Thursday, December 5, 2013

Light's Judgement



I look best when naked,
that nudity of my spirit’s shattered walls,
absolution in a free word,
idle manifestation by a gesture,
a whole empty staring silence.

I speak best when lost for words,
that purity, that adiabatic pursuit;
some pale dream in a drawer,
sleeping with tidy halls and no remorse.

For whom do we make our masterstroke?
That perfect stream to one, and none to all,
yet we’re unified by the reflections of
impossible solitude, infinite yearning.
We find solace among each other,
even knowing we will all die.
Stars died for us, so long ago,
but what did they live for though?

A speedy photon from the boundaries of the Universe may come.

The steely spectrometer, a cool calculation,
and cut chromatic chaos into calculable data;
but the iris of the orb watches the watcher,
so we categorize, cut, reduce and measure.
But how does it measure us?

I do not want the secrets of the photon,
It’s measured best by skin,
by the somber green reflections of trees,
by twilight and by dawn again.

Sunday, December 1, 2013

Introducing..



Still the Laws, in spite of enlightenment - in spite of well-laid plans - they existed.  Soon the whole destruction visited upon them was some misunderstood destiny,  some pale dream.  

Introductory paragraph to Horizon's Edge, the first of three novels in a series. 

Thursday, November 28, 2013

My Victim Impact Statement

Apparently I'm not supposed to publish details about the court case involving the murderer who took my brother's life. But I doubt anyone is looking at my blog, except for a few Russian people apparently.. nostrovia!  This is my pre-tragic levity.  Below is my 'victim impact statement' to be read before the judge in January. I figured if I have the balls to read it in court I should be able to publish it without fear. Maybe I'll remove it later.


Victim Impact Statement
Ben Switzer

                Josh and I were always together.  We shared bunk beds, fought over a single computer, and even shared clothing, up until the night he was killed.  We explored the forest and built shelters for others to find. We climbed trees, ran through the fields and biked until our legs burned through. Every memory I have from childhood has the peripheral sense of Josh embedded there. The sea breeze on a ferry, all of us lined up against the cool railing, and Josh on my left, always beside me.   I knew he looked up to me, and I tried to be a good brother.. but I still wonder that I failed him.   I will never know to what extent.

He provided for me an anchor, a safe harbor from despair.  Knowing that every night before bed I’d pass by his door, and no matter how bad it got for me, my family would be there, Josh would be there.

It’s hard to overstate the impact Josh’s death has had on my life.  I have often contemplated suicide since he was killed.  When I think about how he was brutalized so carelessly and then discarded like a piece of trash, it sickens me.   It fills my nights with disgusting nightmares, and there’s no solace from this grief.  The suffering will never end.  
A few months before Josh was brutally killed, I confessed to him I was struggling and had thoughts of taking my own life.  At this point a tick-borne disease had systematically taken almost everything I loved.  Josh simply put his hand on my shoulder and said “don’t give up man.”   He always had the simplest advice, but it was always honest and true.   Because Josh was honest and true, he was a good man.   A better man than I’ll ever be.

Josh was a team leader in a game called Counter Strike, and his role was the “Strat Caller,” which is like a tactician and a field commander. He was good at interpreting his opponent’s strategy.  We could often hear him late at night shouting orders. It was infuriating, but we knew it was important to him, so we didn’t complain.

After he was killed, we disassembled his room with shaking hands. His computer monitor held a sticky note on its frame..The note read:

“Focus on the crosshairs,
Don’t change what works,
Don’t give up.”

We try to measure the severity of a crime by intent, deed, and “mitigating impact.” So we can inflict a proportionate punishment.  But in reality, Josh’s death will be a mere inconvenience to Mr. Norton. My life is ruined.  But it doesn’t matter, my dreams are just trash.  Discarded. 

It isn’t possible to quantify the future of what could have been. Josh wanted a family. He spoke eagerly of his future, and I looked to the days where his children would call me “uncle Ben,” and I could teach them a proper jump-shot. I saw visions as they rode horses alongside their aunt Brianna; and all their laughter, and joy - their dreams and maybe one day own their families - trash.

What is the worth of a dream? Josh and I were business partners, and we were building something that was better than ourselves. It was meant to be profitable, ethical, fundamentally democratizing, and we hoped to make medicine more affordable for everyone. We worked thousands of hours to understand the machinery of this complete dream.  Years of preparing and studying, planning and researching; tens of thousands of dollars in tuition.. Trash.  Easily discarded.

