Gender: Male
Status: Single
Age: 43
Sign: Libra
State: Washington DC
Country: US
Signup Date: 6/8/2007
|
|
|
|
Monday, May 11, 2009
 |

Sick of pesky government oversight? Don't like taxes? Pessimistic about
democracy in general? Why not find your build your own island nation and
declare yourself king? Modern land-moving technology makes it easier
than ever, but hardly an simple undertaking. As part of our May-June cover story, engineer McKinley
Conway, How to Start Your Own Country author
Erwin S. Strauss,
and micro-nation documentarian
George Dunford
explain the history of the DIY nation.
THE
CASE FOR MICRONATIONS AND ARTIFICIAL ISLANDS
By
McKinley Conway
In early centuries,
artificial islands were built to create home sites easier to defend
against wild animals or hostile tribes. There is evidence that Greek,
Roman, and Scottish civilizations built hundreds of small islands for a
variety of purposes. Excavations reveal that many islands were built by
piling mud on layers of reed mats.
In recent times, new
islands have been built to provide sites for airports and other urban
infrastructure.
For example, in
Japan, boatloads of dirt and rock were hauled from a nearby mountain and
dumped into a huge box in Osaka Bay to create an island site for the new
Kansai international airport. Hong Kong spent nearly $15 billion to
enlarge an existing island for its new airport and to accommodate
bridges and transit lines to link it with the city. When growth occupied
every available site in Singapore, the small island nation dredged new
sites from the shallow waters around its main island.
In addition, there
are many primitive villages in remote areas built on stilts over shallow
water. I have noted these in the upper Amazon basin between Manaus,
Brazil, and Iquitos, Peru, and around Bandar Seri Begawan in Borneo. One
of the most interesting was a small village of textile workers in the
middle of Inle Lake in northern Myanmar (Burma).
Without question,
the most advanced artificial island projects today are found in Dubai. I
was there during construction of the pioneering project, the now-famous
Burj Al-Arab “sail” hotel built on a small artificial island. This was
followed by development of the Palm Island group that went beyond all
others in creative design and venture risk, raising the bar for all
future island builders.
Perhaps the most
intriguing projects are those proposed by creators of new micronations.
Among the scores of such ventures, there are many that have been
launched by people trying to establish modern utopias, seeking total
freedom from the pressures of government or society. Others of a more
practical nature have sought to set up tax havens that would attract
investors. Some have looked for sites to base lotteries and gambling
casinos or pirate radio transmitters.
Founders of such new
nations have searched the globe looking for sites. One entrepreneur set
up shop on an abandoned World War II gun tower off the coast of England.
More imaginative planners have looked for seamounts or under-ocean
mountains with peaks near the surface where they could drive pilings to
support above-water micronations. A few farsighted developers have
experimented with accelerating coral growth to build artificial reefs
and islands in mid-ocean.
As yet, we find no
substantial successes in launching free-standing micronations. By
contrast, artificial islands have proven their worth and practicality
around the world. The future will most certainly bring a substantial
increase in the number and sophistication of new man-made islands. ❑
TOP
NEW LANDS IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
By Erwin S. Strauss
Ever since the
emergence of modern humans in Africa about a hundred thousand years ago,
expanding onto new lands has been a key part of the human story. The
issues of new lands and particularly new nations are of perennial
interest to me. Where does the quest for new lands go from here? To the
oceans.
Currently,
international agreements generally recognize a territorial limit of 12
nautical miles from land, and an “exclusive economic zone” extending to
200 nautical miles. The zone provision is focused on securing rights to
fishing as well as oil and gas exploitation while allowing a “right of
innocent passage” to all nations’ ships; however, it’s clear that most
nations would interpret this as precluding the establishment of any
independent entity in those waters.
This leaves a
substantial amount of water unaccounted for, including some that is
quite shallow. There are two basic approaches to occupying such places:
artificial structures and building up land.
Over the years,
there have been many experiments and some notable failures regarding the
latter.
An Italian engineer
named Giorgio Rosa built a platform off Italy in the 1960s as a gambling
resort, but the authorities seized and destroyed it. More recently, a
group in Las Vegas proposed a floating city to be called
Oceana; the group
spent about $100,000 building a detailed model. No investors came
forward.
In the 1970s, a
group sent a dredge to the South Pacific, and in a shallow area built up
enough land to stay above the water even at high tide, proclaiming it
the nation of Minerva. Again, investors failed to materialize. After the
king of Tonga sailed over and claimed it, King Neptune soon reclaimed
his own: In a few months, without further dredging, no trace remained
above the waves.
A Los Angeles B-list
celebrity named Joe Kirkwood famously took a barge out over a nearby sea
mount and scuttled it, intending it to extend above the surface. The
water was deeper than he had figured, and his plans disappeared with the
barge.
Building up new land
may be the most practical method for starting a new country; however, as
history shows, new land construction is hardly an easy undertaking.
More importantly,
the geopolitical climate may be less open to that sort of
experimentation. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Cold War was in full swing,
and each of the superpowers was hesitant to push smaller countries too
hard, for fear of driving them into the arms of their rival. This opened
exploitable interstices in the international system. Since the fall of
the Soviet Union, and especially since 9/11, the major powers (and the
United States in
particular) have been much more aggressive in dealing with entities that
appear to have the potential to upset the established international
order.
When I wrote on this
subject in the 1980s, I suggested with tongue in cheek that such
ventures plan on acquiring weapons of mass destruction, invoking the
film comedy
The
Mouse That
Roared,
about the tiniest country in the world that accidentally stumbles upon a
nuclear weapon. Nowadays, such an idea hardly seems funny.
So those following
in the footsteps of the ventures above will have to deal with this
geopolitical fact, as well as all the national and financial obstacles
the earlier efforts faced. I can only wish them good luck; they’ll need
it. ❑ TOP
At home at sealand, Special thanks to
Encylopedia Britannica.
A MINI-HISTORY OF MICRONATIONS
By George Dunford
Regardless of UN recognition or constitutional definitions, micronations
have been appearing for decades. For some, it’s a
matter of political protest, fervent belief, or the kind of megalomania
associated with super-villains, while others are just playing it for
laughs.
To search out the
granddaddy of the modern micronation, you have to visit an abandoned
military installation in the North Sea just off the coast of the United
Kingdom on the way to Belgium. Sealand is a platform about the size of a
baseball diamond that was originally designed by England as a fort to
repel German bombers during World War II. In the mid-1960s, two pirate
radio operators had other ideas. The platform seemed a perfect place for
their illegal broadcasts, as it was just outside the UK’s legal
territory but close enough for transmission.
Unfortunately, the
two piratical nation builders squabbled (one argument got so heated that
it reportedly involved a flame-thrower). Of the two nation builders, Roy
Paddy Bates emerged victorious, declaring the platform the Principality
of Sealand with himself anointed Prince Roy. Despite UK attempts to
unseat him and a brief spell as a “data haven” hosting the Internet’s
most dubious sites, Sealand endures as a micronation.
Sealand’s success
story inspired other micronationalists the world over. In a distant
corner of Western Australia, a troubled wheat farmer heard the call.
