2084 is Coming Fast: How Fast Will We Master the Ethics of Technology?

The prospect of ending disease and dramatically slowing aging, coupled with mass extinction of traditional jobs, at least in the developed world, poses hefty ethical quandaries for humankind.  We may find ourselves living longer than ever before while having less meaningful, necessary work to do.  I am an optimist and progressive by nature, but I’m concerned about—perhaps even doubt—our ability to shepherd technology in a way that benefits all mankind.  Are we mature enough as a species to be responsible stewards of our own brilliant creations? 

We’ve already proven, time and again, our technology outpaces our ability to reconcile it with our humanity.  “If we can, we will” trumps “even if we can, should we?” every time.  By the time we’ve cogitated on the ramifications, there ain’t no gettin’ that genie back in the bottle.  We cannot form public policy fast enough to keep up.  To wit: nuclear weapons, weaponized germs, drones, electronic cigarettes, driverless cars, computer-controlled high-speed securities trading, etc. 

Many of us have heard the almost cliché ethical conundrum associated with driverless cars: will the car be programmed to protect the occupants or the people outside the vehicle if it comes to that?  Who gets to decide the answer to that question?  The insurance industry?

Over the past few years, there have been discussions regarding the theoretical possibilities of creating some doomsday form or state of matter in the Large Hadron Collider (the largest and most powerful particle accelerator in the world, housed in Switzerland and run by scientists of the European nuclear research agency, CERN).  Could a cadre of Swiss PhD quantum supergeeks accidentally create a black hole that would destroy our planet?  My reading strongly indicates the general consensus among the scientific community is that such a possibility is extremely remote.  Close to zero.  Still, who asked the question, and who got to answer it?  How close to zero is okay for the rest of us? 

This time lag, this growing gap, between technology deployment and ethical due diligence is widening at an accelerating rate. 

By the end of this century, we will very likely have conquered, or at least significantly subdued, many, if not most, of the diseases that vex us today—cancer, heart disease, and degenerative neurological and muscular disorders.  We will very likely have the technological capability to prevent birth defects and even select genetic traits in our offspring.  It’s very possible we will have a much better understanding of the mechanisms of aging, and will have developed ways to retard the aging process.  It’s all very exciting.

It’s also very scary.  Certainly, biotechnology breakthroughs are going to be available on a very asymmetric basis, socio-economically.  Access, for the first decades, will be an expensive privilege, not a right.  We will vanquish disease, eliminate birth defects, choose the color of our children’s eyes, and defy aging in the affluent parts of our world first.  The fundamental distinction between “haves” and “have-nots” is relative financial wealth—the chasm that incites and inflames global conflict.  What will happen when the “haves” also gain access to (or, more ominously, control of) more of the most precious resource of all: time—years, maybe decades, of high-quality living?  Look out world. 

So, people in the richer parts of the world will be living longer, healthier lives.  Doing what for a living is not yet clear.

Mankind began as hunter-gatherers.  We lived in small social groups, working to meet all of our needs on our own.  We evolved, moved into cities, began specializing, and trading on our specialties to meet all our needs.  You made my bread, I shod your horses.  Today, over half of human beings live in cities.  A tiny percentage of us provides the food for all of us.  Our progressing specialization through the ages, accelerated by global competition, has been the driving force behind automation.  Automation (including artificial intelligence) is merely the next logical, inescapable, step in industrial development.    

     

We are either past, or fast approaching, the point at which most manufacturing jobs (as well as jobs in many other sectors—agriculture, medicine, transportation, energy extraction, to name a few) can be technologically performed better by machines than humans.  Safer.  Faster.  Much less variation.  No human error.  The “jobless recovery” after the 2008 global financial meltdown gave us our first stark glimpse of this new reality.  The only true decision being made right now: “Is it more cost effective to automate in the developed world, or export the jobs to low labor rate countries, where wages are still cheap enough to offset poor efficiency and productivity?”  This trend is irreversible and accelerating.

