ShrinkWrapped

On "Slippery Slopes'

The "Slippery Slope" anxiety is ubiquitous.  During the Bush Presidency, left wing blogs, and occasionally liberal media outlets, considered the Patriot Ac to be tantamount ot the arrival of Fascism in America.  Criticism of liberal/left verbal excesses were taken to mean that Free Speech was under assault.  (In an ironic way, these charges were most commonly uttered by people who simply refused to stop talking.)

Now that Barack Obama is President, the specter of socialism is threatening the land.  His attempts to socialize American healthcare is seen as the camel's nose that will lusher socialism, complete with its traditional limitations on Free Speech, gun Rights, and an eventual inevitable dependence on re-education camps for counter-revolutionary capitalists.

Even if Barack Obama is an ideological socialist (and as I have noted int he past, I do not se him as having an organized ideological approach but rather of a left wing attitude, which often masquerades as ideology.) the idea that Socialism is going to come to America is absurd.  We have a cacophonous, vibrant, and self-correcting polity and the kinds of excesses that would eventuate in a Socialist dictatorship are unlikely to the extreme.  Just as enough Republicans refused to convict Bill Clinton of Impeachable Offenses over his perjury, I am convinced that were we to find ourselves in extremis, enough centrist Democrats would refuse to accede to fundamental abrogations of our rights in t he name of party unity.  The vote against the public choice option in the Senate Finance Committee yesterday should be adequate evidence that the Democrats are not in thrall to the desires of their left wing base.

Nonetheless the "Slippery Slope" fantasy is tempting for those on the outside who oppose government policies especially during times of stress and societal regression.  Ed Morrissey discusses a fascinating example of convergent evolution, as a fantasist on the right and a fantasist on the left, come together in their fevered imagination:

Is today Military Dictatorship Day?

In case anyone thinks that one side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on paranoid ranters, we present today’s offering from Gore Vidal (Left) and John Perry (Right) on the coming American military dictatorship.  Both men agree that it’s a likelihood, and both men blame Barack Obama.

One fears a military coup while the other yearns for it.   Both have allowed their anxiety to overwhelm their rationality.  Neither realizes he is writing out of anxiety rather than a realistic assessment of our present fortunes. 

We all can be prone to the Slippery Slope fallacy.  Sometimes there is good reason for such concern.  I would suggest that concerns that "hate speech" laws would eventually lead to considerable abridgments of our Free Speech rights are eminently reasonable.  The Europeans and Canadians, who do not have our legacy of reverence for Free Speech, have already shown us that such laws lead inexorably to the loss of basic rights.

At other times, concerns can be understandable but experience should mitigate such concerns.  A reasonable argument could have been made that aspects of the FISA laws allowing the interception of voice communications treaded close to the limits of acceptable intrusion into privacy.  Yet when the civil liberties absolutists continued to insist that such transgressions were unacceptable under any circumstances, despite no evidence of abuse, they showed themselves to be as irrational as Vidal and Perry.

There are many situations in life when the boundaries between acceptable/tolerable and unacceptable/intolerable are blurry; these situaitons stand in contrast to situations where infringements that set us off on the Slippery Slope are genuine risks and must be zealously identified and reined in.  Differentiating the two states and where the lines of demarcation must be maintained is the tricky part.  Vidal and Perry show what happens when the distinctions are lost.

Moral Cowardice Masquerading as Strategic Caution

Politics is always an important consideration when a nation is at war.  The decision to either increase our efforts in Afghanistan in order to win a victory (which could be defined as the elimination of the risk of a Taliban reconquest of that state and the elimination of a significant al Qaeda presence int he area) versus beginning an orderly withdrawal is the single most important decision the President must make.  Our men and women are fighting and dieing to protect their country.  This mission was once called the most important front in the war on terror by our President.  Of course that was while he was campaigning and loathe to allow himself to be depicted as a soft-on-defence democrat. 

I believe that withdrawing would be a disaster, giving new life to the Taliban, al Qaeda, and Islamic supremacists everywhere.  However, far worse, from a moral  and strategic point of view, would be to posture and dither, allowing our military men and women to be used as political pawns, dieing for a mission that is not supported by their Commander-in-Chief who is reluctant to make a decision that he would have to bear responsibility for.

President Obama has met only once with General McCrystal, has put his report on the back burner, and appears to be practicing a foreign policy that requires no confrontation with anyone willing, and minimally able, to fight back. 

I fear our President is not only craven but does not value the lives of our military men and women. 