Leonard Casley was one of a number of farmers informed by the Australian
government that he had grown too much wheat. With thousands of acres
ready to be harvested, he could only reap 100 acres. While others towed
the line, Casley seceded from Australia, creating the Hutt River Principality
with — you guessed it — himself as head of state, Prince Leonard,
alongside his wife, Princess Shirley.
The principality has
made a living through stamp exports and tourism, probably because it’s
one of the few royal tours that concludes with an offer of a regal cup
of tea or a dip in the monarch’s own pool. The new nation ran into
strife in 1977, when the Australian Tax Department noticed just how well
it was doing. Never one to back down, the prince responded to threats
about unpaid taxes by declaring war on Australia. Australia ignored the
declaration, allowing the prince to declare himself victorious and
continue his reign.
The best
micronationalists know there’s some fun to be had. Segway inventor Dean
Kamen refers to the New York state island he bought as the Kingdom of
North Dumpling Island. His reason for seceding came when local
authorities refused to let him build his own turbine, and he got his
buddy, then-President George Herbert Walker Bush, in on the joke by
signing a nonaggression pact with the kingdom. Kamen made several
appointments to his court, including ministers of Nepotism, Brunch and
Ice Cream (the latter officers were the founders of Ben & Jerry’s). He
reputedly carries his own made-up currency in his wallet, which he has
attempted to use as payment on the mainland. And in shaky economic
times, Kamen has eschewed the gold standard in favor of ice cream. “As
long as we keep it below 32°F,” he quipped, “our currency is rock
solid.”
But the days of
micronations as good clean fun may be over. In 2008, Sealand was looking
to monetize itself as Sealand Casino. There’s still hope that technology
will further the frontier, however, as new micronations are forming
online or as budding micronationalists claim territory in Antarctica or,
more recently, outer space. Many more aspiring micronationalists find
hope in Frank Zappa, who opined, “You can’t be a real country unless you
have a beer and an airline — it helps if you have some kind of a
football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a
beer.” Never mind the UN. On these terms, statehood is just a
microbrewery away. TOP
About the Authors
McKinley Conway
is an engineer and founder of Conway Data Inc., a firm involved in
research, publications, and telecommunications, specializing in futures
studies, global megaprojects, and site selection. His address is Conway
Data Inc., 6625 The Corners Parkway, Suite 200, Norcross, Georgia 30092.
Web site www.conway.com . His last article for THE FUTURIST, “The
Desalination Solution,” appeared in the May-June 2008 issue
Erwin S. Strauss
is the author of
How to Start Your
Own Country
(Paladin Press,
1985),
which discusses these matters in more detail.
George Dunford
is a co-author of
Micronations:
The Lonely
Planet Guide to
Home-made
Nations.
As well as writing articles for a variety of publications, he blogs
about travel, journalism, and culture at hackpacker.blogspot.com . His
latest book is
The Big Trip: The
Ultimate Guide
to Gap
Years and Overseas Adventures
(Lonely Planet, 2008).
Join WFS
for $59 per
year and receive THE FUTURIST, Futurist Update,
and many other benefits.
COPYRIGHT © 2009 WORLD FUTURE SOCIETY, 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 450, Bethesda,
Maryland 20814. Tel. 301-656-8274. E-mail info@wfs.org. Web site
http://www.wfs.org. All rights
reserved.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Monday, May 11, 2009
 |
Wild Cards in
Our Future
In
the January 2009 issue of Futurist Update, the World Future
Society’s free e-newsletter, we invited readers to submit their ideas of
“wild cards” that futurists need to be looking at critically right now.
This section showcases a few of the responses.
What is a wild
card? According to FUTURIST editor Edward Cornish, author of Futuring:
The Exploration of the Future, a wild card is “an unexpected event
that would have enormous consequences if it actually occurred.”
Many wild cards
are disasters, such as an asteroid striking the Earth. However, a wild
card might be highly beneficial, such as a revolutionary technology that
leaves zero carbon dioxide, or a surge of peaceful co-existence among
long-standing enemies.
The “advantage”
of disaster scenarios, in terms of futurists, is that they give clear
and urgent reasons for thinking ahead, whereas the possibility of a
pleasant surprise does not normally inspire a need for planning. Some
obvious exceptions to that complacency are when we unexpectedly receive
a marriage proposal or a job offer, or learn of a new baby on the
way—all of which require a great deal of futuring skills.
As you examine
the following wild-card scenarios, think about the trends that may lead
up to these surprise events, what might be done to prevent them (or
promote them, in the case of beneficial wild cards), and how you, your
family, business, and community might prepare for a world that has
suddenly become quite different.
And if you can
think of other wild-card scenarios, feel free to share them with us.
—Cynthia G. Wagner
Cynthia G.
Wagner is managing editor of THE FUTURIST. E-mail cwagner@wfs.org.
For more on
wild cards and other tools of foresight, see Futuring: The
Exploration of the Future by Edward Cornish (WFS, 2004), which may
be ordered at
www.wfs.org/futuring.htm.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
 |
Cover Feature January-February 2009 Volume 43, No. 1 Evolutionary biology and neuroscience are adding to our understanding of a historically unscientific area. By Patrick Tucker Senior Editor .... ShareThisMorality may be something different for everyone; it may be the set of rules handed down by God to Moses on stone tablets, or the system in which karma is passed through the Dharma. But morality is also a decision-making process, one that plays out in the brain in the same way a mechanical decision-making process plays out on a computer. Clerics, theologians, and, in the last century, anthropologists have put forward various answers to the riddle of how our species stumbled upon the concept of goodness. Now, neuroscientists and evolutionary biologists are adding to that understanding. Discoveries in these fields have the potential to achieve something remarkable in this century: an entirely new, science-based understanding of virtue and evil.
Marc Hauser, author of Moral Minds (Ecco, 2006) and director of the Cognitive Evolution Laboratory at Harvard University, is at the forefront of the emerging scientific discussion of morality. David Poeppel of the University of Maryland is on the cutting edge of today’s brain and neuroscience research. I spoke with both of them about what science can contribute to the human understanding of good and bad.
The first thing I discovered is that applying a scientific approach to a murky, loaded issue like morality requires understanding the problem in material terms. You have the event, in this case the moral decision. Then you have the space where the event plays out, the brain. Some aspects of the decision-making process are fluid and unique to the individual. To form a crude and an unoriginal analogy, this would be like the software code that the brain processes to reach decisions about what is morally permissible and what is not. Other aspects are fixed, like hardware.
Marc Hauser is an expert on the former.
Moral Grammar
A great example of moral-writing software is culture. Cultural influences on moral decision making can include everything from the laws that govern a particular society to the ideas about pride, honor, and justice that play out in a city neighborhood to the power dynamics of a given household. Religion, upbringing, gender, third-grade experiences dealing with bullies, and so on all contribute lines of code to an individual’s moral software. For this reason, no two moral processes will be identical. Academics have given this phenomenon a fancy name: moral relativism. The theory holds that because morality is transferred from groups to individuals in the form of traditions, institutions, codes, etc., everyone will have a different idea of good and bad.