So, we better figure out how and where we humans fit into the world that is fast coming at us.  What functions are inherently incompatible with automation (at least for the foreseeable future)?  What fields will we try to steer our children into to give them the best chance for opportunity and success?  Will there be enough work for all of us to do?  Will that work be valuable enough—will we get paid enough—to allow us to support ourselves and our families?  How will, how should, the economy work?  We’ll be living longer, capable of working longer.  Will our global population increase precipitously, will it accelerate, if we’re all living longer? 

These themes are not new.  They’ve been within the realm of science fiction for decades.  What is new is that these themes are no longer fiction.  It’s happening.  We’re witnessing the emergence.  There are far more questions, with precious few answers.  I certainly have none to offer, other than to start thinking about all of this right now.  Now is the time to be articulating and debating the important questions, because as soon as we can do it, we probably will do it, whether or not we should do it.  Cash in on those investments.  Exceed the earnings projections.  Reward the shareholders.  Long-term risks and consequences be damned.

Again, I’m an optimist.  This technological progress in life sciences and manufacturing can, and should, turn out great for all of us; but, I’m not convinced the forces of nature—human and otherwise—will lead to good outcomes naturally.  It won’t happen by accident.  We have to decide and commit to playing active offense, or passive defense.  Are we going to steer this car, or what?  

God bless us, everyone.

The “War on Coal” – Myth of Cowardly Leaders

Robert Murray is a cowardly leader.  As CEO of Ohio-based Murray Energy, he laid off 150 workers last week following the presidential election, claiming the layoffs were the result of President Obama’s “War on Coal.”

This war on coal is a complete myth, the perpetuation of which disserves us all.

No doubt, coal mining underpins myriad local economies in coal country.   Shame on politicians and leaders in these regions for not seeing, and responding appropriately to, the looming paradigm shift away from coal.  They buried their collective heads in the sand and allowed their local economies to remain completely dependent upon coal instead of diversifying and posturing their cities and towns for success in the coming post-coal era.

Yes, Americans want cleaner air and less pollution.  Despite improved technology, coal extraction and energy recovery still impart relatively high negative impact on our environment.  The environmental regulation of the coal mining and coal-fired power generation industries have been in place for a long time—well before President Obama took office in January 2009.  In fact, the Obama administration actively delayed implementation of many Bush-era coal-related regulations in order to minimize their economic impact during the recession.

Despite the "conventional wisdom," more people are employed in the coal industry in 2012 than in 2007, before President Obama took office.  In May 2007, the coal industry employed about 78,000 Americans.  While the industry shed several thousand jobs during the worst part of the recession, by October, the coal industry had recovered and then some, employing about 80,000 Americans.

Competition from natural gas is the single biggest reason the coal industry faces declining prospects in coming years.  It’s pure economics.  Generating electric power using natural gas is significantly less expensive than generating electric power using coal.  The cost comparison between coal and natural gas takes into account the cost of extraction, treatment, transportation, handling, core and ancillary power generation operations, plant construction, maintenance of infrastructure, storage, remediation, regulation, and residual waste disposition.  As power companies recapitalize old coal-fired power plants that have reached the end of their service lives, they are overwhelmingly opting to build new natural gas fired power plants.  This trend will continue and is not readily reversible.  As new natural gas generation plants continue to replace old coal-fired plants, domestic demand for steam coal is going to continue to decline.  

Coal fueled the Industrial Revolution.  America was built on coal.  Coal is still very important today.  But, make no mistake, the need for coal is waning.  This is progress, the natural arc of technology and history.  Corporate and political leaders who don’t have the vision and ability to look beyond coal, to lead us into the future that is surely coming our way, are failing us in a big way.  We need to fire them.  We need bold visionary leaders who will embrace and capitalize on change, not leaders like Robert Murray who either pretend change isn’t happening or make excuses for their failure to adapt.  

A Modest Proposal for Our Time: In Defense of a Single Party System

As I read the daily hyperbolic rants and rages from my on-line friends from both the right and the left, I can only conclude that half of us are incredibly dim-witted, believe stupid things, have corrupt values, and support idiotic policies and moronic politicians who will surely lead us to collective economic and social ruin (although I’m not sure which half is the stupid half; since I don’t know, I must be part of the stupid half).  Interestingly, each side accuses the other of being divisive.  Hmmm.