 When I try to think about the “impact” of Josh’s death, the task becomes so astoundingly tragic, so astronomical in scope, I break down every time.   Walt Whitman once said “I do not give lectures, or a little charity. When I give, I give myself.”   Josh was a gift the world was denied; in a grotesque, morally bankrupt act of violence.  The impact will forever linger, churning away and growing, a void where something beautiful should have been. 




I have decided to say this or something like it (lawyers might edit it  :S).  All I've said above is true.  I have recovered from the disease and am enjoying happiness most of the time now.  So I've come a long way, I guess that's why I can write the above without restraint. 

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Audacious Idea 1: Oath of Transparency and FMRI for Policymakers


Audacious idea #1:


              Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging and a New Political Oath.

Current oath:

" I  _____, do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear (or declare) that I will truly and faithfully, and to the best of my skill and knowledge,execute the powers and trust reposed in me as Prime Minister, so help me God"

OK, lets first talk about what's wrong with the first oath.

1 "to the best of my skill and knowledge" is implied in the electoral process - you aren't elected because of your fashion sense.

2 Powers and Trust are too vague, and don't really embody any specific principle.  Not to mention if a Prime Minster's powers are suddenly expanded, the oath really doesn't constrain them from executing that power unjustly.

My rough oath:

"I _____, swear to uphold this duty sincerely, entrusted to me by the Canadian people.  I swear to advance their interests and well-being - while upholding the laws of Canada. I will conduct myself domestically and internationally in a manner representative of Canadian values: altruism, cooperation, freedom, justice, peace, prosperity, sovereignty and wisdom.

I also henceforth and until the end of my term, revoke my rights to privacy as it relates to the execution of this office; and agree to be subject to the reasonable scrutiny of the Canadian people."

I have crafted this oath as being more a legal contract than a ceremonial oath for a reason. The emboldened (heh) words represent important provisions of office.

I further propose that functional magnetic resonance imaging be used as an advanced polygraph to keep government transparent. As neuroimaging techniques improve, the degree of accuracy can be further assured, while also combating the possibility of tampering or corruption.

 Note: similar to polygraph, the illumination for areas of the brain associated with categories of stimuli such as belief judgments of truth versus judgments of falsehood,  have greater signal in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. This is an area important for self-representation, emotional associations, reward, and goal-driven behavior [1]. 

What this means is we can see if they believe something or not.  That does not necessarily mean it's true either.  FMRI offers the potential to act as an indisputable lie detector test.  However, there are also studies that have proposed MRI can affect memory. [2]

Would it be acceptable, as a matter of practice, that all possible conflicts of interest a candidate may entertain, can be examined thoroughly before they take office?

I would be willing to subject myself to rigorous truth-detection (personally) if I were running.

Now that the internet is a massive surveillance black hole, I often hear the argument "if you have nothing to hide, why do you care?"

I think this question should apply to those in office.  If you do have something to hide, well, don't run for office, because you clearly have something sketchy going on.  Maybe it isn't celebrities who should fear having their lives scrutinized, and it certainly shouldn't be Canadian citizens.

In order to retain a balanced and effective use of this technology and ideological framework; it helps to delineate the scope of investigation, so that someone's personal life isn't part of the questioning.

Topics that should be excluded:

- Sexuality
- Gender
- Sexual orientation
- Religious belief
- Intellectual property secrets (room for abuse here, needs mediation)
- Domestic political associations
- past shenanigans, other red herrings
- truly dangerous secrets

Topics that should be included

- well researched, potential conflicts of interest! (Bush has an oil family, Cheney via Haliburton)
- international political associations
- corporate associations
- statements of fact
- criminal activity
- ideological belief
- Any indication of cronyism 

Some might argue that's a discriminatory practice against business owners, and I would agree that yes, it is.  Because money is the only way someone stands to gain something through political manipulation.  If we put up roadblocks, the lobbying will cease completely, and these corporations will fall in line, while not impacting their obligations to their stockholders, or their ability to employ citizens and run a legitimate business.

A politician's associations with a restaurant owner are less likely to be important than if they have connections to an oil baron.  There are acceptable and unacceptable degrees of conflict, those degrees must be managed as the landscape of Canada's needs changes. Management of that scope requires transparency.  Transparency requires legitimacy.  Legitimacy is earned by trust.  Trust is earned by Truth.  So we should, before all else, seek the truth as a foundational element of a modern society.  A fact long lost on our generational forebears, these.. incompetent overlords. 

The public should be able to vote on what questions are asked, insofar as they do not fall under the sphere of being inappropriate, given the rough guidelines above, and as stated in the oath, under "reasonable scrutiny." It shouldn't cost money to ask these questions.