But what if there are limitations to the spectrum of variation? What if, beneath the trappings of culture and upbringing, there really is such a thing as universal morality? If such a thing existed, how would you go about proving it? Enter Marc Hauser, whose research is adding credence to the notion of a universal goodness impulse.
According to Hauser, the human brain learns right from wrong the same way it learns language. The vast majority of the world’s languages share at least one thing in common: a system of guidelines for usage. This is called grammar. Just as languages have rules about where to put a subject, an adverb, and a predicate in a sentence, so too every culture has a set of guidelines to teach people how to make moral decisions in different situations. So just as learning a language means learning not only words, but also a system for putting the words together, the same is true for morality; there are very specific “commandments” that are unique to every culture, but there are also softer usage guidelines. People who have mastered the moral guidelines of their particular culture have what some might call principles or scruples. Hauser calls this a moral grammar.
“A mature individual’s moral grammar enables him to unconsciously generate and comprehend a limitless range of permissible and obligatory actions within the native culture, to recognize violations when they arise, and to generate intuitions about punishable violations,” he writes in his book. “Once an individual acquires his specific moral grammar, other moral grammars may be as incomprehensible to him as Chinese is to a native English speaker.”
Hauser has spent his career studying how people from different backgrounds and cultures rely on different grammars to make moral decisions. About three years ago, he put up a survey Web site called the Moral Sense Test, which is still operating today. Since its establishment, some 300,000 people from around the world have logged on. Participants are asked to answer a series of so-called trolley problems to reveal their unique moral decision-making processes.
The quintessential trolley problem goes something like this: A group of five people is on a train track unaware that a runaway trolley is heading toward them. One person is on a separate track, equally oblivious to what’s going on. If you’re in a control room overlooking the train yard, is it morally permissible to pull a lever and divert the train away from the five people onto the track with the one person, thereby saving the five and killing the one? Or is it morally preferable to take no action and allow the trolley to continue along its predestined path?
“Each question targets some kind of psychological distinction,” says Hauser. “For example, we’re very interested in the distinction between action and omission when both lead to the same consequence.… It’s an interesting distinction because it plays out in many areas of biomedical technology and experiences.”
Surveys such as these aren’t new. But Hauser’s Web-based survey model allows him to ask these questions of people who originate from all sorts of cultural, economic, and educational points of view, as opposed to polling the opinions of a handful of Ivy League undergrads.
“There’s going to be that kind of variation culturally,” he says. “But what the science is trying to say is Look, could the variation we observe today be illusory? Could there be real regularity, universals that underpin that variation fundamental to how the brain works?”
Though the Moral Sense Test is ongoing, it is adding significantly to an understanding of moral reasoning across different cultures. Among Hauser’s most interesting findings: People who don’t adhere to a specific religion and people who do are remarkably similar in the way they make moral decisions.
“This is independent of the benefits that people obtain from being associated with religion; I have nothing to say about that,” he insists. “This is more a question of … does having a religious background really change the nature of these intuitive judgments. The evidence we’ve accumulated suggests, no.” His research shows that people who are religious and people who claim to be atheists show the same moral patterns and answer the same way when they’re presented with a whole host of moral dilemmas. Where they diverge, says Hauser, is when the question touches on political or topical issues about which people are likely to have pre-formed and not necessarily educated opinions.
This is one area where he hopes moral science can make a real difference.
“If you ask most people, Do you think stem-cell research is morally good or morally bad, many people will say bad,” says Hauser. “But then you ask, what is a stem cell? Most people won’t have a clue. What they’ve often done, they’ve masted stem-cell research onto something else, [such as] killing a baby. If killing a baby is bad then stem-cell research is bad. So that’s a matter of using a moral problem one is familiar with and using it to judge a new case that one is not familiar with. We do that all the time…. What science should be doing is trying to educate us, and say Look, the blastocyst is a cluster of cells that stem-cell research is focusing on … nothing like a baby. It’s the potential, with lots of change and development, to become a baby. But it’s not a baby. There’s an onus on researchers to educate. In the absence of education, what people do is examine moral cases in terms of what they’re familiar with.”
He’s received a mixed reaction to his findings. Some people, he says, see the work as artificial, that what morality is really about is how we behave. In other words, according to some, morality can’t be judged on the basis of how a person answers a survey, but on what that person does in real life.
In the future, new technologies like virtual reality will test this hypothesis. But first, researchers need to learn more about how the process plays out in the brain.
The Moral Hardware In keeping with our computer–brain analogy, some aspects of the moral decision-making process are fixed; namely, the platform on which this process occurs. You might call this the hardware, the physical brain itself. We all process moral decisions based on different assumptions or beliefs, but the process happens in the same place for each of us, an area in the front of the brain called the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. This is where our emotional experiences — religious, traumatic, joyous — connect with our higher-level social decision making to give us a sense of good or bad.
So now that science has found the region involved in moral decisions, how long before some Silicon Valley start-up gives us a machine to read good or ill intentions, a veritable evil detector?
Not anytime in the foreseeable future. The human brain is an object of unfathomable complexity. To imagine that it might suddenly be rendered as transparent and simple as the items in an Excel spreadsheet is to commit hubris. This is why David Poeppel of the University of Maryland likes to keep expectations realistic. He studies language in the brain. Just as Hauser is focused on the language of morality, Poeppel is focused on how vibrations in the ear become abstractions. It’s next to impossible, he says, to see how a brain formulates big abstractions, like Locke’s Second Treatise of Government. He hopes one day to understand the neural processing of words like dog or cat.
Poeppel’s current work involves magnetoencephalography (MEG), an imaging technique that measures the brain’s electrical signals in real time. He was kind enough to invite THE FUTURIST to watch some experimentation. We found him in a lab with some of his brightest doctoral students, several gallons of liquid nitrogen, a $4 million MEG machine, and a girl named Elizabeth — who was having her brain activity, her inner-most thoughts, displayed on a big bank of monitors.
It looked like squiggles.
“What we’re looking at are the electrical signals her brain is giving off as she responds to certain stimuli,” Poeppel told me. In the case of Elizabeth, the stimuli were blips on a monitor and ping noises. The spikes and squiggles on the graph indicated that she was “seeing” the blips, without her having to make any other signal.
Poeppel doesn’t believe we’ll ever be able to hook people to a machine and get a complete transcript of their thinking. “We aren’t capable of that kind of granularity,” he says. But what his — and his students’ — experiments with MEG do show is the brain reacting to stimuli in real time, which can later reveal which parts of the brain react to which stimuli and how much electricity those regions throw off The way the brain reads little blips may not seem to be correlated with morality, but it is. Returning to the brain computer analogy, Poeppel says that the moral rules we follow, the impulses that tell us when to push the button and divert the trolley and when not to, are set in a sort of default position when we’re born, just like the default settings on your PC. “Those are constant, immutable. They form the basis of morality. And then the switches are set to particular values as a function of experience. There’s a close interaction between the universality (meaning the brain hardware) and cultural specificity (the software).”
One day, MEG research, trolley surveys, and other aspects of moral science will reveal the key aspects of that correlation.