My sons have friends in theater at this moment.  I think they should have the support and full confidence of their Commander-in-Chief.  They deserve a decision from the man who we elected to make these decisions.  The longer he delays the more it will appear to be that his primary consideration is to delay any reckoning until after he can find a way to escape being held accountable.  I doubt he can succeed at avoiding accountability; whatever he decides will have reverberations.  The least he can do is make the decision.

Is the location of the Olympics more important?  Appearing on Letterman?  Do your job, Mr. President.  Lives depend on it.

The Day of Atonement

There will be no posting on Monday, September 28.  At sundown tonight, Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, begins.  To all of my Jewish readers and commenters, may you have a meaningful and easy fast.

Delay Can be a Smart Option

Secretary Gates's comment that a military attack on Iran would merely delay their acquisition of a nuclear capacity suggests that such an attack would be unwise or worthless.  From the Jerusalem Post:

Robert Gates: Iranians intend to develop nuclear weapons

In a second interview with CNN, Gates said that while the US did not rule out use of force against the Islamic Republic, diplomacy and sanctions could still prove effective. He added that any military option would only delay the Iranian nuclear program.

"The reality is there is no military option that does anything more than buy time," Gates said. "The estimates are three years or so."

Since President Obama appears to be loathe to confront any nation if it might require a military power, the Secretary's comments can only be expected to decrease the likelihood of any American military response to Iran.  Since almost no one imagines that Iran will suddenly become amenable to diplomacy without the threat of a vigorous response, this leaves matters in Israeli hands.  A delay of two or three years is not inconsequential.  A lot can happen in two or three years.  To paraphrase the ancient story of the Chinese man and the Emperor:  The Emperor could die (regime change); the man could die (voluntary migration of ~80% of Israeli Jews to America); or, the Horse could learn to sing (the Mullahs could become rational.) 

A fourth possibility is that the man could become able to defend himself.

Whether or not Israel will attack Iran's nuclear facilities in the interest of delaying its acquisition of a nuclear capacity will depend on a complex calculus involving an assessment of Iran's capabilities, its intentions, and most importantly, the state of readiness fo Israel's ability to defend itself.  Barry Rubin has commented on the state of Israel's missile defense; with permission I am posting his entire article from the Gloria Center:

Avoiding the Unthinkable: Missile Defense is Israel's "Secret" Weapon Against Iran's Nuclear Weapons

Remember the name Uzi Rubin because he might emerge as the most important individual in the issue of Iran’s nuclear weapons drive. Rubin is the former head of Israel’s missile defense program and now a defense consultant. He has developed the best alternative (or supplement) to blocking the dangers of a radical Islamist, genocidal-oriented, terrorist supporting, antisemitic regime having nuclear-tipped missiles pointed at Israel.

Briefly, Rubin and his colleagues have been developing a multi-layered defense system consisting of long-range Arrow missiles (developed in cooperation with the United States), medium-range David’s Sling interceptor missiles, and the short-range Iron Dome system aimed against the kind of rockets being fired by Hizballah and Hamas. By the time Iran gets nuclear weapons, and in some cases well before, these systems will all be operational.

None of these systems are perfect. For example, Iron Dome will not protect small areas of Israel closest to the Gaza border but will shield more populated places deeper inside Israel.

For those actually facing attack by rockets or missiles, what is most important is that the number of incoming warheads—and hence both casualties and damage--be reduced to the minimum possible number.

This would undermine the strategy used by Hizballah against Israel in 2006 and Hamas from the Gaza Strip more recently of mass rocket attacks as a means of sowing terror among civilians, disrupting life in Israel, and gaining strategic leverage. In addition, if Israel ever does attack Iran’s nuclear installation, these systems will reduce the effectiveness of retaliation by Iran’s client groups.

In addition, missile defense is part of a triad of ways to counter Iran, along with diplomatic efforts plus sanctions (sadly lagging) and a direct attack on Iran’s facilities. Since even an effective attack would only slow down and not completely stop Tehran’s efforts, missile defense may emerge as the most important of these three factors.

Obviously, of course, there is a problem with nuclear threats that doesn’t exist with rockets: even if one or two get through the results would be catastrophic. Uzi Rubin has a detailed answer that goes something like this:

For Iran to attack Israel with nuclear missiles, any even marginally rational commanders know they need to knock out Israel’s air force bases lest an Israeli second strike devastate Iran. To feel at all secure, Iran needs to launch a minimum of three missiles simultaneously against each airfield. Missile defenses, however, keep pushing up that number to the point where an Israeli second strike becomes unavoidable. Thus, any attack on Israel is clearly suicidal. This makes such an attack less likely.

But, you can say, it is a mistake to regard the Iranian regime as purely rational. This is far truer of the regime today than it was a year ago. And even then it is far truer of elements in the regime, including those who will have actual possession of the nuclear weapons.