It is absurd that the ostensibly 'most' powerful Canadians, the decision makers, aren't subject to an elevated level of scrutiny.   If you want to lead, you should have to make sacrifices, like sacrificing the right to conduct illegal activities; or sacrificing the freedom to advance secret agendas. 

This has been part 1 of Audacious Ideas, thank you for reading.

Thursday, June 27, 2013

The Leak that Broke the Levee: the PRISMatic Face of Unilateral Cyberwar

      Earlier this month, an intelligence analyst working for the CIA named Edward Snowden leaked NSA documents detailing a vast surveillance program titled PRISM, in which such companies as Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and others have been complicit in spying on citizens of the internet with absolute impunity for nearly a decade.
   
 Now, there is a frantic effort to "bring Snowden to justice," by the Obama administration and the US DOJ; and this is the knee-jerk response the US has employed for whistle-blowers.  Quite possibly the most obnoxious, and ham-handed response one can conjure.  The rationale for spying on everyone who uses the internet is a tough sell, so there hasn't been much debate on the actual topic of the PRISM; rather, the media has primarily focused on the celebrity and evasion of Edward Snowden as he flees extraordinary rendition, extradition, assassination, and character defamation at the hands of the US (and the many assets it employs off the record).

     I wrote in detail about the threat of mass surveillance after Wikileaks published the "Global intelligence files," which contained classified e-mails between private intelligence firm Stratfor, and its contacts and assets, both within and without the US government.  In my article, I showed how intelligence agencies were using data mining techniques to identify dissidents domestically, and create profiles; an activity which is clearly classified as a totalitarian aspect.  It was a technique employed by Mussolini's Brown Shirts, and Hitler's SS.  In fact, many of the same torture techniques and propagandizing have been employed by the US which bear a striking resemblance to the German police state during the Third Reich.


      This leak represents a struggle in ideology.  Humany has reached a point where technology can facilitate a new height of democracy, or a new depth of tyranny; without any gray points in between.  As we currently stand, we're embroiled in the traditions of the past, and the comfort of democracy as we have understood it for the past fifty years.  But over time, economic and political interests are disassembling the rights and freedoms of innocent citizens of sovereign nations.  I won't go into detail here on how this is being accomplished, however, if you want proof, read "The Police State is Coming" which explains some of the legal changes of significance; including but not limited to the TPP, ACTA, and the Patriot Act.  Legal changes of particular note include those pertaining to international trade, international intellectual property and copyright, international US criminality ('enemy combattant') and any laws promulgating a North American Union.  The legal developments are a classic manuever of consolidating power before a big event.  Louis XIV, Hitler, Genghis Khan.. all examples of pre-war consolidators.   So what war is the US preparing for?


      It is my opinion, though it is founded on historical example and documented fact, that the US is preparing for a quasi annexation of Canada within the next decade.  This may sound far fetched, but there are some hints that such a pact is coming into place. There have been nearly a dozen US-led annexations and coups in its history. None of them were motivated by human rights. All were motivated economically.  A good book to read on this topic is Overthrow, a book written by journalist Stephen Kinzer. Former President Dwight D. Eisenhower spoke gravely about the threat of a military industrial complex:



"We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose and insidious in method ..." and warned about what he saw as unjustified government spending proposals and continued with a warning that "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex."


      But the object of this article is not to speculate on the motives of the US' clandestine desires. Instead, I wanted to shed light on the fact that the most powerful and integrated technology hubs on the internet are compromised, and have all but demanded an all-out boycott.  That's right, time to boycott facebook, google, yahoo, microsoft.. all the patsies of the NSA.  Do your searches in IXQUICK.com - find another social media outlet, because facebook has no qualms whatsoever with not only selling your information to the highest bidder, but censoring information that its partners find inconvenient.


      I think what is scariest about all this is that its the US doing it.


Here's a country which systematically:

   -   wages unilateral economic and militaristic war

   -   engages in clandestine aggression without recourse or remorse
   -   hijacks and destabilizes the economic system at the sole benefit of its private banks
   -   implements political purchasing frameworks
   -   conceals information of its misdeeds (and conceals that concealment)
   -   commits heinous war crimes
   -   spies on other countries
   -   spies on its own citizens
   -   persecutes protestors and whistleblowers
   -   implements, then openly violates Geneva law

Do you really want these guys watching you?


      Is the convenience of google's search results so convenient you'd trade your privacy?  How about the advantages of Facebook?   It is a choice we will all have to make.  Even blogger is monitored, as a subsidiary of Google. So this very post is hypocritical, but it highlights the choice well. 


      I've already left facebook, and no longer use google search.  I'm in the process of changing my operating system to Mozilla instead of Microsoft as well.  Over time, I will be moving all my documents from Blogger, although this will be the last of the changes.  To be clear, the purpose of boycotting isn't to make Larry Page feel sad cuz we're mean.