Amazingly, even though neuroscience is still in its infancy, it’s already yielding insights into moral issues, such as race bias. According to Poeppel, studies have shown that “people make decisions that reflect race biases even when they’re aware of what they’re doing.” Race bias is a reaction that rises from lived experience. What MEG, fMRI, and other neuro-imaging techniques give us is a picture for how those experiences change the physical brain and how the physical brain recreates, reimagines, recomputes them all the time.
“Does this reflect very deeply imbedded mechanisms of decision making? If you’re aware of it, can you neutralize it, can you override it and reeducate the system? Of course you can. The brain is plastic. It changes all the time. That’s what learning is. But we still don’t have a real explanatory theory for how that works.” He adds, “It’s an area where we will see progress in the years ahead.”
In terms of mysteries of morality, that progress will likely take the form of more questions than answers.
Moral Science and Your Future A common reaction to the radical breakthroughs that seem to occur daily in neuroscience is impatience for ever greater and more important breakthroughs. If we know what lying looks like under fMRI (goes this line of thinking), when will we be able to inoculate against deceit? If we can diagnose the roots of racism, when will we be able to predict which student will go on a violent shooting spree? If we know that bias has something to do the with the amygdala, when will we be able to see it on our computer screens?
The emerging science of morality will not relieve us of the hard work of examining our own motivations and impulses. But it will present us with a lot more data. As this line of inquiry progresses, as new neural-imaging techniques, new technologies like virtual reality come to bear on this problem, we will likely lose certainty about what is right and wrong rather than gain it.  People answering trolley problems will surely give different answers when they’re allowed to “live” the survey in a virtual-reality setting, when they can see the trolley, hear it approach, meet a computer-graphics generated version of the person to be saved or squashed. When we can view that decision-making process using fMRI, MEG, or some other brain-imaging technique not yet in existence, we may be able to see how slightly different firing patterns play out in different decisions. We’ll examine people’s actions in light of their brain activity and reach new understandings, and probably all sorts of hasty conclusions as well. More importantly, and controversially, the science of morality may bring into doubt some of our most deeply ingrained cultural perceptions about right and wrong. We’ll have new, richer opportunities to examine our actions in the presence of consequences. We probably won’t like what we see.
Those awkward realizations may be the greatest value of moral science.
Consider that we’re called upon to make moral decisions daily. Every so often, we’re given an important one, a decision that will radically affect someone else’s life. Sometimes the decision comes masked as a professional matter, as it did for U.S. sheriff Tom Dart, who, when tasked with evicting individuals whose only crime had been renting from a landlord who had defaulted on his mortgage, decided against action and briefly suspended such evictions in Cook County, Illinois. Sometimes the choice comes in a more dramatic form, as in the case of Wesley Autrey, a New York man who jumped onto a set of train tracks to save a stranger from a speeding subway.
The moral actions of Dart and Autrey strike us as exceptional in their selflessness. But such feats of heroism are the products of the same moral decision-making process that occurs in each of us. When we are called upon to commit to such an act, we first make the decisions that are easiest. Our faith (or lack there of), upbringing, official job titles, obligations to our bosses or clients, and our various experiences justify action in the interests of self-preservation and in accordance with convention.
But suppose we were each given a better, more sophisticated understanding of the root of morality, its universal core. We suddenly have the opportunity to examine, perhaps even experience, the other option and explore our emotional aversion to it. We suddenly have a new tool to call upon, our private knowledge of the neurological decision-making process. We play the choice out differently, possibly picturing the person on the other end of the problem, and we reach a different conclusion and commit to a different action.
Something has happened. Insight into the moral deliberative method has yielded a result that is more inline with a broader, more rational, and surely more accurate understanding of what is good. The process has been improved.
The Future has changed.
About the Author Patrick Tucker is the senior editor of THE FUTURIST and director of communications for the World Future Society.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Friday, August 22, 2008
 |
http://www.wfs.org/Sept-Oct08/Moller.htmPowered by ShareThis
Paul Moller has spent the last 40 years trying to bring a flying car to market. We talked to him about his latest prototype, where you can get yours (hint: not in the U.S., and not anytime soon), and some of his brushes with death flying homemade, experimental aircraft.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Friday, August 22, 2008
 |
http://www.wfs.org/Sept-Oct08/Castaways.htmPowered by ShareThis
What kid didn't dream of living at sea in a glittering bubble dome? Today, researchers from around the globe are taking the first steps in bringing that dream to life. A new rush is on to build upon the oceans. As part of this special supplement to the September-October issue of THE FUTURIST magazine, we look at tomorrow's seascapes.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Monday, June 30, 2008
 |
Gerald E. Allan, president of Criteria Architects Inc., is a WorldFuture 2008 keynote speaker. Here, he discusses his upcoming presentation: Five Great Ideas and Five Great Challenges the World Needs to Address. "The very characteristics that early humans evolved in order to survive in a harsh, dangerous, and competitive environment are now working against us in the complex technological and interdependent environment we have created," says Allan. We asked him how we might move from competition to sustainability.
Interview by Rick Docksai
THE FUTURIST: How do the challenges of today compare with other times in human history when the demands of life very quickly and very dramatically changed, i.e., when humans discovered farming or that they could cross oceans? To what extent is our present challenge unique?
Allan: Everything done previously always had a localized impact. Today, the things we do have a global impact. Things happen now in universal time. Every advanced culture on the planet could now produce enough power [so] that their actions would have global consequences. You can do it technologically, biologically, environmentally; we have produced enough power to, in fact, do-in the whole system. Previously that was impossible.
The controlling element has to do with responsibility and being far-sighted. Without that, we will run right off the edge.
We're fascinated by technology, and we try to do the best we can until we get more information. But the question is, once we get the information, are we able to make a transition? The automobile gave us more freedom than any king or queen in history. But the unintended consequence is [that] it's producing the need for this infrastructure that goes into streets, parking lots (taking farmland to support it), declining resources, creating pollution.
Every technology has as much positive effect as it does negative. Technology is always neutral and it always depends on our wisdom to manage it. Why it's so difficult now is it's never happened before. People born at this time have to take what I call a universal exam, a test everybody has to take.
FUTURIST: How easy or difficult do you expect it to be to effect this seemingly monumental change in human existence?
Allan: The future always yields change, and change always yields problems. Then you get most people trying to prop up what was before.
The Chinese have this beautiful character for problem: It's not "problem," it's "decision point." And the character divides into "decision point" and "opportunity." True leadership says 'What are the opportunities in this situation? How can we mobilize to do something about this?"
The crisis we have coming could arrive in one of any multiple forms. One such form is annihilation, and that's not very interesting to talk about. Another is dieback: The population has to shrink. We've produced a fabulous source of food on this planet. It depends on cheap fuel, and cheap fuel has now changed that picture because it's not now cheap fuel.
Another is subsistence, which means failed nation-states and wars to protect the wealthy. That's the most dangerous actually. The one that would be the best case is [where] we evolve from all of this, there is enough for all, and we move to a global intelligence. We [would] move from the overuse of the planet to sustainable use. We've used our resources faster than those resources can replenish themselves. My question back to you is, Do we have to have the crisis, or are we smart enough to avert it? It's not preordained.
