After stumbling upon the Vision Working Group Report and Scenarios with its hair raising depictions of autonomous tranquilizer dart shooting drones and missions to medicate the world’s population with neuro-behavioral genetic vaccines, I began to look a little deeper into the concepts that are providing the foundation for new national security policy that has transforming our national security system as the ultimate end goal.
“Transformation has many elements. Perhaps one of the most important is that it involves creating or anticipating the future. Either you create your future or you become the victim of the future that someone else creates for you.” – Arthur K. Cebrowski. (The father of network-centric warfare)
The picture that begins to emerge from studying the Project on National Security Reform’s policy proposal entitled Forging a New Shieldand its associated papers, especially their Vision Working Group Report, makes me think I might understand where Cebrowski is coming from.
The directors of these projects are working on creating the future and I am afraid that we will be the victims of it.
Recent headlines indicate that the seemingly sci-fi scenarios in the Vision Working Group Report are at least somewhat in line with current trends. The question is which came first, the vision or the trend.
So what is this all about?
-National Security, Transforming Government (policy and structure), science, funding, education, ethics, new technologies, ideology and many other attending topics too numerous to list.
But my overriding concern is focused the effects this policy and this manner of developing policy may have on our already degraded constitution, individual rights and the sovereignty of our nation.
Specifically I am looking at 3 main documents (a collection of related documents can be found at the bottom)
An 800 page policy paper
Produced by the Project for National Security Reform (or PNSR) which was issued in 2008 and presented to Congress and both President Bush and then President elect Obama
“A focused, centralized national security authority is the entity needed”
**update on “Forging a New Shield” policy efforts**
In 2009, a follow-on report — Turning Ideas into Action — was published that proposes next steps and provides the implementation tools that will be required to make national security reform a reality.
PNSR is now partnering with key stakeholders to transform the system through initiatives such as proof-of-principle pilot projects and the development of the National Security Reform Roadmap and Scorecard.
And here is a recent publication assessing progress of policy changes in national security;
Project for National Security Reform and National Security Strategy Side by Side Analysis published on Aug. 26 2010
The Vision Working Groups’ job was to test the policy by imagining future scenarios that might arise and then theorize as to how the new policy would hold up.
Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance,a report resulting from a conference held in Dec 2001, which I will cover at length a little further down. The concepts laid out in this document seem to form the basis for the other two more recent, policy oriented documents.
In Document #1, the policy paper, Forging a New Shield, the PNSR (Project for National Security Reform) was established and funded by Congress “to undertake one of the most comprehensive studies of the U.S. national security system in the nation’s history”)
The PNSR proposes a complete rewrite of the National Security Act of 1947.
The premise for the revamping is that we are entering a time period that is fraught with unique challenges and we “must strengthen other important elements of national power both institutionally and financially, and create the capability to integrate and apply all of the elements of national power” in order to meet these new challenges.
The National Security Act of 1947
The National Security Act of 1947 reorganized the leadership of the military following World War II, formalizing a Department of Defense (DOD) with a Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) that reports directly to the Commander-in-Chief. According to the website of the U.S. Secretary of State:
The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 Pub.L. 99-433 reworked the command structure of the United States military. It increased the powers of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff implementing some of the suggestions from The Packard Commission commissioned by President Ronald Reagan in 1985.
“All truly new ideas destroy what they replace.”
The Vision Working Group Report and Scenarios is a write up of that groups efforts “to stress test the solution sets proposed in Forging a New Shield “
This document gives a glimpse into what these experts believe the 21st Century holds for the world by way of challenges. It was the Vision Working Group Report that first caught my attention and a quick scan of the contents of the report reveals why it did.
The Vision Working Group Report covers nine scenarios that are ‘gamed’ pre and post policy reform (meaning the policy reforms suggested by the PNSR in Forging a New Shield)
Near the beginning of the Vision Working Group’s report readers are reminded that;
“All truly new ideas destroy what they replace.”
. . . The process of scanning the horizon for the next great news must be continuous, and never bound to conceptions of “permanent” truth.”
This statement might be viewed as simply encouraging the keeping of an open mind but when I have encountered phrases like “scanning the horizon” in government documents of late, it is meant in an active, dynamic sense
I wonder what “permanent truths” we need to be unbound from. Does the evolution of human bodies and societies require that our sense of morality and ethics too, must evolve?
Here are the scenarios;
Scenario 1: Red Death -“we meet a country struggling to get back on its feet after a major biological attack and witness a debate about the future role of the U.S. Government both at home and abroad.” Page 37 pre reform scenario. Post reform Red Death scenario is on page 79.
