Russian leadership DID want to survive in our last big conflict). The attack could come from both within and outside our borders without warning (the classic attack is from a basement lab built with common technologies that cost little). The attack could be devastating, and result in tens of millions dead before it is known that an attack occurred (a new virus or self-replicating nanotechnology). The institutions of our open society could be used against us (Fedex packages to multiple locations around the globe that contain a virus/nanotech or a AI that infest and corrupts computer controlled infrastructure). We will also will have no idea who wants to attack us or why (at the individual level delusion, a loss of a job, or misdirected passion is enough).
How will defend ourselves to preserve our freedoms? The clearest solution is to both increase and decrease the information flow in our society simultaneously. We need to increase the information flow generated by individuals about what they are experiencing day-to-day. IF they see a valid threat or weakness, we need to act on it. We also need to tap into the incredible font of ideas generated by millions of people collaborating. This collaboration also has the potential to resolve conflict.
In contrast, we need to seriously constrain the development, distribution, and access to information that is dangerous. Yes. There is such a thing as dangerous information. We practice it today. Engineers at Los Alamos are restricted people. They know too much about the development and construction of nuclear weaponry to give free reign. Information about nukes is controlled. Soon, faster than most people think, the amount of information and knowledge that is potentially devastatingly dangerous to us will be much larger. The tools to construct these weapons will be cheap and freely available due to their broad applicability. We can't control the spread of those tools, but we can slow the spread of the information and knowledge necessary to make use of them to build massively destructive weapons. Those that do know too much will necessarily become restricted persons like the scientists at Los Alamos.
The elimination of bin Laden's gang will buy us time but it will not make the problem go away. We are at a critical juncture, either we wake up and take action or the worst is yet to come.
PS. If we survive the next major conflict in this asymmetrical war, the restrictions that will be imposed on the survivors will be far in excess of what is needed to provide us adequate security today. At that juncture, all hope of a free and open society is history.
PPS. Twenty years ago Bill Joy and I read the same book. The White Plague by Frank Herbert. It changed my mind about the future of conflict as it did his.
2:48:33 PM 
|