This new level of global intelligence is achievable, but it's going to take leadership to assist us. I don't think that we can do it individually.
FUTURIST: There are some who say that human nature cannot change. What is your rebuttal?
Allan: When I first put this together, I went through human nature as it manifested itself throughout history. And it was so dark I said I can't give this presentation. What comes from that is that our genetics, our biological predispositions, are fixed, but the choices we make are not. It isn't "can we change?" but "can we choose?" That's the difference.
The fear factor (hostility to unfamiliar people, ideas, and places), is genetic. We can't overcome that. That's built into us. If we don't react to a situation and protect ourselves, we can die. We can't not have fear. But we can choose bravery, which is not the absence of fear but action in the face of fear. Our Founding Fathers in Philadelphia, when they wrote the Declaration of Independence, were signing their death warrants. They were choosing bravery in the face of fear.
We can also choose learning. Learning is the early process of dividing into parts. Today we now use massive information. Understanding is more sophisticated than learning. The only thing that gets people really riled up is lack of respect. They can be poor, impoverished, but if you do not show them proper respect, they will fight. All adults want respect. And all children want to succeed. If you give children an environment in which they cannot succeed, they will create one in which they can succeed.
Work and worth--our species came from tribes that built into us the desire and need for purpose. If you take away the human ability to find a purpose, to work, then the culture fails. That's quickly evolving in our failed nation-states. Failed nation-states come from poverty and situations where people can't eke out enough for themselves. And if it becomes severe enough, then there is mass unemployment. And we know the psychology of unemployment. It's a loss of purpose, which leads to depression and a sense of I-don't-give-a-damn. And then someone comes along and says "I will give you purpose." It may not be a good purpose. And we see it take the form of terrorism. The futurist outlook is: "think globally, act locally." The terrorism outlook is "think locally, act globally."
FUTURIST: The twentieth century saw the emergence of international entities like the United Nations and European Union, and substantial commitments by the industrialized nations to help spur development in poorer nations. Are these early steps toward the new way? What are they missing?
Allan: Absolutely: Communication is essential. What's missing is one thing, and that is leadership. I think that in the long run it's probably that leaders need to realize what leadership is as well as what it's not. Number one, they have to realize that they're part of a global community they can't control by fear.
Number two, they have to listen and learn from past cultures. I've given the example before of Mayan temples, in which the tragic flaw was stucco. It was a manifestation of unintended consequences; the leadership took on the idea of power first and sustainability second.
Third, leadership has to understand context. The environment has no boundaries, so you have to think of that bigger picture. That's different from saying "we will take care of you." It's not symptom-treating.
Leadership can set clear goals and ask citizens to participate in meeting the challenge. It's not "we'll take care of you." The UN, EU, G7, all those are what I call social tech, as opposed to tool tech. Tool tech is technology. Social tech is what we develop to help us live better together, like libraries and open-source information on computers. Leadership, in this case, must set the tone for these to be successful. And the leadership cannot be naïve.
FUTURIST: To what extent have current anti-immigration movements in Europe and the Americas pushed us back? Are they new? Do they have staying power?
Allan: Here is a matter of human desire and choice. I would choose to have a better life; I would choose to have a better life for my children. Built into me is a desire for work and worth; built into this is this interesting family structure, because work and self-esteem come from that. To me, the anti-immigration mind-set is a symptom. It's symptom-treating instead of problem-solving. The problem-solving is [about] how we create meaningful work so that everyone can enjoy work and worth.
We have this incredible allegiance to the group we happen to be born into. That was necessary to our early survival because it allowed us to raise our children and protect them. And anyone outside this group was seen as extremely dangerous. But if you carry that over into a modern society, it doesn't work. The old ways of doing things no longer work.
FUTURIST: The twentieth century will be remembered as a time of great fear that the human race could obliterate itself using weapons of mass destruction. Is the fear of an Armageddon with us still? Is it justified?
Allan: Weapons of mass destruction will never do it. Only the United States and the Soviet Union could ever deliver that kind of blow. The missile crisis in Cuba that Kennedy dealt with--I don't think that could happen today. I think nuclear weapons could be tossed around on a regional basis, which would be the wrong model. The things that would be Armageddon-quality are going to be very small. They are biological; they are environmental. It gets to the point where we can't control it, and it results in tremendous loss of life, a very cloistered quality, and centuries to recover.
We don't need to invent new things. We just have to make the right choices from things that are available to us. Are we wise enough to learn from them?
FUTURIST: Let's talk about the environment. You have stated often that we need to change our attitude toward the environment and realize that we should not keep trying to control it. Many will say that we've done a lot of good things environmentally in the last few decades: land conservation, recycling, pollution controls are more common; there is greater concern about global warming and animal species extinction. Are we stepping in the right direction?
Allan: Absolutely: But the question is, how do we know this? Hazel Henderson, 20 years ago, talked about the need to have an economics that includes the environment. And it's never caught on. It took a movie by Al Gore to say "Hey, this is what is happening." So now, it's popular.
The first step is awareness. The second is asking "how does it affect me?" The third is asking "Can I do anything about it?" And then they talk to their friends and take action. The consequences are real. You can't change anything. If you can't measure it, how do you measure it in an honest way? I do strategic planning for companies. The CEOs want to formulate a plan, the rank and file say "what happened to the last one?" and so I'll say "just look at the plan from five years ago. And put red stickers on categories where you haven't made any progress and green on categories in which you've made progress." They almost always have green stickers on finances, because they have a comptroller who is telling them week by week what is going right or wrong.
The one where you almost always have a red sticker is human development. That's the difference. That's why with the environment, the challenge is to move from sustainability to replenishment. But the question is, how do we measure? How do we know how we're doing? How do we measure the ability to keep this and maintain this? How do we know that? We don't know the outcomes as well as we should.
It's very positive right now with the steps we're taking. We're making movement. It used to be jobs first and environment second. Now it's swung the other way; it's gotten to be the environment first and jobs second. It has to be neither. The environment means new jobs and new processes, but at a level we never thought before.
Contact Carpet is a great example. They don't sell a carpet anymore, they issue a carpet. When you are done with it, you bring it back and they make a new carpet out of it. We have the models, but what you need is an honest broker.
FUTURIST: Is globalization a good thing? In other words, is internationalizing commerce a prerequisite to recognizing that we are all the same tribe?
Allan: It's important to realize that with modern transportation and communication, globalization is inevitable. You can't stop it.
To the second question, is it a prerequisite, I say that commerce is a prerequisite. It has to be followed by fairness and trust. Instead, what happens is we say, "we're going to produce hybrid seeds that work in drought situations. But we're not going to sell them to you. We're going to sell the produce to you. We're also going to own the water rights and the property rights to the farmland."
What nature does with its profit is create life. It creates miniaturization and complexity. Globalization moves to simplicity, away from complexity.