How often do you see the point made in the Western media that the missiles and atomic bombs will be controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the part of the regime closest to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the institution that is gaining growing power over Iran, and the one with the closest ties to terrorists abroad?

True as this is, missile defense becomes all the more important by providing protection against an “irrational” attack. Combined with direct air strikes on Iranian launchers, this becomes an impressive defensive system. The maximum possible deterrent gives the maximum possible protection and the greatest possible discouragement for Iran from starting a war.

Remember, too, that the number of atomic bombs Iran can build is going to be relatively limited in number, while the number which can be launched simultaneously (especially very fast) is even fewer.

Finally, there is more than one way to "use" nuclear weapons which involves flourishing rather than firing them. Much of the Iranian regime bluster about attacking Israel is designed to give Tehran greater leverage in the region. Israel can defend itself; Iran's Arab neighbors cannot and must depend on the United States--not the greatest assurance nowadays--to counter Iran's influence and power. Given their weakness and vulnerability to internal subversion, Arabic-speaking states are more likely to be the main target where Tehran regime's threats can achieve results.

In short, missile defense in combination with other efforts cannot necessarily provide perfect defense but it can provide the best possible defense. It is far more likely to be effective than the sadly weak diplomatic-sanction defense offered by divided and timid Western countries. Indeed, it might not be long before some of these are buying Israeli made systems, which the U.S. military is reportedly already planning to deploy.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Centerand editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis(Palgrave Macmillan), Conflict and Insurgency in the Contemporary Middle East(Routledge), The Israel-Arab Reader(seventh edition) (Viking-Penguin), the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria(Palgrave-Macmillan),A Chronological History of Terrorism (Sharpe), and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).

 

Better Living Through Chemistry: Part III

In Better Living Through Chemistry? Part I, I described the history of Psychiatric diagnostic approaches and the problems arising from a dependence on a symptom based diagnostic system versus a system based on an etiological understanding of dysfunction and disease. 

In Better Living Through Chemistry: Part II, I described, using patient examples, how the availability of less toxic medications along with the use of subjective symptoms for diagnosis, led to a reconceptualization of unhappiness as a treatable condition, "Depression."  In my examples I tired to offer some admittedly superficial guidelines for differentiating unhappiness from the life altering dysfunctional state known as Depression.

At the end of Part II, I commented on two additional problems with our nosology.  The first problem involves the constant, metastatic growth, of diagnosable, treatable conditions.  I will address this toady.  The second point, perhaps the most important point of this series, has to do with the erosion of agency and responsibility introduced by the changes in Psychiatric diagnostic systems and will be addressed in a future post.

In June of this year, Dr. Allen Frances wrote an article published in the Psychiatric Times which addressed some of the unintended consequences of the approach being taken by the DSM-V task force.  Since Dr. Frances, currently professor emeritus at Duke, was the chair of the DSM-IV Task Force and of the department of psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine, his words should carry some weight.  His initial concern has to do with the lack off transparency of the DSM-V task force, but he evinces even greater concern about the task force's unacknowledged tendency to increase the fluidity and diminish the boundaries of Psychiatric diagnosis: 

A Warning Sign on the Road to DSM-V: Beware of Its Unintended Consequences

I believe that the work on DSM-V has displayed the most unhappy combination of soaring ambition and weak methodology. First we will explore the excessive ambition, because it has encouraged an excessive tolerance for risk taking.

The DSM-V goal to effect a “paradigm shift” in psychiatric diagnosis is absurdly premature. Simply stated, descriptive psychiatric diagnosis does not now need and cannot support a paradigm shift. There can be no dramatic improvements in psychiatric diagnosis until we make a fundamental leap in our understanding of what causes mental disorders. The incredible recent advances in neuroscience, molecular biology, and brain imaging that have taught us so much about normal brain functioning are still not relevant to the clinical practicalities of everyday psychiatric diagnosis. The clearest evidence supporting this disappointing fact is that not even 1 biological test is ready for inclusion in the criteria sets for DSM-V.

...

So long as psychiatric diagnosis is stuck at its current descriptive level, there is little to be gained and much to be lost in frequently and arbitrarily changing the system. Descriptive diagnosis should remain fairly stable until, disorder by disorder, we gradually attain a more fundamental and explanatory understanding of causality.