Scenario 2: People’s War- Deals with “global asymmetric warfare against a nuclear-armed great power” pg 42 and pg 81
Scenario 3: A Grand Strategy-Explores the “utility of an integrated grand strategy development capability for smoothing the transition from one presidential administration to another.” Pg 45 and pg 82
Scenario 4: A New Economy- In this not so far out scenario “the United States faced its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. The crisis was a perfect storm of the unintended consequences of new technologies, policies, court decisions, and popular expectations.” Pg 50 and pg 87
Scenario 5: Pax Robotica-Looks at the “the intersection of unmanned robotic warfare and on-the-ground diplomacy”, page 54 and pg 89
Scenario 6: Who Holds the High Ground- Examines the prospect of “major competitive changes in the Earth-Moon system from the perspective of a traditional interagency space working group.” Pg 58 and pg 92
And then there is my very favorite scenario of all;
Scenario 7: A Brave New World-“we examined a plan to apply proven neuroscience, psychiatric, and medical techniques to the control of pathological behaviors in a world of readily accessible weapons of mass destruction.”
In the world envisioned by this group, National Security encompasses everything and any hint of rebellious spirit must be quashed for our own safety, of course. This takes us straight down the eugenics path. Eugenics simply means good genes and in the near future, us having “good genes” (and therefore a good attitude) is a national and global imperative reliant on the US with the blessings of the UN and the WHO, to stamp out by mass treatment of neuro vaccines delivered from above by aerosol spraying, al la chemtrails.
Page 62 and pg 95
Scenario 8: A Warm Reception- Focuses “on the challenge of developing international consensus for action on the issue of global climate and the possibility of unintended adverse consequences.” Page and pg 100
Scenario 9: It’s a Small World – Explores “the implications of a very different future, wherein small, molecular scale machines (nanotechnology robots or “nanobots”) had become ubiquitous.” Yes. Grey (and blue) goo included!
The concepts explored in the Vision Working Group Report begged for some context and provided the impetuous for me to do some digging which brought me to the concept of NBIC Convergence.
It bears repeating that NBIC technologies are seen as the tools of transformation. Power tools to be precise.
“Development of NBIC tools for investigation and transformational engineering at four levels: nano/microscopic, individual, group, and society” (emphasis mine)” –Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance
From what I gather, the idea is that we have entered “The Age of Transition”, as Newt Gingrich explains in this document, a report devised from a conference held in Dec. 2001-Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance
In 1994 Newt said that he had a goal of “reshaping the entire nation through the news media”
In “Vision for the Converging Technologies” Newt Gingrich proposes to reinvent government for the “Age of Transition” and says that
“If you bring that [nanotech]together with the biological revolution, the next 20 years of computation, and what we should be learning about human cognition, the capability can be quite stunning. For example, there’s no reason to believe we can’t ultimately design a new American way of learning and a new American way of thinking about things”
Hey Newt! You keep your darn nano off of my neuro!
Oh and by the way, your Toffler is showing….
The Converging Technologies Report, which was published in book form in 2002, explains the premise of the “Convergence” conference;
“It is essential to prepare key organizations and societal activities for the changes made possible by converging technologies. Activities that accelerate convergence to improve human performance must be enhanced, including focused research and development, increased technological synergy from the nanoscale, developing of interfaces among sciences and technologies, and a holistic approach to monitor the resultant societal evolution.” (My emphasis)
Transhumanists engage in interdisciplinary approaches to understanding and evaluating possibilities for overcoming biological limitations. They draw on futurology and various fields of ethics such as bioethics, infoethics, nanoethics, neuroethics, roboethics, and technoethics mainly but not exclusively from a philosophically utilitarian, socially progressive, politically and economically liberal perspective
NANOTECHNOLOGY, BIOTECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND COGNITIVE SCIENCE
The NBIC motto:
If the Cognitive Scientists
can think it
The Nano people can build it
The Bio people can implement it, and
The IT people can monitor and control it.
Confident aren’t they?
Rand looked at NBIC Convergence in 2001;
The Global Technology Revolution: Bio/Nano/Materials Trends and Their Synergies with Information Technology by 2015
“The results could be astonishing. Effects may include significant improvements in human quality of life and life span… continued globalization, reshuffling of wealth, cultural amalgamation or invasion with potential for increased tension and conflict, shifts in power from nation states to non-governmental organizations and individuals… and the possibility of human eugenics and cloning.”
The Convergence of NBIC is presented as imminent, if not already reality which puzzled me. I didn’t know we were so far advanced. This also disturbed me because the technologies discussed have enormous implications ethically. The attitude of the presenters though, is not one of caution; actually it is quite the opposite.
“Nanotechnology, biotechnology, electronics and brain research are converging into a new field of science vital to the nation’s security and economic clout.”