Globalization is a very good thing. But when it's being done without respect, it's very dangerous. In Dubai, we have all the wealth in the world used to build a city in 10 years. The architecture is fabulous, built for people to go skiing in the middle of the desert. But people come to work and they take their passports away; they don't provide the housing, they pay them a horrible wage, and they [don't let them] leave when they find out it's not as good as they had thought. [This is] the model of absolutely the wrong direction. The administration on the other end is not dealing with fairness and respect, and thinking "these people could be our citizens and bring their families."
Madagascar has set the goal of a zero-carbon footprint. They're asking the right question environmentally. But what is the social tech that will accompany it?
FUTURIST: Some see the Internet as a powerful means to global interconnectedness–anyone can connect to the global network of information. Others see it as an accelerator of fragmentation--everyone carves out their little niche and can block out the greater glut. What do you think? Will the Internet help us get to where we need to be?
Allan: We have never had that before. We have never had the possibility that anyone on the planet can talk to anyone else. That is a dream that seemed always impossible, and we are there. And we are a herd animal, so it's interesting to ask what impact would that have.
There is an old science-fiction movie called The Red Planet. The understory was [that] when our space travelers visited the red planet, there were no people. There were beautiful houses but no people. The people that had been there had a replicator that produced anything they needed to their best wishes. And it wiped them out. That was a cautionary tale built back in the fifties. The Internet is that same sort of thing. It can do wonderful things, but it can also create isolation. It can lead to destructive activities. Open source has powerful potential but we have to ask it important questions. Left to our own devices, we will entertain ourselves.
The human mind loves to be challenged. The oil thing—we have humans in their garages coming up with all kinds of crazy ways to solve it. But instead of celebrating them we give them a few minutes on TV and forget about them.
The Internet is an opportunity. Right now, every day, you see a different person coming up with a different solution. One guy came up with a fiberglass car. It gets 300 miles per gallon. Three-wheel deal, he's driving around in it; it doesn't have a catalytic converter, isn't crash proof, but that's okay: What can we do to improve on it? How many engineers can you pay that are trapped in their own paradigm? GM and [other] companies could work on it but don't give them permission to do it.
Real progress happens at the margins, but it needs the center. A good leadership says we're going to respect the edges, give them some assistance.
The Five Ideas is about this very thing. What I'd like to do the following year is come back and say "This is what we got from the blog and letters. How can we build upon it?" I don't want to give a presentation that does not offer a challenge. I don't want to just give them information they can use or reject.
FUTURIST: How would community life be different in the new paradigm? Family life? Workplace life?
Allan: We should look at models that already exist rather than creating a new one. I ask why is Denmark the happiest place on earth? Number one is that they, on their own dollar, brought together 50 top economists around the world to create the Copenhagen Consensus, in which these 50 economists asked, What is the biggest cost benefit to solving all the problems we have in front of us? What is the return on our investment if we do that instead of doing nothing? Out of that, they came up with their top 50 problems and solutions. It's terrific. Why didn't we do that?
They are a society that put social development and medicine first whereas we put property and profits first. Who is happier? Even the queen has a bicycle. They have a plan to be fossil-fuel free in 20 years. They are putting that statement out there that we are going to the moon in 10 years. What they are saying is [that] this is a challenge we are making to our citizens, to our public officials, to our scientists: What is available, what can we adapt? There is an economy used in a different way from the economy of scarcity.
I think there are models out there. Family life is one source. But family life has to have the expectation that it can have life, health, safety and a living wage. No one should have to work an eight-hour day and still not be able to support his or her family. With that kind of disrespect for the person and the family so common, it is not surprising that family life dissolves, that it can't hang together.
What I'm asking the audience to do in advance is come up with ideas that will help deal not just with these issues, but deal with our human condition. I'm not looking for technological ideas necessarily but technology in light of who we are as human persons.
One idea that I like concerns community life: Every child in every culture would be required to provide public service for one or two or three years. You could do it in medicine, the environment, the military, it could be wherever. If you completed one year, society would give you two years of vocational schooling. If you did it for two years, society would give you four years of community college. If you did it for three, you would have free education at any institution in the world.
Another that I have talked about concerns global citizenship: If you are going to be a leader of a country, you have to spend at least six months of working in six different countries of different economic stages, as well as two years of education in two different countries; you have to also learn two other languages beyond your own. Then you could be a global citizen and could run for office. We now live in a global community.
The Peace Corps is a good idea but it's a one-way street: We give but we do not receive. Once we move to that level where we give and receive, we are now a tribe.
The workplace can evolve as it looks around and says, What is our vitality, what are the issues not being addressed? That's that sort of strategy.
FUTURIST: What made you decide to address the World Future Society?
Allan: From the time I joined it, the magazine was terrific, was always global, offered the best social as well as environmental and technology insights. Some magazines are dazzling graphically and offer lots of exciting stories about breaking news items. But with THE FUTURIST the audience are seekers looking for the bigger picture. And I'm honored to have the opportunity to talk to a group like this.
Every generation has an opportunity to be great. We cannot pass this on. If we don't accept the challenges of today, we have passed up the opportunity to be great. Because this is our challenge.
Gerald E. Allan will present his talk Five Great Ideas and Five Great Challenges the World Needs to Address at WorldFuture 2008 on Sunday, July 27, 2008, 7:30-9:30 p.m.
This interview was conducted by Rick Docksai
.. src="http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.js" type=text/javascript>..>
<[[iframe]] src="http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.php?u=http%3A//www.wfs.org/July-AugustFiles/Allan.htm" frameBorder=0 width=52 scrolling=no height=80>[[iframe]]>
Join WFS for $49 per year ($20 for students) and receive THE FUTURIST, Futurist Update, and many other benefits.
COPYRIGHT © 2008 WORLD FUTURE SOCIETY, 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 450, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. Tel. 301-656-8274. E-mail info@wfs.org. Web site http://www.wfs.org. All rights reserved.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
 |
FUTURIST Magazine Asks, What is the Future of Publishing?
(PRLEAP.COM) BETHESDA MD—The Internet is forcing traditional print publishers to innovate or perish. The same might be true of the written word itself, according to THE FUTURIST magazine, on stands now. The cover feature of the July-August issue, titled "The 21st-Century Writer," features interviews with tech-guru and publishing magnate Tim O'Reilly, best-selling author Douglas Rushkoff, Canadian Library Association former president Stephen Abram, and Frank Daniels, COO of Ingram's digital group. The article and the interviews are available for free online at http://www.wfs.org/futurist.htm . "For people who make their living selling words to readers—and indeed for readers themselves—these are times of upheaval. The information technology revolution has led to an explosion in textual content. More people are engaging in more conversations, sharing more opinions, learning more, and learning faster than anyone could have imagined just a few decades ago," says Patrick Tucker, the article's author. "We've entered an era where the acts of thinking, writing, and to a certain extent publishing are indistinguishable, and where charging money for editorial content is becoming an ever-trickier proposition. Book publishers, newspapers and magazines, writers, and readers are experiencing these same IT trends in very different ways." Individuals can also pick up the July-August issue of THE FUTURIST for $4.95 at bookstores and newsstands, or write the World Future Society, 7910 Woodmont Ave., Suite 450, Bethesda, MD 20814. Order online at www.wfs.org.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
 |
.. language=JavaScript>document&183;write(day + " " + month + " " + myweekday + ", " + year);..>
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
June 2, 2008, 10:55 am
Can We Build a Better Crane?