It should be obvious to all but the most blinkered Psychiatrists that our knowledge in the Neurosciences is far too rudimentary to support a diagnostic system.  As a result, despite the pretensions of the DSM-V task force, they are forced to rely upon (to my mind a failed paradigm) of descriptive diagnosis.  Under such a paradigm, the tendency to expand the filed is irresistible:

There is also the serious, subtle, and ubiquitous problem of unintended consequences. As a rule of thumb, it is wise to assume that unintended consequences will come often and in very varied and surprising flavors. For instance, a seemingly small change can sometimes result in a different definition of caseness that may have a dramatic and totally unexpected impact on the reported rates of a disorder.²⁰ Thus are false “epidemics” created. For example, although many other factors were certainly involved, the sudden increase in the diagnosis of autistic, attention-deficit/hyperactivity, and bipolar disorders may in part reflect changes made in the DSM-IV definitions. Note this.

This serious unintended consequence occurred despite the fact that careful field testing of the DSM-IV versions of 2 of these disorders had predicted no substantial differences in their rates as measured by DSM-III, DSM-IV, and International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 criteria.^21,22 The crucial lesson here is that even careful field testing is never completely accurate in predicting what will happen when the system is eventually used in the actual field.

This issue becomes particularly relevant when one considers the skillful pressure likely to be applied by the pharmaceutical industry after the publication of DSM-V. It has to be assumed that they will attempt to identify every change that could conceivably lead to a marketing advantage—often in ways that will not have occurred to the DSM-V Task Force. To promote sales, the companies may sponsor “education” campaigns focusing on the diagnostic changes that most enhance the rate of diagnosis for those disorders that will lead to the increased writing of prescriptions. As I will discuss, there is a great risk of many new “epidemics” based on changes suggested for DSM-V.

Dr. Frances rather easily focuses his irritation on the Drug companies, who stand to make a great amount of money if what were once considered simple human foibles become Psychiatric diagnoses deserving of treatment and medication. 

(Does your son spend too many hours playing World of Warcraft?  Does your wife spend hours on the computer IM'ing?  Is she/he addicted to their crackberry?  All need treatment and probably medication, administered and supervised by a Psychiatrist!  The conceptual basis of what constitutes an addiction have been attenuated to such an extent that it no longer has any meaning.  Addiction was once considered the result of an altered state created by an exogenous chemical which established a new drive which constantly pressed for gratification.  If the gratification was delayed or denied, physiological responses resulted which intensified the drive until actions were taken to once again gratify the need state.  Today an addition seems to be any behavior which a person enjoys or strongly desires, without which they can become irritable.  The disconnect from the conceptual basis of Addiction, that an exogenous chemical directly changes the state of the brain, means that there is no longer any distinction between passions and addictions.) 

But that is too limited and too easy a target.  There are tremendous incentives currently in place to increase the size and scope of Psychiatric diagnoses.  Parents who desire extra services that might give their child an edge in school press for non-toxic diagnoses for their children.  Mild ADD or perhaps some minimal "spectrum disorder" diagnosis, are among the epidemic Psychiatric disorders of childhood.  People who prefer to medicate a troubled marriage, once diagnosed as "addicted" to the internet or Bipolar because of "mood swings", can use medication to tolerate their unhappy relationship and avoid looking at themselves or their partner's difficulties in relating to each other.  The list goes on.  By the time DSM-V has done its work, everyone will be diagnosable.

The damage to agency and responsibility are already profound and likely to grow.

To Be Continued...

The Problem with Progressives

David Broder is the dean of progressive conventional wisdom.  In his column today, Mr. Policy Hits a Wall, he makes a statement that is so misguided, that , to paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, it is not even wrong:

Obama, budget director Peter Orszag and health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle grasp the intricacies of the health care system as well as any three humans, and they could write a law to make it far more efficient.

The arrogance of such a statement is only surpassed by its stupidity.  The idea that three people, none of whom have any particular expertise in the actual business of health care know the intricacies of the system is beyond ridiculous.  It would be infuriating but at the moment I am simply too stunned by the display of magnificent incomprehension from David Broder to be irate.

The Future is Closer Than You Think

I have written about "mosquittoes" as future weapons in the fight against asymmetric enemies, most recently in Israel, Existential Threats, and the Future of War.

We are getting closer:  Pentagon’s Cyborg Beetle Takes Flight

Crazy Pills

Mugatu: SHUT UP! Enough already, Ballstein! Who cares about Derek Zoolander anyway? The man has only one look, for Christ's sake! Blue Steel? Ferrari? Le Tigra? They're the same face! Doesn't anybody notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! I invented the piano key necktie, I invented it! What have you done, Derek? You've done nothing! NOTHIIIING! And I will be a monkey's uncle if I let you ruin this for me, because if you can't get the job done, then I will!