Or so say influential research agenda-setters like the National Science Foundation, along with a loose-knit group of government, academic and industry researchers who are trying to accelerate the convergence process.
This attitude is even more frightening when you consider that this convergence is believed to be the onset of a wild technological ride that will (by most counts) or may lead to something that we don’t know the human race will survive, “The Singularity”
This subject is touched upon in the Vision Working Group Report;
A SPECIAL NOTE ON THE POSSIBILITY OF A TECHNOLOGICAL SINGULARITY BY 2060
The authors of this set of scenarios have intentionally omitted any scenarios driven by what has been dubbed a “technological singularity” or, more grandiosely, “The Singularity.” Several technologists estimate a singularity occurring within the period covered by these scenarios. Although there are many definitions, in general, a technological singularity is said to occur when intentional, intelligent machines take over their own development, and due to their superior memories and processing abilities, quickly advance to states beyond human comprehension. It is hypothesized that such superintelligent entities will reshape the world as they see fit, with or without human input.
The decision to omit a singularity scenario was based on practicality, rather than a determination that such a scenario is implausible.
In a paper entitled Designing The Future NBIC Technologies and Human Performance Enhancement
James Canton Ph.D. writes;
“NBIC convergence represents entirely new challenges for scientists, policy makers and business leaders who will have, for the first time, vast new power tools to shape future markets, societies and lifestyles.” (Emphasis mine)
“Human Performance Enhancement, (HPE) refers to the augmentation of human skills, attributes or competencies through the use of technology, medicine or therapy designed to replace or increase performance capability. Examples of HPE run the gamut from restoring sight or hearing to manipulating genetic material with the goal of promoting or preventing a condition. Other examples include augmenting normal capabilities such as intelligence, perception or mobility.”
Eugenics is the “applied science or the biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population,” usually referring to human populations. According to Wikipedia
Human Performance Enhancement entails;
“manipulating genetic material with the goal of promoting or preventing a condition.”
The biotechnology spoken of in all of these documents invariably raise the specter of eugenics which is openly acknowledged by even the proponents of the technology.
James Canton, who according to the Lifeboat Foundation is “a renowned global futurist, social scientist, keynote presenter, author, and visionary business advisor. He has advised three White House Administrations, the National Science Foundation, and MIT’s” says:
“I think we will stop short of eugenics. . .”
Eerily Canton writes;
“No doubt there will be countries and cultures that view HPE (human performance enhancement) as a weapon for overt or covert social manipulation. There will be autocratic nations that view the enhancement of their population’s intelligence, mobility or other cognitive and physical capabilities as desirable. Of course there will be abusers of HPE. Planned social evolution based on HPE will be a not-too-distant-future scenario that democratic societies will have to navigate. But at the same time, individual choice will prevail if global social order and democratic values is a desired goal.
(Emphasis mine) source-
Be sure to read that passage carefully. In it Canton sums up the crux of the issue or at least the crux of the issue as far as I’m concerned.
If you read nothing else, do read the
FISTERA Report. (It’s comparatively short.) The
document reads as either as a marketing piece for Convergence and the wonders
thereof or a reason to patently reject the whole concept-depending entirely upon
the perspective of the reader.
He makes the assumption that the US is immune to the temptations to manipulate their populations unlike some of those less noble governments out there. That is a dangerous assumption and one that history reveals is patently untrue! Also, I am not reassured by Canton’s statement that” individual choice will prevail IF…”that little “if” just kind of leaves me cold.
Some fans of the Transhumanism openly embrace and defend eugenics. At least this is honest.
It is difficult for a non scientist like me to separate the hype from reality but there are some elements at play that give even a layman like me a hint as to what this is all about.
Here is one;
“While not included in the summary or the main recommendations, the report includes a paper on a proposal for a new science or discipline called memetics (Strong & Bainbridge 2002). This is related to the “human cognomen project”, starting from the assessment that the most valuable resource in the upcoming information society will be culture.”
Wonder why the memetics proposal was not included in the report issued for public consumption?
Thankfully, the Convergence Technologies report has been amply mulled over by others with the credentials to make more sense of it than I can.
One of the best critiques of the Converging Technologies Report and the concept of NBIC Convergence is a man by the name of Joachim Schummer. He goes to the heart of it. Is this “convergence” of these technologies really an issue or just hype?
He wrote a scathing dissertation about the NBIC Convergence idea entitled;
Schummer asserts that;
“the concept of convergence of technologies is a teleological concept that does not describe or predict any recent past, present, or future development. Instead it always expresses or attributes political goals of how future technology should be developed.”
The concept was already fully developed as a flexible rhetorical tool by US science administrators to create nanotechnology (as nano-convergence), before it was broadened to invent the convergence of nano-, bio-,info-, and cogno-research (NBIC-convergence).