By Marc Santora .. --> end post-info -->
A crane in ancient Athens, as depicted in Manolis Korres's "Pentelicon to the Parthenon." Enlarge this image.
The construction crane has seen many incarnations over the 2,500 years that men have employed the machines. Beasts of burden are no longer needed to power them. Winches and pulley systems became ever more elaborate. Steel replaced wood at the onset of the industrial revolution, allowing for ever greater loads to be lifted.
Despite the changes, however, the crane's form has remained as consistent as its function: lifting heavy loads without toppling over. And the massive structures have long caused a certain amount of consternation among the pedestrians they loomed over like the sword of Damocles.
In 1967, The Times editorialized, "Those arrogant cranes which bestride New York's streets like prehistoric beasts constructed of nuts and bolts are peril to pedestrian and motorists alike."
With Friday's fatal crane accident, the second in Manhattan in the past two months, New Yorkers renewed nervous glances skyward and, inevitably, some wondered why some technology seems to change so little. (The cranes at several construction sites are now being examined at several major construction sites in Manhattan, where work is likely to be delayed for days or weeks while safety concerns are addressed.)
In a city that is supposed to epitomize modernity as it constantly tears itself down and builds back up, the interplay of the constant and ever-evolving can be striking.
When a steam pipe burst near Grand Central Terminal last summer, many were surprised to learn that much of Manhattan is heated and cooled via a 105-mile underground network of pipes — many installed more than a century ago. While the explosion raised questions about the system's upkeep, it also became clear that steam was simply more efficient than many other, newer systems.
Likewise, the fundamental rope-and-pulley mechanism of the elevator, an invention that allowed for the construction of the skyscrapers that define this city, has changed very little since 1853, when Elisha Otis introduced the safety brake that prevented a cab's crashing to the ground if a rope breaks.
"With technological systems, some of them are pretty highly mature, and pretty highly evolved," explained William J. Mitchell, a professor of architecture and media arts and sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Like the automobile. "A lot of smart people have been working on it for years," Professor Mitchell noted, but changes have been incremental. Yet other technology, like computers and the Internet, are revolutionary and rapidly evolving.
"Obviously, different sort of technology systems work in more or less demanding circumstances," he said. "Cranes have to work in very confined spaces, have to carry heavy loads and are surrounded by people living their lives all the time."
When something goes wrong, it is not surprising that the costs can be high.
While the basic mechanism of cranes has remained the same, experts on city construction and admirers of the skyscraper are quick to note that that there have been some technological advances (and regulatory ones as well).
The Empire State building was built in 1931 using derrick cranes, which had to be hoisted up the building as construction went along, secured on each newly completed floor. The construction of the World Trade Center towers in the 1960s and 1970s marked the first time "kangaroo" or "jumping" cranes — like the ones in the recent accidents — were used in New York.
These cranes, which are self-assembling machines that are raised from the ground, are now the standard at construction sites across the city and, indeed, the world, including on the Burj Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, destined to be the tallest building in the world.
But Professor Mitchell, of M.I.T., said that the construction business does not lend itself to big breakthroughs, especially in the way it is practiced in New York.
"Construction sites are things that have been around for thousands of years," he said. "Construction is very strange compared to other industries. There are many small operators as opposed to big players."
Often, he noted, it is just a couple of guys riding around in a pickup truck. That kind of decentralization makes sweeping change unlikely.
Still, Professor Mitchell said that the advent of computer-assisted fabrication of materials and new tools that help the various parties involved in a construction product communicate are making possible things like the oddly shaped buildings associated with architects like Frank Gehry.
It is possible that the future could bring some amazing new advances in construction, like the swarms of tiny robots imagined by some advocates of nanotechnology. "There could be a day when high-rises are constructed using nanofactories," said Patrick Tucker, senior editor of The Futurist magazine. The nanofactories would "spin super strong building material, the way spiders build webs." And that, he said, "would eliminate the need for cranes."
But even in an age of rapid technological advances, some things don't change. To build a tall building, a hole needs to be dug and materials must be hoisted into the air.
Unless you're a termite. Professor Mitchell said he often uses the little creatures as a teaching tool. They have been involved in complicated construction projects since long before the first crane was ever erected. "They are able to construct fantastically sophisticated termite mounds from pellets of mud," he noted. "They are large, complex things, even having their own sophisticated climate control."
It is all done, he said, with no construction foreman and no architectural design.
David W. Dunlap contributed reporting.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Monday, May 12, 2008
 |
Category: Web, HTML, Tech

A magazine of forecasts, trends, and ideas about the future May-June 2008 Vol. 42, No. 3
Book Review
Social Machines
A new book argues that machines work best when they help us perform, not perform in our stead.
The Design of Future Things by Donald A. Norman. Basic Books. 2007. 231 pages. $27.50.
"Human subtlety will never devise an invention more beautiful, simple or direct than does Nature. In her inventions, nothing is lacking and nothing is superfluous," Renaissance painter Leonardo da Vinci once remarked. Former Apple vice president Donald Norman's Design of Future Things is very much rooted in this Leonardesque sentiment. The short, conversational book serves as both a meditation on the nature of human–machine interaction and a warning: invention that ignores the human, the artful, and the natural will fail both conspicuously and disastrously. "We are confronting a new breed of machine with intelligence and autonomy, machines that can indeed take over for us in many situations," Norman writes. "In many cases, they will make our lives more effective, more fun, and safer. In others, however, they will frustrate us, get in our way, and even increase danger. For the first time, we have machines that are attempting to interact with us socially."
We spend ever more time conversing with machinery. In the obvious sense, this means more interfacing (the technologist's preferred term) with a wider variety of devices: selecting from an assortment of rinse cycles on our washer; setting lighting systems, motion detectors, and security devices as we leave the house; starting up the car; programming the MP3 player, GPS computer, and even the cruise control before actually hitting the gas.
As our interfacing opportunities increase, so does the potential for human–object miscommunication.
Machines may work like clockwork, but they handle surprises like robots— which is to say, poorly. We rely on them when we shouldn't and find ourselves (ironically) lost after following the directions of a computer that can neither see nor drive, mopping up after a stubborn washer that refuses to stop when we open the lid midcycle, apologizing to the police on our doorstep for our well-intentioned but overly vigilant security systems.
What's missing from the human– machine relationship, says Norman, is a sense of respectful partnership. His book is full of examples of what a better tête-à-tête might look like. A Microsoft Cambridge "smart" home actually seeks to make its occupants smarter, allowing family members to leave messages on digital surfaces viewable anywhere throughout—or outside—the house. It's a vision of home as digital administrative assistant rather than as butler. A Georgia Tech smart home can watch you cook and—if you have to break away to answer the phone—remind you where you left off. Bad memory? The house also monitors your prescriptions and can let your family do the same. After all, who knows you best?