Zoolander is a movie that is an acquired taste but in looking for the above quote to capture the zeitgeist of the UN and Obama's appearance there, (ie, no one notices the lunacy that is right in front of their eyes; am I the only one taking crazy pills?) I noticed that it has a great deal to add to an understanding of the current world situation.  For example, yesterday, President Obama gave a speech that was sophomoric and ultimately quite inconsequential.  When your natural constituency finds you to come across as weak and ineffectual, it is certain evidence that the aura surrounding the President is fading.  As per Zoolander, we have gone from Obama as Mugatu...

Maury Ballstein: Mugatu is so hot right now he could take a crap, wrap it in tinfoil, put a couple fish hooks on it and sell it to Queen Elizabeth as earrings.

[Actually, that could either be a comment on the deification of Obama, or the current status of modern art, or a combination of the two, the NEA, with a dig at the iPod imbroglio thrown in.]

...to an Obama whose emptiness is beginning to become apparent.  Note Hansel's comments about himself:

Hansel: I wasn't like every other kid, you know, who dreams about being an astronaut, I was always more interested in what bark was made out of on a tree. Richard Gere's a real hero of mine. Sting. Sting would be another person who's a hero. The music he's created over the years, I don't really listen to it, but the fact that he's making it, I respect that. I care desperately about what I do. Do I know what product I'm selling? No. Do I know what I'm doing today? No. But I'm here, and I'm gonna give it my best shot.

I suppose that is a bit of a stretch.  Our President seems to have some beliefs (beyond the necessity of his accruing power, of course.) He has ingested a sophomore level understanding of how the world works  (imperialism bad, people of color good, profits evil, oppressors bad, victims good, American exceptionalism bad, international solidarity good) and offers little evidence that he has grasped that such facile understandings belie the complexity of the world. 

Following Obama's speech we were treated to an hour and a half oration from Muammar Qaddafi with an encore by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Once again Zoolander captured the essence of their world view in a scene with Matilda (journalist and love interest), Derek, and J.P Prewitt ("I'm a hand model, mama. A finger jockey. We think differently than the face and body boys... we're a different breed.")

J.P. Prewitt: The truth is male models have been assassinating world leaders for over 200 years. Abe Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, right? Well, who do you think made the silk stockings and powdered wigs worn by our early leaders?
Derek Zoolander: Mugatu!
J.P. Prewitt: [pauses] Slaves, Derek. So they hired John Wilkes Booth to do Mr. Lincoln in. The first model/actor! Dallas. 1963. John F. Kennedy.
Matilda: Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't a male model.
J.P. Prewitt: You're goddamn right he wasn't, but the two lookers who capped Kennedy from the Grassy Knoll sure as shit were! 

Finally, Zoolander captures the solipsism of the MSM:

Derek Zoolander: Do you understand that the world does not revolve around you and your do whatever it takes, ruin as many people's lives, so long as you can make a name for yourself as an investigatory journalist, no matter how many friends you lose or people you leave dead and bloodied along the way, just so long so you can make a name for yourself as an investigatory journalist, no matter how many friends you lose or people you leave dead and bloodied and dying along the way?

Barack Obama does not like the idea that much of the world is an  unfriendly place,  He doesn't like the idea that the United States of America has been for a long time the only "Sheriff" in town.  The fact is that I don't like that we are the Sheriff either.  But if we do not enforce some minimal standards of behavior, who will?  The UN?  The UN is a farce that treats lunatics and tyrants like statesmen, that offers ovations to the rantings of a Qaddafi and treats Ahmadinejad like a legally elected head of state.  The UN is composed of deep thinkers who nod their heads sagely when bizarre conspiracy theories are vomited out of the maws of the solons there.

Luckily, the UN is an edentulous carnivore, incapable of hurting anyone able to defend himself (though equally incapable of defending the helpless.)  It is far too easy to make the UN look foolish; in fact, the UN delegates perform that function seamlessly unassisted.  Of far greater concern is an American President who appears dedicated to making himself look foolish.  Once Zoolander becomes a template for Obama, it becomes very difficult for him to regain the initiative.  If I poke fun at Obama for acting in a clueless manner, that is of no consequence.  When our enemies see him as clueless, the consequences will be real and painful.

Israel, Existential Threats, and the Future of War

If aliens from Alpha Centauri were monitoring our airwaves over the last 40 years they would have concluded that Israel is the center of the world.  The disproportionate attention to Israel stems from a large confluence of themes, including the historical contribution of the Jews to civilization (Jews will never be forgiven for bringing guilt into the world), the genocidal hatred of their neighbors (who control the oil upon which the world's economy depends), the Middle East as a fulcrum during the Cold War, and a host of other issues too numerous to mention (and impossible to completely convey.)  The UN, where totalitarian despots get together to berate democracies for their imperfections, focuses on Israel to the exclusion of almost all other conflicts around the world.   The reasons for this are legion but at base there is a sense of envy and its ugly offspring, hatred, aroused by the existence of a state which should have, to their way of thinking, disappeared long ago.  There is a sense that Israel is approaching a nexus at an intersection of Israel's ability to defend itself versus its enemy's ability to destroy it.

