Army Assembles 'Mad Scientist' Conference. Seriously.

Quote :

"Last August, the U.S. Army held a three-day conference in Portsmouth, Virginia, to look at new developments in military science and hardware. The confab was called the '2008 Mad Scientist Future Technology Seminar.' Really. It was. 'The objective of the seminar was to investigate proliferating technologies with the potential to empower individuals and groups in the next 10-25 years,' according to an unclassified summary of the Mad Scientist gathering, obtained by Danger Room. As you'd expect from such a colorfully-titled gathering, the collected brains predicted a world in which individuals would have easy access to everything from ray guns to nano-bots to bioengineered weapons to arms for creating international chaos online. 'The U.S. must accept the reality that it can no longer assume technological superiority over the rest of the world. Ready access to scientific information and technological know-how has and will continue to level the playing field,' the Mad Scientist summary notes. 'In the operational environment of 2030 and beyond, the destructive/disruptive capability of the individual and small group will be more effective, more lethal, more easily developed/acquired, more efficiently delivered, and more easily concealed and transported... Individuals with access to the global information grid can easily acquire the knowledge needed to develop lethal bio agents, literally in their kitchen sink. Nanotechnology and robotics will offer opportunities to introduce and spread bio and chemical agents into targeted populations.' Turning to forward-looking thinkers is a time-honored government tradition. Shortly after 9/11, for instance, the Army met with Hollywood screenwriters and directors to forecast terrorist scenarios. Last year, the Department of Homeland Security held a gathering of science-fiction writers to solicit advice on which technology programs to fund. In comparison, the Mad Scientist gathering of Ivy League researchers, defense contractors, think tankers, and NASA scientists seems rather conventional. The Mad Scientist group sees more than just a world of danger in the 2030s. 'Most likely results include an increased life span, a solution to the energy crisis, ready availability of food and fresh water to all, a global distribution of technology, education, economics, and -- therefore -- wealth. This will reduce the tension between the "haves" and "have-nots" while the capabilities of robotics and access to virtual reality to both care for and entertain will create the perception of well-being almost universally around the globe. Advancements are limited only by imagination and resources.' Who knows what they'll dream up after that?"

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/armys-mad-scien.html

I could have placed this in Tech Talk, but I think the sociopolitical ramifications of technological advances are more appropriately discussed here. So. . .

1. I think this conference shows a type of creativity that the military in general isn't often given credit for. The military simply isn't composed of automatons, as some have it.

So, it's inventiveness within the modern military, the notion of self-agency, and stereotyping as it relates to service members. Discuss.

2. What are the ramifications of military and other technological advances now and in the years to come (say, no more than 25 years from now)? Will there be a dangerous leveling or will this leveling help to promote harmony or will the leveling even occur? Discuss.

1/12/2009 12:47:43 AM

mad scientist conference points to imminent apocalypse

1/12/2009 12:57:15 AM

another hooksaw thread designed to attack a strawman.

1/12/2009 2:34:50 AM

^ You are a fucking clown. This thread is "designed to attack" no one.

1/12/2009 3:55:57 AM

...robot spy mosquitoes that inject nanobots, and retrieve blood.
We're fucked.

1/12/2009 8:44:59 AM

^ Well, on the low-tech end, the enemy has been able to attack troop masses with swarms of infected insects for decades.

1/12/2009 9:04:59 AM

Somebody watched way too much Star Trek this weekend on drugs.

1/12/2009 9:30:05 AM

Alright, that's enough bullshitting. Either discuss the thread, or go somewhere else.