I think the surest way clear of this divisiveness is to have a once-and-for-all vote, after which one party—the smart party—takes all and we move forward under a single party system.   Consider how much more efficient and effective this would be.  No more wasted time and squandered taxpayer dollars bickering, just decisive leadership and resolute implementation of a program that will put us and keep us on track as a nation.  We can finally ditch the kumbayah silliness of Stephen Covey’s ridiculous advice:  seek first to understand, then to be understood.  What a bunch of loser-oriented hooey.  Why waste time, if you know you’re right, listening to wrong-headed blather?

In fact, with a one party system, the need for endless debate will be obviated.  We can disband Congress altogether.  And, we can surely trust those in power to identify and groom their replacements, so really, no need for us to continue trying to figure out who should run things.  We can leave that to the pros.

We can also get rid of that anachronistic scrap of parchment we call “The Constitution.”  It’s hardly relevant anymore and, let’s be honest, the dolts who wrote it—the so-called “framers”—couldn’t get themselves elected to the school board in today’s world.

I’m telling you, this is the way, my friends.  No more arguing about what’s best.  No more taking into consideration everyone’s precious feelings and beliefs and values.  Gag me with a spoon.  Just let the deciders decide.  Build that pipeline.  Drill that well.  End that subsidy.  Invade that nation.  Fund that research.  Pave that road.  Change that law.  The smart people will know what to do.  Easy button!

Wasn’t it Winston Churchill who quipped: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”  What a bonehead.

September 12th and the Crew from Kalamazoo

Grey smoke was still wafting lazily upward from the Pentagon into the early morning sky as I made my way south, across the 14^th Street Bridge, on my way to work in Arlington.  Still reeling, numb from the previous day, I was anxious to do something concrete in response to the attacks.  I’m sure most Americans felt similarly that morning.  As a military officer, I know my brothers and sisters in arms felt particularly restless and called to action.

As it turned out, the thing I could do most immediately was to lend a hand in helping the Pentagon recover quickly.  While I wasn’t assigned to the Pentagon proper, I worked for a headquarters agency and was in “The Building” almost every day, attending to the business of preparing for, and fighting, our nation’s wars.  I was relieved that I did not know anyone personally who lost his or her life in the Pentagon.  I was glad the terrorists flew into the side of the building that was least occupied, having just undergone a major renovation and still largely vacant.  While obviously in mourning and turmoil, it was important for all of us to show the world the attack did not bring us to our knees. 

The Pentagon was right back at work that Wednesday morning, already humming with the typical frenetic activity by 6 AM, although certainly with more purpose than on most days.  Everyone reported for duty.  Recovery was already underway.

I quickly learned of, and volunteered for, escort officer duty—accompanying the outside crews who came to get the Pentagon back into the fight.  I signed up for the night shift and went home to get some sleep.

That night, as I drove across the Potomac on my way to the Pentagon, I saw the parking lots ablaze with bright lights, and filled with all manner of trucks and equipment and tents.  As I entered the halls of the wounded building, I immediately noticed the overpowering smell of wet soot.  The entire building smelled like a camp fire after you douse it with water. 

I was teamed with a commercial cleaning crew from Kalamazoo, Michigan.  Within a day of the attack, the Department of Defense had mobilized and brought in hundreds of professional cleaning services from every state east of the Mississippi.  They came in cars, vans, trucks and buses.  They jammed the local budget motels.  They set up camp and operations based in the parking lots surrounding the famous five-sided edifice.  They organized quickly, dividing themselves up into two shifts.  They cooperated.  They came to work hard.  They felt the sense of urgency and call to duty that compelled us all.

The team I was partnered with was a family operation comprised of maybe a dozen folks, blue collar, salt of the earth, patriotic types—at least half of them related to each other in some way or another, and the rest friends of the clan.

The general plan was to do a relatively fast first pass through the common areas and traffic corridors of the entire Pentagon, wiping down every surface in the main corridors to remove most of the fine film of ash and soot that had permeated every nook and cranny of the huge building.  Individual offices would later be cleaned by the workers themselves.

We set to work in a hallway in one of the rings on a lower level, in one of the five “wedges” of the building adjacent to the one that was struck by the airliner.  The Pentagon has miles and miles of hallways, all arranged as “spokes” that radiate out from the center courtyard, and concentric “rings” that connect the spokes.  Our mission that first night was to complete one ring hallway between two spoke corridors, maybe between one and two hundred feet.  I believe another crew was working from the opposite end.