George Gilder might well agree with those aliens and his thesis is instructive.

George Gilder* is a venture capitalist and writer.  His most recent book is The Israel Test (which I am about halfway through and which I plan to review when finished.)  His basic premise is detailed in an article in City Journal: [HT: Yaacov Lozowick]

Silicon Israel
How market capitalism saved the Jewish state

The most precious resource in the world economy is human genius, [Emphasis mine-SW] which we may define as the ability to devise significant inventions that enhance survival and prosperity. At any one time, genius is embodied in just a few score thousand people, a creative minority that accounts for most human accomplishment and wealth. Cities and nations rise and thrive when they welcome entrepreneurial and technical genius; when they overtax, criminalize, or ostracize it, they wither.

Jews have a long history of paranoia (though it is not paranoia when they really do want to kill you) and a deep insecurity about their position in the world and among their neighbors.  WWII showed that even the most cosmopolitan, secular, and assimilated Jews could be extruded and annihilated by a regressed society.  Insecurity is a birthrite of the modern Jew.  Yet in many ways the world's attitude toward Israel, the home of the Jews, is critical for our idea of the future. 

Those of us who are technophiles can imagine a future of ever increasing freedom and agency for the individual.  Our technology is the instrument that will allow us to escape many of the dangers that humans have always lived with.  Freedom from starvation, disease, even natural disaster mitigation are all outgrowths of our technology.  If our technology were to stagnate and begin to deteriorate, a new dark ages, with all the ancient scourges returning to haunt us, would be inevitable.  On a planet which has a subsistence capacity in the hundreds of millions, our current 6 billion could never survive without technology.  The forces opposed to the future, which includes such disparate fellow travelers as the far left, radical environmentalists, and in the purest form, radical Islamists, use but do not understand technology or how it makes their lives function, let alone how it secures civilization's functioning. 

Jews often gain some pleasure and great pride in e-mails that periodically make the rounds describing the high percentage of Jewish Nobel laureates in math and the sciences, the extraordinary numbers of Jews who have led the way to breakthroughs in such areas, the numbers and ranks of creative Jews who have been responsible for so much technology, entertainment (Hollywood) and culture.  When one gets the impression that most of the world would be quite happy to see the Jews disappear, such e-mails are comforting.  What stands out from George Gilder's writing, however, is how closely tied America and Israel have become, not only strategically (at a time when many on the left and right are questioning the value of the strategic relationship) but economically/technologically as well: 

Venture capital is the most catalytic force in the world economy. In the United States, venture-backed companies produced nearly one-fifth of GDP in 2007. At a time when American venture capital is flagging under the financial crisis, the emergence of a comparable venture scene in Israel, linked closely to Silicon Valley, is providential for both the American economy and its military defense.

This development makes Israel one of America’s most important economic allies. Israel’s creativity now pervades many of the most powerful and popular new technologies, from personal computers to iPods, from the Internet to the medical center.

Early in 2009, for example, Intel launched a massive new advertising campaign to celebrate what it described as its most important advance since its initial invention of the microprocessor chip some 40 years ago: the new Core i7 device, code-named “Nehalem,” which combined leading-edge computing power with unprecedented economy of energy use. Like many of the inventions that have made Intel the world’s leading microchip company, the Core i7 was designed in Israel.

Israelis are also leaders in arguably the most important technology arena today, particularly for military uses. This is the ability of computers using parallelism to sense, accept, and process information as quickly as modern transmission techniques—especially fiber-optics lines—can deliver it. A representative device in this effort, and a powerful symbol of Israel’s leading position in Internet technology, is the “network processor.” Just as a Pentium microchip is the microprocessor that makes most PCs work, the network processor is the device that makes the next-generation Internet work, doing the vital routing and switching at network nodes. The next-generation Internet will allow “petaflops” (1015 floating-point operations per second) of real-time computational power to be deployed to virtually any point on the earth. The network processor will let any desktop computer access data and processing power exponentially greater than that incorporated in any PC or any single corporate data center.

It is incontestable that Israel is facing an existential thereat from Iran.  It is also quite clear that her neighbors will not be accepting a Jewish state in their midst any time soon.  Yet from the minds of its people the potential to end this conflict in ways which preserve Israel and its moral standing is coming into focus.