His scholarly assessment jibes heartily with my very unscientific gut instinct that much of NBIC Convergence is bluster and hooey.
There are many fans and critics of NBIC tech and the promise and perils they portend for the future. Most seem to concentrate on the theoretical rather than the actual. The spiritual and ethical implications get lots of space of course and not surprisingly, many futurists run with visions of utopia. Plenty of critics with a more pessimistic view predict disaster.
If I were to take all of this at face value, frankly it would make me sick. I am doubtful that this grand convergence is all that it is cracked up to be but the fact that we seem to have people in positions to effect policy and funds that treat this concept as gospel and seem intent on forcing it to life with very little attention given to how to navigate it in a way that respects the rights of everyone is what has really got my attention.
As noted by Schummer;
“Although the NBIC-report was no official report and although no official report has ever been commissioned by the NNI on the NBIC issues, it eventually found its way into the official science policy agenda of the US. Supplement to the President’s FY 2007 Budget for the NNI, where all agencies have to explain their activities, the NSF states:”
Special emphasis will be placed on research in the following areas:• Merging science and engineering at the nanoscale: the convergence of nanotechnology with information technology, modern biology, and social sciences will stimulate discoveries and innovation in almost all areas of the economy.” (NSTC/NSET 2006, 5)
In case you don’t know, NNI is, The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). The program was established in fiscal year 2001 to coordinate Federal nanotechnology research and development.
“The NNI provides a vision of the long-term opportunities and benefits of nanotechnology.”
Schummer wrote this paper in 2008. In it he makes note that the idea of NBIC Convergence was being integrated into policy. Since then the NBIC Convergence meme has steadily wormed its way further and further into US policy.
Please don’t miss my point. I don’t have the resources to dissertate about the myriad of ethical considerations about the technology. The policy that is being founded on the presumption of NBIC convergence and that is obviously infused with an ideological agenda is what I am speaking to. I simply want my government to adhere to the principles that respect our right to self determination and freedom.
NNI Supplement to the President’s 2011 Budget As indicated in this document, the total investment by NNI member agencies for 2011 is nearly $1.8 billion for nanotechnology R&D. Among other subjects, the document highlights Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives to accelerate nanotechnology development in support of the President’s priorities and innovation strategy. NNI member agencies identified areas for these initiatives ripe for significant advances through close and targeted program-level interagency collaboration.
Schummer also notices the Transhumanist ideological bent that pervades the work on NBIC Convergence;
“Roco found further support for his move from nano-convergence to NBIC convergence in a techno-religious movement called transhumanism. Again that is no coincidence, because his co-editor and NSF fellow Bainbridge is an influential leader of the transhumanist movement.
strive for salvation from world-immanent suffering in a transcendent, so-called
post-human, state through step-wise technological transformations. One step is
the removal of diseases and aging and the perfection of the human body through
some wondrous nanotechnology and genetic engineering.”
Schummer points out that for all the noble talk of curing diseases and expanding longevity, one of the main drivers of Human Performance Enhancement is the military’s desire for a Super Soldier.
“It is no coincidence that this image of the ideal human being almost exactly matches the capacities expected from the perfect soldier in combat. Indeed, many of the enhancement examples are explicitly taken from the military area, like armors that support physical strength and robotic war fighter systems. Moreover, a whole section of the NBIC-report is devoted to “National Security”, with representatives from all major military agencies.
The military seems to be the driving force behind the move from nano-convergence to NBICconvergence. That might be economically justified by the fact that the Department of Defense has had the largest share of the NNI budget thus far. However, binding the community of natural, engineering, and social scientists in an allegedly humanistic vein to a human ideal that is modeled after the perfect warfighter, as Roco did, is a severe intrusion of military values into civic society.”
The above presentation addresses the desire for a robo-soldier and gives some attention to managing the discourse surrounding the debate on NBIC in order to improve the chances of public acceptance
Back to Loco Roco-
Mihail Roco is the co-editor of the NBIC Convergence Report which was commissioned by the U.S. National Science Foundation and Department of Commerce. He is the founding chair of the National Science and Technology Council’s subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET), and is the Senior Advisor for Nanotechnology at the National Science Foundation http://www.nsf.gov/eng/staff/mroco.jsp
Mihail Roco’s slogan is;
“The Best Way to Predict the Future Is To Create It”
This nifty slogan reinforces my suspicion that there is a whole lot of selling going on here.
Since the science of all of this is beyond my expertise to assess, I have spent a little time looking at something I am more qualified to assess, the people. Looking at who are key players in pushing the idea of NBIC convergence says a lot.
Here is my cache of documents pertaining to NBIC Convergence and the PNSR