To be clear, my job, officially, was just to be with these fine but uncleared (from a security access perspective) people, not to assist them.  I did however, grab some tools of the trade and apply some elbow grease right alongside them.  Armed with rags, and toothbrushes, and cotton swabs, we inched our way down the hallway, into the wee hours of the morning, wiping down walls, floors, ceiling tiles, light fixtures, office doors, windows, ventilation grates, and floor moldings.  Discussion was muted, respectful, mostly focused on the task at hand.  No one forgot the soot we were removing contained the ashes of over a hundred Americans who had been killed the day before.  Breaks were few and far between. 

At daybreak on September 13^th, this fine group of Americans wrapped up their work in the hallway, collected their tools, and headed for the canteen tent set up in the parking lot before making their way to their cheap motel rooms for some much-needed and well-earned sleep.  At the Pentagon exit nearest the temporary tent city, I said my goodbyes.  I then drove the hour home, running against the influx of commuters, to find my own bed.

I spent two more nights with the crew from Kalamazoo, working just as hard, with just as much dedication and focus.  By week’s end, the task was nearly complete.  “The Building” no longer smelled of soot.  The aggrieved Eagle was sharpening its talons.  The tent city began to fold.  My crew returned to Michigan.  I returned to my normal duty.

Every September 11^th since that horrible event in 2001, I think about my time with those folks from Michigan.  How they dropped everything and got to Arlington as fast as they could.  They served our country that week by helping to clean up.  Without fanfare, they just went to work, and showed the world what America is made of.  I was proud to serve with them.                          

Time for Change: Investigating and Prosecuting Sexual Assault in the Miltary (an open letter to my US senators and representative)

I am a retired Air Force officer and former squadron commander with a lot of practical experience in applying the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  I strongly encourage you to draft and champion legislation that will transfer responsibility for investigating and prosecuting major crimes from the services to the Justice Department.  

We absolutely need to relieve the military chain of command from this responsibility.  For one thing, they are not properly trained or equipped to deal with major criminal infractions.  Secondly, doing so is a time-consuming distraction from the other important responsibilities of preparing for and winning our nation’s armed conflicts.  Finally, America has lost confidence in the ability of the military to effectively and justly police and protect its own members from criminal activity. 

I believe the FBI and the Justice Department are best positioned to take on this responsibility (as opposed to letting local jurisdictions handle such cases); treating these as federal crimes (perpetrated by and/or against service members) will lend consistency and eliminate problems associated with local jurisdiction, especially when incidents occur beyond our borders.   

Such a move—setting up a special military crimes unit within DoJ—could be paid for by reducing the size of the individual military agencies now charged with handling these crimes (their resource requirement diminishes with the reduction in tasking).  As an interim measure, perhaps current military resources could be detailed to DoJ.   

Fight on State

Raise your hand if you’re proud to be an American. I am. I love this nation and I feel so blessed that, by the grace of God, I was born here. I feel tremendous pride when I see Old Glory waiving in the breeze. I still get a little choked up when I hear Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA.” This is a great nation. We’ve done—and do—great things. We delivered Europe, twice, from invasion. We put a human on the moon. We rescued Iranian fisherman from their foundering craft in rough seas.

And we’ve done some very wrong things. We embraced slavery for the first century of our existence. We tolerated abject racism long after slavery was abolished. We all but wiped out the indigenous peoples of our land, and largely marginalized those who were left. We rounded up and interned our entire population of Japanese-Americans during World War II. We kept women from voting. We’ve spied on our own people. We’ve trampled our Constitution on several occasions. We still do wrong things today. We will, undoubtedly, do wrong things in the future.

Yet, I am still proud to be an American. Partly because we Americans take responsibility for our mistakes. We have stepped up and owned these shameful eras and ugly episodes. We don’t pretend they didn’t happen. We don’t sugar coat them. We look them in the face, work to rise above them, and endeavor to be an even better nation.

