An Introduction to New History: Coincidence

More Invisible, Unknown Truth articles

About Eric Bock Hyde

I write about hegemony, technology and war. I title my blog "Invisible, Unknown Truth" because it reflects the value of international politics as a variable orchestrating our lives. Adam Smith talked... Full Bio

Eric
Bock Hyde

    In December of 2006, two coinciding events occurred. Saddam Hussein's death was youtubed and Bill Gates published an article in Scientific American called "A Robot in Every Home". It was a telling time in that two public 'medias' unexpectedly created a new perspective on technology and war: Robots would eventually live alongside humans, and humans, if not physically, would live technologically closer to war.

   In one instance, a cellphone captured Hussein's hanging. This exemplified a new role of technology in the public view of wartime. The public finally had access to faster information in the theater of war. On the other hand, Gates wrote a magazine article explaining his prediction: in 2025, robots performing specific household functions like laundry, surveillance and mowing the grass will be in every home. In other words, in roughly two decades time humanity will be granted permission to enter the most advanced technological market this world has ever seen.

    When thinking of these two unrelated incidents there is a struggle in defining what they mean in terms of the future. A day after the 30 December 2006 hanging of Hussein, BBC released the transcript of the execution:

[Saddam] Oh God.

[Voices] May God's blessings be upon Muhammad and his household.

[Voices] And may God hasten their appearance and curse their enemies.

[Voices] Moqtada [Al-Sadr]...Moqtada...Moqtada.

[Saddam] Do you consider this bravery?

[Voice] Long live Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr.

[Voice] To hell.

[Voice] Please do not. The man is being executed. Please no, I beg you to stop.

[Saddam] There is no God but Allah and I testify that
Muhammad is the messenger of God. There is no God but Allah and I
testify that Muhammad...

At this point the video stops and the sound of the trapdoors opening is heard in the background.

Personally, the new year of 2007 was odd, the year 2008 was a riddled election year, and now 2009 sees heightened publications on robotics in the military. It is premature to make any assumptions, or to fill in the gap between Iraq War 2, Saddam Hussein and the robotics revolution without concrete research; however surely some invisible, unknown truth will slowly indicate itself over the years. Time will tell.

Maktub

Comments

It must be Sci-Fi day for me. Bill Gates pronouncement seems to echo Heinlein's 1956 "the Door Into Summer" or Allen's "Sleeper". Coincidence of old Sci-Fi leading to possible futures?

J Q | 08/27/09 | 21:54 PM

Co-incidences like these seem to justify the future in many ways. Or maybe they are an ignorant person's glimpse of the 'powerful's pursuit of power'?' When I first read Gate's article, I thought, "What the fuck...? This is not good." I was thinking, "babies suckin' on robot titties. This world's gunna be fucked."

Then I read P. W. Singer's Wired for War and thought, "h-o-l-y-f-u-c-k-i-n-g-s-h-i-t, this world is far from over. I am going to live through, possibly take part in, a shitload of history... Man creates God, Man creates Machine, Man creates AI, AI creates AI - boom! Human evolution's gotta brand new bag!"

Then I read Kurzweil's The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, and thought," Christ Almighty!, I need to quit being a nerd a get laid."

But in all seriousness, I believe.

I believe that things have already changed immensely in 15 years since I woke from my coma, and now this new shit's gunna change even faster.

Never've read Heinlein's 1956 "the Door Into Summer" or Allen's "Sleeper". What are they about?

Eric Bock Hyde | 08/28/09 | 18:41 PM

I believe that things have already changed immensely in 15 years since
I woke from my coma, and now this new shit's gunna change even faster.

I'm not sure I believe that things have changed that significantly. Oh, there's certainly alot of technology that's all dressed up with nowhere to go, but in the end it's still fundamentally the same stuff. Put lipstick on a pig and it's still just a pig.

That sounds fairly cynical, but consider how much computers have actually changed over the past few decades in terms of their utility. In truth, actual computer applications have become more powerful, but the base functions are still pretty much the same (i.e. word processors, spreadsheets, graphic manipulations, etc.). The most striking change has been the internet, which has introduced the general user community into the idea of networking and opened up new opportunities for doing the same old things humans have always done.

It's no coincidence that the most significant technical developments seem to follow the desire (need) for humans to entertain themselves, so if we removed that element from consideration what is left?

There's no question that the technology has opened up new pathways and opportunities for these activities to be channeled down, but in practice it's still the same basic human interactions and behavior that's being done.

So, while the trappings have certainly changed, I'm not sure that this represents any kind of major departure over the ordinary.

Gerhard Adam | 08/29/09 | 14:31 PM

The history of technological progress during my life has been strong.
First with computers, then the internet, and cell phones for example.
Information medias have made a tremendous impact in human interaction
in culture and war. I believe, like Thomas Rid and Marc Hecker, the
information age initially benefits insurgencies more than COINs. I
also believe, as will be discussed later, that technological progress
signifies a decline or "departure over the ordinary."

Thanks for your comments!

Eric Bock Hyde | 08/31/09 | 13:44 PM

I guess I don't see the differences. Certainly technology has played a significant role in HOW I can do certain things, but in the things I do, it's not substantially different from anything I would've done 20 or 30 years ago. In many ways, technology has allowed me to do many things faster, or with greater variety, but it still hasn't actually changed what I do.

Correspondingly, technology has also added additional burden to my life (costs in time and money) that otherwise wouldn't be there, but in general, the tradeoff is positive. I've always been of the opinion that with newer technologies people tend to be busier, but not necessarily more productive.