"Both groups of researchers could have tried to make the devices intelligent," Norman points out. "Instead, both groups devised systems t h a t would f it smoothly into people's life styles. Both systems rely upon powerful, advanced technology, but the guiding philosophy for each group is augmentation, not automation."
Automobiles are another example of machines that could become less automatic and more "social." Radio frequency identification and similar technologies already allow cars to communicate with tollbooths, so why not with other cars? It will be a long time before such car-to-car collaboration eliminates the need for traffic lights and speed limits. In the meantime, cars that could better negotiate their position, speed, and distance with one another would most certainly prevent wrecks.
What's most important, says Norman, is that the inventors of the future transcend the binary distinction between the practice of art and the science of engineering and move toward a comprehensive "science of design." The notion harkens back to sixteenth-century Florence, a time and place where broad knowledge and boundless curiosity were considered as valuable as narrow expertise or a declared major. If a more generalist approach yields objects that better reflect the coherence of nature— rather than the whim of marketers—then the objects of tomorrow will be unquestionably smarter. ❑
About the Reviewer
Patrick Tucker is the senior editor of THE FUTURIST and director of communications for the World Future Society. E‑mail ptucker@wfs.org .
.. src="http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.js" type=text/javascript>..>
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
Monday, May 05, 2008
 |
From the May-June Issue of THE FUTURIST...

Biowarfare isn't a new threat, rather one that's always changing. We asked MIT bioweapons expert Jeanne Guillemin to put the issue into perspective.
THE FUTURIST: In your book Biological Weapons, you discuss the Japanese biowarfare efforts in Manchuria as well as those of the United States and the Soviet Union. Is there any single episode or event in the history of biological warfare that stands out as particularly relevant today?
Guillemin: In the Tokyo War Crimes Trial of 1946-1948, Occupation officials could have prosecuted the Japanese biological weapons activities as war crimes. Instead, the crimes were buried in intense secrecy. The United States and other prosecutors turned a blind eye to the evidence even as U.S. military intelligence personnel were offering immunity to Japanese program scientists in return for technical information, not unlike the bargains the United States made with Nazi weapons scientists.
Like the Nuremberg trials, the Tokyo trial brought international attention to horrendous crimes against humanity, but, influenced by Cold War antagonisms, it left out Japan's horrendous biological weapons research on forced human subjects, (which rivaled any of the horrors revealed in Nuremberg) and the repeated, intentional infection of thousands of Chinese with fatal diseases. Japanese leaders already in the dock could have been charged with violating international laws against harming civilians in war and the use of biological weapons.
By not prosecuting them, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and subsequently the Soviet Union were able to pursue their own secret biological weapons programs without fear that their scientists and officials would be dragged before a similar court for war crimes. It matters today that individuals, including heads of state, who might be contemplating biological weapons activities understand that these weapons are now internationally illegal, according to the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.
THE FUTURIST: How is advancing technology changing the threat of biological warfare in the twenty-first century?
Guillemin: Technology by itself is not the driving force behind the threat of biological weapons. That force continues to be political. But for the sake of discussion, we can say that the technology for biological weapons is characterized by two levels of threat. One is residual, emanating from the old program, (including those of the United States and the Soviet Union), in which the weapons potential of anthrax, tularemia, plague, and other infectious diseases was developed.
Many barriers exist to protect targeted populations. The political problem, which was demonstrated in the U.S. response to the 2001 anthrax letters, is that those people on the margins of mainstream society will be less well protected than those of higher social status or income. The other threat concerns innovations in human genetics and neurology that someone could exploit for military ends in the same way that physics and chemistry begat weapons in previous centuries.
THE FUTURIST: How do you see this threat evolving in the next 10 years? The next twenty years?
Guillemin: Just as in the past, the threat of specific technical innovations will directly depend on government secrecy and on willingness of skilled scientists to dedicate themselves to military programs that appear to be in the interests of national defense, though they defy international law. Unfortunately, history shows that the military pursuit of advantageous knowledge can lead to capabilities that are more offensive than defensive. In World War II, based on faulty estimates of German capabilities, the Allies moved forward with important germ weapon innovations that they initially claimed were for retaliation but that had inherently offensive potential. The mass production of anthrax bombs is an example. The Soviet Union covertly expanded its own program during the 1970s and 1980s, explaining to its scientific cadre that the expansion was a necessary defense against the United States.
THE FUTURIST: What are some specific actions governments could undertake to prevent an incident of bioterrorism?
Guillemin: In the last six years, the United States has invested some $44 billion in biodefense research and development, but whether this use of resources has deterred bioterrorism is unclear. One could argue that bioterrorism itself a kind of fiction or political construct. Since the 1990s, fears of bioterrorism have driven federal policy for domestic preparedness and homeland security. Washington officials and so-called experts on civilian biodefense have long broadcast the inevitability of a mass germ weapons attack by terrorists.
This drumroll reached a crescendo just prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq when the likelihood of Saddam Hussein's terrorists attacking the United States with smallpox was widely touted by the Bush administration as justification for invasion. The drumroll--and a universal smallpox vaccination program for Americans—ceased by May 2003, after no biological weapons caches were found in Iraq. No lethal mass bioterrorist attack of any sort has ever occurred anywhere; rather, it is terrorists' preference for conventional explosives that is demonstrated nearly daily in the news.
Still, the best place to start would be a vigorous state-by-state implementation of the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, which outlaws the possession or development of such weapons but lacks the standing organization and verification procedures that fortify the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention.
THE FUTURIST: The threat of such an attack is one of those horrors that most people feel helpless in the face of. Aside from hoarding duct tape or gas masks, what are some things that individuals could do to feel more empowered in this era of growing uncertainty?
Guillemin: To feel empowered against the threat of biological weapons, individual citizens should insist on two policies: One is an effective, equitable health care system that guarantees general protection from a range of medical threats. The other is government accountability regarding military or other programs potentially in violation of the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.
Effective oversight, which should begin at home, has been largely missing from the new U.S. biodefense initiative, which involves primarily the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services. In just a few years, the realm of secrecy has expanded unrestrained. New high-containment laboratories for experimental select agent research have multiplied in the absence of regulation to protect workers and populations in adjacent communities. The profusion of biodefense projects has been associated with scores of accidents involving select agents for anthrax, plague, cholera, and other diseases.
Outside of the United States, many other countries around the globe are gaining access to sophisticated biotechnology. If they follow the current U.S. example, they might pursue covert research that blurs the line between defensive and offensive goals.
About the Interviewee
Jeanne Guillemin is a Professor of Sociology at Boston College and also a Senior Fellow at the MIT Security Studies Program. She is the author of several books on biological warfare, including Biological Weapons: The History of State-Sponsored Programs and the Problem of Bioterrorism (Columbia University Press, 2004).
This interview was conducted by Patrick Tucker, senior editor of THE FUTURIST.
.. src="http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.js" type=text/javascript>..>
<[[iframe]] src="http://digg.com/tools/diggthis.php?u=http%3A//www.wfs.org/March-AprilFiles/Biowarinterview.htm" frameBorder=0 width=52 scrolling=no height=80>[[iframe]]>
Join WFS for $49 per year ($20 for
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|