1/12/2009 10:35:01 AM

Too bad these mad scientists werent working on the energy problem instead


1)This doesnt change the stereotype for me that most people in the army are automotons. The article made it sound to me like most of the creativity was being offered from outside the military (they held the conference for people outside the military, they went to screenwriters for the terrorist scenarios)

2) I really dont see the playing field being leveled. America will remain very good at blowing shit up as long as we are spending billions to keep the military industrial complex happy.


also

Quote :

"'Most likely results include an increased life span, a solution to the energy crisis, ready availability of food and fresh water to all, a global distribution of technology, education, economics, and -- therefore -- wealth. This will reduce the tension between the "haves" and "have-nots" while the capabilities of robotics and access to virtual reality to both care for and entertain will create the perception of well-being almost universally around the globe."

by 2030?? is pretty doubtful to me





[Edited on January 12, 2009 at 12:08 PM. Reason :

[Edited on January 12, 2009 at 12:11 PM. Reason : **]

1/12/2009 12:01:38 PM

Quote :

"What are the ramifications of military and other technological advances now and in the years to come (say, no more than 25 years from now)? Will there be a dangerous leveling or will this leveling help to promote harmony or will the leveling even occur? Discuss."

An often overlooked ramification of the proliferation of personal electronics following the end of the Cold War has been an increase in the power needs of individuals around the globe. I'd love to see leveling, but I feel that we'll have to be well out of the energy crisis before that can happen.

A few links I'd like throw out:

'Carbon cost' of Google revealed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7823387.stm

The Olduvai Theory, a grim prediction of the fall of industrial civilization (that I don't buy into, but is worth mentioning):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_theory

1/12/2009 12:11:10 PM

^^

Quote :

"Too bad these mad scientists werent working on the energy problem instead"

Wow--this is more than a bit myopic. Military technological advances and broader technological advances are often not mutually exclusive. In addition, off-the-shelf technology is, in fact, helping the military to advance:

War technology advances

Quote :

"What allows such a rapid integration of technology is the military's use of 'Consumer Off-The-Shelf' technology, or COTS. During the Cold War, if the military wanted a new computer weapons system, the Department of Defense would find a private contractor to build the custom equipment at a custom price. This method required a great deal of time and was hampered by problems of exorbitant prices. Today, the military starts with commercially available equipment and tailors it to specific uses. The reconnaissance systems used in Joint STARS aircraft used to cost almost $20 million per plane. Today, the server equipment is all manufactured by Hewlett-Packard at a cost of about $4.5 million per plane. This is a drastic savings and has the added benefit of being easy to repair. Unlike a privately built computer system, which would need custom fabricated parts, the military can order whatever they need from HP and get next-day delivery."

http://tinyurl.com/8pzxvm

In any event, you won't have any energy if we can't protect it. The enemy targets supply lines of all types, you know?

Quote :

"1) This doesn't change the stereotype for me that most people in the army are automotons [sic]."

Um. . .you realize that stereotyping is a logical fallacy, yes? In addition, is it only the U.S. Army that you object to or all branches of service?

Quote :

"The article made it sound to me like most of the creativity was being offered from outside the military (they held the conference for people outside the military, they went to screenwriters for the terrorist scenarios)"

If an attack were to happen and the military had not looked outside itself for scenarios, would you criticize them for it?

Quote :

"2) I really don't see the playing field being leveled. America will remain very good at blowing shit up as long as we are spending billions to keep the military industrial complex happy."

In a world in which many others are also "very good at blowing shit up," isn't there some value in being the best at this? And the military also conducts humanitarian, rescue, security, and transport missions, among many other missions.

1/12/2009 12:31:54 PM

Quote :

"The Mad Scientist group sees more than just a world of danger in the 2030s. 'Most likely results include an increased life span, a solution to the energy crisis, ready availability of food and fresh water to all, a global distribution of technology, education, economics, and -- therefore -- wealth."

Reduced Income Inequality? Ready availability of food and water? No energy crisis? Makes you wonder what we will have to fight about 20 years from now.

If this is all true and we don't have to worry about battles for resources such as food and water (as a environmental pessimist i'm not totally convinced), then I guess wars around the globe will actually look a lot like they have for the past 50 years inspite of nanobots and ray guns--they will be motivated by political and ideological struggles. The bitch about that is that the US has few and inadequate military options for addressing these problems in other countries (we can't solve these problems for other people, even with sonic weapons).