In much the same way, I am proud to be a Nittany Lion. I am thinking fondly of my alma mater on this first day of September, as a new freshman class is just settling in, “shapeless in the hands of fate,” as a new era of Penn State football is about to begin, as a great university looks it failures square in the eye and struggles to right unrightable wrongs as best it can. My heart, broken as it is, is in Happy Valley today.

Fight on State.

Our Myopic and Dangerous Foray Into Private Armies

An open letter to my US senators and US congressman:

I urge you, when you are considering authorization and appropriations bills, to also consider the long-term ramifications of increasing our official use of private security firms to conduct what are, fundamentally, state functions. I believe we are on a slippery slope with our increased use of such forces to supplant our regular armed forces in hot spots around the globe. Here are my key concerns. I hope you share them:

Using private security firms to replace regular US armed forces appears to be a disingenuous attempt to tell Americans we are re-deploying our troops home. We are still leaving Americans in harm’s way, nothing has fundamentally changed about the conflict situation; we’re simply putting some distance between the federal government and our now surrogate forces left behind on the ground.

In the end, use of these private armies will, I believe, be more expensive. I say this because they will require the exact same equipment, infrastructure, and supplies to conduct their operations, but the average salary of private security operatives will be much higher than the average salary of a US service member, and these security firms will charge substantial fees for administering and executing the contracts. Clearly, the costs of conducting on-going operations with private security firms, vice US military forces, allows the true costs of such operations to be shuffled to less visible budget line items, either within our defense budgets, or even within the State Department’s budget. With proper spin, some may try to sell the public that our costs to conduct operations in Afghanistan, Iraq or other locations is drawing down when, in fact, our true costs have increased and have merely been shifted elsewhere in our budgets.

Are we eventually going to allow such security firms to lease, or purchase, combat equipment such as tanks, light infantry vehicles, attack helicopters, patrol boats, reconnaissance aircraft, armed drones, and intelligence gathering satellites? Where will we draw the line? If we’re going to pay them to do the job, they will need the tools to do it.

We run the risk of fomenting a brain drain among our critical mid-level non-commissioned officer and company-grade commissioned officer ranks. The big security firms offer very attractive compensation packages and go after the best and the brightest. They may well cherry pick the very leaders we should be counting on to fight our wars ten to fifteen years from now.

As we enthusiastically get behind the increased use of private security firms to assume inherently governmental military functions, we set precedent for, and lend credence to, the rise and legitimacy of other quasi-state, non-state, and corporate armies. What adverse, and irrevocable, transformations of the fundamental international laws of armed conflict are we sewing?

How will US-sponsored private armies be held accountable by the global community and the International Criminal Court? Are we prepared, as a nation, to be held to account for the actions of private firms engaged in armed conflict on our behalf, yet outside our official military chain of command?

I can hardly think of another development in the way we intend to protect our national security interests that will more effectively amplify the cynicism, both at home and abroad, about the nature of what we are protecting. Are we protecting basic American values and core national interests? If so, why wouldn’t we do it with the blood and sweat of American service members? It’s supposed to be hard to commit American lives to combat operations. What we hope to achieve better be worth every life we sacrifice. This trend toward using private security firms to make these sacrifices on our national behalf belies a dangerous change in mindset about our use of armed force to accomplish critical global objectives. It's going to make committing to war easier.

By and large, by the very nature of the toll and sacrifice combat operations demand, our military (and, hopefully, even more so, our elected civilian leaders) are motivated to bring an end to armed conflicts as soon as possible. As stewards of taxpayer dollars, politicians are motivated to end costly overseas engagements a soon as practical. On the contrary, private security firms are going to be completely motivated by their bottom lines to extend and expand the scope of their operations. This is an egregious conflict of interest. How will we manage this?

In summary, I hope you share my many serious reservations about promulgating the use of private security firms to do our nation’s bidding in the combat zones of the world. We have already taken some stunningly myopic, and very significant, steps down a very dangerous path, perhaps setting in motion our irreversible journey toward a horribly undesirable destination.

I trust you will weigh the long-term consequences of our immediate decisions to use, or not use, private security firms in lieu of US armed forces. Our troubles will emanate from the secondary and tertiary ramifications of our decisions—the things we didn’t properly think through. Let’s invest the time to think these things through right now, before we pull the trigger.