Gerhard Adam | 08/31/09 | 13:58 PM

Gerhard Adam,

This article is more about the philosophy of the big picture. In understanding the significance of coinciding events, such as Gates and Hussein's December 2006 duo v. cellphones and robotics vision, I look more to the 'whole' course of the future. Individuals are one thing, the course of human history is another.

The psuedonymity of web interaction can make these messages lost in translation. Sincerity is my intention: You may be shortsighted in thinking that technology has not substantially changed what you've done over the course of 20 or 30 years? Perhaps you're implying that tech' will not substantially change what you do in the next 20 or 30 years?

Eric Bock Hyde | 08/31/09 | 16:35 PM

You may be shortsighted in thinking that technology has not
substantially changed what you've done over the course of 20 or 30
years? Perhaps you're implying that tech' will not substantially
change what you do in the next 20 or 30 years?

Perhaps you could offer an example? I realize that HOW we do things is different, but I'm not seeing that WHAT we do is substantially different. If the latter doesn't change, then I don't really see how technology is going to be transformative in any meaningful way.

Gerhard Adam | 08/31/09 | 16:42 PM

As a addendum to my last post, an example I can think of that describes a transformative change in technology is akin to what happened when cars, airplanes, and electricity were introduced. In modern technological terms, it has given rise to something a friend has dubbed "coccooning" where an individual can become more isolated and interact with the outside world electronically rather than physically.

Gerhard Adam | 08/31/09 | 16:55 PM

Technology changes how things are done. It directly affects what we do because it changes our physical behavior. A neck-down paralyzed man can now utilize the computer and internet via nueral implant. Unmanned aerial and ground vehicles greatly reduce the risks of death for soldiers, while also enhancing tactical and strategic efficiency. The US military plans to increase robotics usage even more (the Air Force now has trained more unmanned pilots than manned) over the next decades. Technology affects who, what, when, where, why, and how. Technology not only affects how wars are fought but it allows for missions to be fought 24/7 via computer... that's doing something amazing. Sure how we do things changes, but also what we do changes, when we do it, where we do it, why we do it, and who we interact with changes. Our taxes fund wartime efforts. R&D is the cornerstone, immediately following human productivity.

I paraphrase these examples from Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century.

Eric Bock Hyde | 08/31/09 | 23:57 PM

Technology not only affects how wars are fought but it allows for
missions to be fought 24/7 via computer... that's doing something
amazing.

I have to disagree. That's precisely what got the Generals in trouble during Viet Nam. The thinking was that they were going to bomb them back into the stone-age. The supposed retort was, "... and what are you going to do if they're already there".

The military has NEVER fought a successful war with technology alone. While all those tools can be assets and helpful, there are insufficient in any real capacity without the person on the ground. The biggest difference in warfare is the advances in medical technology which allows more survivors than past wars, but it certainly isn't warfare technology that is making the difference.

In many respects our military has become overly dependent on technology. I realize the thinking is that future conflicts will be more isolated and urban in nature, so the role of technology can be exploited to a greater degree. However, I don't share your optimistic view that it makes that much difference.

The simple truth about warfare is that many "primitive" armies or groups have done rather well for themselves against the U.S. and the Russians. That suggests that technology isn't quite up to the task.

Gerhard Adam | 09/01/09 | 00:12 AM

That's my open window, and there's my higher ground.

Eric Bock Hyde | 09/01/09 | 13:53 PM

Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun both disagree with your assertion that technology is not a game changer but your overall meaning is sound - 3 soldiers with great technology can't win a war while my concern during my time in the Army was not the USSR, but instead China (well, unofficially, officially it was the USSR) because machine gun barrels melt but Chinese soldiers could keep coming.

We definitely engaged in 2 wars after 8 years of a 'peace dividend' RIF and the gutting of the intelligence agencies but for some reason no one recognized that it would take more troops to occupy than it did to win.

For the occupation of Japan after WW2, it required an occupation draft of 1 million soldiers - more than our entire army today - just to occupy the island. But it worked nicely. Ditto for Germany.

We didn't need to do a draft this time but with some 16 million young people of a suitable age and mindset available we could have allocated some money to hiring more of them and not tasked Marines and Rangers with trying to do garrison duty.

Hank Campbell | 09/01/09 | 17:08 PM

I agree with you. My only point is that there seems to be a sci-fi attitude about technology which has never played well on the ground. In particular, war is an ugly business and it disturbs me when people think that simply having advanced technology is going to stop anyone actually getting hurt.

Gerhard Adam | 09/01/09 | 17:31 PM

Eric, both can be googled for a synopsis of content. Heinlein is an author from the Golden Age of Science Fiction. Sleeper is a movie from 1973. This is the first time I've felt a generation gap with someone.

J Q | 08/29/09 | 12:53 PM

Jeff Sherry,

Yeahhhh!!!!! That's the truth, ain't it? Sci-fi has many inspirational parallels in envisioning/creating new futures. Nixon's Star Wars, John Hopkin's Luke Skywalker arm....

Eric Bock Hyde | 08/31/09 | 16:55 PM

Nixon's "Star Wars"? Bob Hope versus Shecky Green?

J Q | 08/31/09 | 17:33 PM

Nixon implemented a Star Wars program and John Hopkins is developing the Luke Skywalker arm.

Eric Bock Hyde | 08/31/09 | 22:53 PM

More Invisible, Unknown Truth articles

About Eric Bock Hyde

Comments

Add a comment

Know Science And Want To Write?

What People Are Saying

Books By Writers Here

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

More Invisible, Unknown Truth articles

About Eric Bock Hyde

Related Articles Here On Scientific Blogging

Comments

Add a comment

Know Science And Want To Write?

What People Are Saying

Books By Writers Here