So what should military scientists be working on? New super tanks? Hmmm How about technologies that protect us from the consequences of global political/ideological struggles instead? Like better ways to keep radioactive material from getting through ports?? Or maybe ways to protect international supply chains from being interrupted by terrorist attack or political conflict abroad (make the hulls of ships electric to shock would be pirates? nothing can go wrong w/that idea)? It's not as hip as space lasers, but maybe it's more practical.

[Edited on January 12, 2009 at 1:33 PM. Reason : ``]

1/12/2009 1:06:55 PM

There's little reason to believe equality will increase simply because of advancing technology. I hope so, but suspect it will take a dedicated social movement alongside the inventions. We already have enough to meet everyone's basic needs, but that doesn't happen.

1/12/2009 1:39:58 PM

First of all, let me say I am not attacking our military or our service people, please dont read any of my comments in this way.

Quote :

"Um. . .you realize that stereotyping is a logical fallacy, yes? In addition, is it only the U.S. Army that you object to or all branches of service?"

You pointed out in the article many creative solutions and scenarios were being explored by the military, therefore maybe people in the military (all branches) are more complex than the "automatons" people stereotype them as. That could be true except that the creativity displayed in the article came from people outside of the military.

regardless, people in the military are trained to follow orders and protocols that usually dont allow for a lot of creative choice or input. A lot of people would argue that it is better this way, especially in war time situations. I believe that is where a lot of the stereotype comes from.

Quote :

"If an attack were to happen and the military had not looked outside itself for scenarios, would you criticize them for it? "

Honestly I think it was a good idea for the military to look for help from other places, a few brains will always be better than one (most of the time). Although I think asking the Hollywood writers to come up with terrorist scenarios is pretty dumb. have you watched 24?

Quote :

"In a world in which many others are also "very good at blowing shit up," isn't there some value in being the best at this? And the military also conducts humanitarian, rescue, security, and transport missions, among many other missions. "

I dunno. Because we are obviously the best it seems we try to impose our will on others, usually too heavy handed for my taste. Honestly, It doesnt make me feel any safer. And yes I do realize our military is very capable of things other than destruction.

1/12/2009 1:41:39 PM

^ Okay, this post seems more thoughtful.

1/12/2009 1:48:51 PM

Quote :

"'Most likely results include an increased life span, a solution to the energy crisis, ready availability of food and fresh water to all, a global distribution of technology, education, economics, and -- therefore -- wealth."

Yeah, this sounds a lot like the arguments of Singularity advocates. While I won't go so far as to say they're wrong about the technology advances (they could very well be quite right), I don't see humans using them in such an egalitarian factor. More likely, you'll see a wave of idealistic first adapters mixed with, and closely followed by, those who seek to use these sorts of things for personal gain.

Quote :

"This doesnt change the stereotype for me that most people in the army are automotons. The article made it sound to me like most of the creativity was being offered from outside the military"

The specialty skill set of soldiers isn't science (or dreaming up terrorist scenarios for that matter). Why would you not go to people who specialized in a field for the most current information? This is like arguing that our scientists are sub-standard because they don't know the immediate action drills for a malfunction the M16 family of rifles. You go to the experts for expert advice, no matter how skilled your amateurs are.

And anyone who things servicemen are automatons, especially combat arms Marines and Soldiers, has never worked with them.

1/12/2009 6:30:41 PM

I just wanna know when the metal gears are gonna roll out.

1/12/2009 7:18:30 PM

Quote :

"There's little reason to believe equality will increase simply because of advancing technology. "

Aren't you the one that thinks technology will bring about the communist anarchy utopia in which every person's every whim and desire is fulfilled by machines?

1/12/2009 7:53:45 PM

Quote :

"Aren't you the one that thinks technology will bring about the communist anarchy utopia in which every person's every whim and desire is fulfilled by machines?"

I'd like to work toward that, yes. As I said, I doubt it'll happen by invention alone. Ideally, technological advances will enable a successful egalitarian movement. Could go either way.

1/12/2009 8:07:06 PM