I have written on several occasions about the impact of technology on counter-insurgency, indeed on the nature of armed conflict itself.  The day is approaching when Israel's ability to monitor its enemies in real time and respond with pinpoint accuracy to threats against it will effectively (though never completely) disarm its adversaries. 

From Moore's Law & Counter-Insurgency, July 2006:

It is clear that this is very dangerous work for the Israelis[iin Gaza]; the Palestinians can easily set up ambushes, IEDs, and other nasty surprises.  Now, picture the scene 5-10 years down the road.

During the day, a flock of Smart Sparrows networked together offer daylight coverage of areas of concern; at night, they are replaced by a flock of smart bats equipped with night vision and all part of a meshed network.  These flying birds and bats provide 24 hour real time coverage of whatever parts of an enemy territory you desire.  They can fly high enough to be invisible from the ground and are nearly impossible to shoot down even when spotted.  The Palestinians can kill all the birds they see in Gaza, but when Smart Sparrows cost a few dollars and the next generation of surveillance includes Smart Mosquitoes, their problems become exponentially greater.  If they spend all their time hidden indoors, they can't fire Qassam rockets at Israel, which is one of the goals of the current Israeli incursion.  Furthermore, Smart Snakes can slither into buildings, and even if they can be defended against, Smart Cockroaches and Centipedes, once cheap enough, will be ubiquitous.  If necessary, it would be simple to equip such robots with reservoirs of Cyanide or some other such poison (spider venom?), at which point targeted killings and Smart bullets would take on a whole new meaning.

We lost too many soldiers and Marines re-taking Falluja; imagine a future Falluja, or Mogadishu, (or Tehran?) where we fight machine guns and IEDs with Smart Birds, Bats, Insects, Snakes, and Spiders.  Our military could see the theater and manage the entire operation from safe bunkers connected by networks to the battle field, which could be an underground bunker, or an isolated field.

From An Endless War?, January 2009:

We are clearly not there yet, and technology is never going to be a perfect answer to warfare, but the point that future warfare will increase in specificity of targeting is proven valid on an almost daily basis.  Furthermore, the nature of information technology is that as it increases exponentially, those who start behind the curve can only fall increasingly behind the curve, with the disparity growing exponentially.  The Arab world has been, and Islamic fundamentalism remains fundamentally, parasitic on the productive developed world.  The disparity will increase, with the Israelis using their technological prowess to remain at the cutting edge while the Palestinians beg, borrow, buy, and steal the crumbs of technology the rest of the world provides.  As long as the Palestinians remain fixed on destroying Israel and killing Jews they will remain crippled in a world in which warfare is increasingly becoming an information technology.

The leaders of Palestinian hate groups, with rare exceptions, believe in martyrdom for their followers but tend to prefer to avoid it for themselves.  Once the Palestinians realize that in a future war they will be less and less able to hide from the Israeli weapons, when bullets and cyanide laden mosquitoes have their names written on them, the Palestinian leadership will come to realize that their core ideology, of killing Jews and destroying Israel, may need to be amended, in practice, even if not in theory.

The technological singularity is driven by the ability that technology supplies to leverage human genius.  Israel, and the Jews, are often hated for their genius, even as their genius offers a multitude of gifts to the world.  Israel does not have to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities to preserve itself, it merely has to delay the Iranians their gratification. 

*It should not be necessary, but too often during discussions of Israel the religion of the discussant is considered a crucial element.  For the record, George Gilder is a Christian, not a Jew.

Actuarial Escape Velocity: The Methuselarity Approaches

It is exceedingly difficult for most people to understand how quickly change is happening and how quickly profound changes are coming.  The pace of technological change is increasing as more and more areas of human interest become incorporated under the broad umbrella of information technology.  For example, biology and its derivative Medicine is becoming an information science.  The tools we use to probe human physiology are increasing in complexity and decreasing in cost in an exponential manner.  The first full read-out of the generic code for an individual, the Human Genome Project, was funded at $3 billion and started in 1990.  In 1998 Craig Ventner announced a plan to beat the government effort at a cost one tenth the government estimate, and succeeded (though Ventner's firm was scooped by a competing group in 2000.)  There are currently commercial companies offering to provide a genetic sequence for individuals in the $5000 range.  Within a few years the cost will be down to the $1000 and not long after, a full sequencing of our genome will be part of a routine medical baseline.  The cost and speed increases have come about from automation.  In 1990 the genetic bases in our DNA could only be decoded one base at a time.  Now we look at thousands, perhaps millions at a time.  (I am not up to date on the latest gene sequencing techniques and do not know exactly where they stand, however, sequencing has been following a biological "Moore's Law" for quite some time and there is every reason to expect this to continue.) 

[Along with the increases in our ability to gather data in ways such as sequencing the genome, there has been an attendant explosion of data.  New data mining techniques are already allowing our understanding to deepen and new insights are emerging by the day.  For example, as noted by Sergey, our understanding of genetics and genetic changes has become much more complex.  The genome, which at one time was thought to consist of genes and a great deal of "nonsense" DNA is now understood to contain a multitude of feedback loops, control segments, and sections that control for degrees of expression of various genes and the proteins they encode.  What we once thought of as "genes" are only part of an exceedingly complex system.  Prior to computers capable of manipulating large amounts of data, such an understanding would have been, and was, impossible.]

Just as our understanding of genetics is exploding, so too our understanding of physiology and biochemistry is exploding.  Understanding the human proteome, how the thousands of proteins interact to create functioning cells, will come along, very slowly at first as only a few proteins are understood well enough to plug into our programs, but with exponentially increasing speed as the details are filled in.   

The implications of this are profound and likely to be paradigm shattering in our lifetimes.  The World Future Society, not known for flights of fancy (they try to extrapolate broad trends in reasonable ways) has come out with their latest 20 forecasts.  Note Phil Bowermaster's comments in his post on one of the forecasts:

Live to See 2025

Via Michael Anissimov, the World Future Society -- traditionally not a hotbed of Speculist type scenarios -- has published a list of very interesting predictions for the years 2010-2025. This one in particular got my attention:

Forecast #4:
By 2025, the Worldwide Average Life-Span Will Be Extended by One year Per Year--Only 15% of deaths worldwide will be due to naturally occurring infectious diseases.

Well now that is some prediction. If you extend the average life by one year per year you achieve what we used to call Actuarial Escape Velocity but we now know to call the Methuselarity.

Either way, we're talking about indefinite lifespan. If your life expectancy gets a year longer every year, and you can keep that up, well -- that takes care of the "immortal" part of the equation.

Just sixteen years away! And, again, this is coming from a futurist group that has tended towards a conservative outlook on these kinds of issues.

We are not at all prepared psychologically for what this means.  As an aside, even if medical care were to stagnate (and I am on record stating that most iterations of Healthcare reform, especially those which rely on a government plan and/or commissions to establish "best practices" will stifle innovation) every American alive today in reasonable health, can expect to live into his 80s or 90s.  The illnesses of aging which have traditionally shortened our lives are becoming treatable, chronic conditions.  Where once heart disease or high blood pressure would have been expected to cause irreversible damage well before one's 80s, now even people with fairly significant damage to their circulatory systems can live many, many years with modern medicines and procedures.  Beyond that, should we continue innovating and medicine continue following its Moore's Law pathway, problems now considered intractable (Alzheimer's Disease, Congestive Heart Failure, Strokes) will become treatable, reversible conditions. 

When I mention to friends of a certain age the miracles with which we live everyday and the expectation that Medical science will greatly extend all of our lives they laugh and bring up the image of a nation of 90 year olds in wheelchairs and nursing homes.  This is the Tithonus Fallacy.  Imagine instead a nation filled with healthy, energetic 90 year olds whose wealth of knowledge has not been interred and lost to society. 

[Of note, almost all of my friends take a Statin, an anti-aging class of drugs which retards the aging of the circularity system.  Several take medicine to manage their blood pressure; high blood pressure ages the circulatory system.  In other words, most of my friends are already, unwittingly, engaged in anti-aging treatment.] 

The first beneficiaries of the newest medical advances will be the wealthy.  New technologies almost always start out expensive but rapidly come down in price when smart entrepreneurs recognize the size of the market and compete with each other to enlarge the number of consumers they can reach.  Within short order the Middle class will have new options for extending healthy, productive life.  The effects on our retirement system will be extreme, staring out threatening to bankrupt us and as more and more people remain productive, leading to an economic revival.  (As always, in getting from point A to point B we must hope that our politicians do not solve the problem by freezing us into Point A for fear of the journey.)

Sixteen years is a moment; it is impossible to over-estimate the impact of the Methuselarity and there remains nothing in physics, chemistry, or biology that precludes its arrival.

Forecast #4:
By 2025, the Worldwide Average Life-Span Will Be Extended by One year Per Year--Only 15% of deaths worldwide will be due to naturally occurring infectious diseases.

Well now that is some prediction. If you extend the average life by one year per year you achieve what we used to call Actuarial Escape Velocity but we now know to call the Methuselarity.

Either way, we're talking about indefinite lifespan. If your life expectancy gets a year longer every year, and you can keep that up, well -- that takes care of the "immortal" part of the equation.

Just sixteen years away! And, again, this is coming from a futurist group that has tended towards a conservative outlook on these kinds of issues.