     The purpose of a boycott is to provide an incentive to protect privacy. If privacy protection = profit, it will win.  Whatever the shady motivations of the US gov't may be, they will certainly, 100% without a doubt involve massive economic profits - if not exactly now.  You can learn more about how algorithms will be central to economic superiority in my article The Emergent Hive. In sum, computer programs will be worth more than physical materials, starting a computing arms race, which is fought on the fronts of hardware and software. 


  Currently, *exaflop capabilities are projected for the year 2018; both China and Europe, as well as corporate American companies have begun preparations for exaflop systems. Intel is one such company, and one of the first to release a commercially available three dimensional chip array


(*One exaflop represents 1018  "floating point operations per second," which simplified, is the processor speed in a computer.  One exaflop is one thousand times more powerful than the most powerful supercomputer of 2008 [1].)

      Almost one year before MIT released a white paper on convergence, a document entitled "Designing a Digital Future: Federally Funded Research and Development in Networking and Information Technology," written by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology as a report to the President and Congress; describes how "data volumes are growing exponentially," and that "every Federal agency needs to have a 'big data' strategy." Further, the report describes how machine learning and data mining could be valuable tools to turn an ocean of data into an ocean of wealth and power. (By the way, Eric Schmidt of Google signed off on this paper as a member of the President's Innovation and Technology Advisory Committee [PITAC]).


       The report writes that "in many areas, performance gains due to improvements in algorithms have vastly exceeded even the dramatic performance gains due to increased processor speed." They further wrote that:

  "a benchmark production planning model solved using linear programming would have taken 82 years to solve in 1988, using the computers and the linear programming algorithms of the day. Fifteen years later—in 2003—this same model could be solved in roughly one minute, an improvement by a factor of roughly 43 million. Of this, a factor of roughly 1,000 was due to increased processor speed, whereas a factor of roughly 43,000 was due to improvements in algorithms." Our software and hardware are a duality in which processing is an emergent force.  Just as the river shapes the riverbed, and that bank guides the flow of water. They are coevolutionary partners in a feedback loop.  As such, empowering either one facilitates the further advancement of the other.  That makes information on the internet extremely valuable.


      On the topic of privacy, the report states:


"As [Networking and Information Technology] increasingly pervades daily life, systems are storing and processing a greater volume and diversity of private information about individuals. Privacy is a critical issue in all societal applications of NIT – most obviously in areas such as healthcare and electronic commerce, but also in areas such as energy, transportation, and education. Privacy challenges do not and must not require us to forgo the benefits of NIT in addressing national priorities. Rather, we need a practical science of privacy protection, based on fundamental advances in NIT, to provide us with tools we can use to reconcile privacy with progress."

      As you can see, the US government has been preparing to make a move for years now, possibly as long ago as the 70s and 80s when machine learning via neural nets was becoming popular, and ideologies about the internet were surfacing. It provides the perfect framework for control. Think about it; a massively distributed misinformation and surveillance network, which the population purchases and implements on their own dime.  Hitler would have been licking his chops at such an opportunity.


    Despite the ominous warning signs, I'd like to have a hopeful outlook.


      We can use the fundamentals of a free market economic system to shift power wherever we like, as long as we decide as a collective. So I say let's collectively raise our middle fingers to any of the participants of PRISM, up until the point they apologize or at the very least withdraw their participation in the implementation of worldwide tyranny (actually, no apology necessary, just stop the peeping).  Nothing is worth its weight in liberty. That being said, it's clear there's been a blackout, or gag order, or some sort of non-disclosure that these companies have participated in.  Facebook and Google released suspiciously similar statements on the topic of PRISM.  It's obvious they were coerced, probably before and after, but I doubt they put up much of a fight.  It would have been relatively easy for Google to cause a fuss on the topic.  They could have published a little webcomic of someone peeping in a window and smacking their lips like an animal.  


      I strongly suggest you become outspoken on this issue. Leave comments on the main webpages, news media, or link one of my articles if you agree this is an issue people should be aware of. At the moment, the system that is in place is designed to catch terrorists through what is called metadata, which is a macroscopic interpretation of information flowing through the internet; such as many calls being placed to a suspicious location, and likely banking services. 


  But doing nothing is irresponsible, and we can't rely on the American populace to control their government, that is naive and strategically lazy. People need to spread the word, and shake up the House of Commons in Canada, Congress in the States, Parliament in the UK. 

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

The Emergent Hive - Part 2

In August of 2011, I wrote an article here on blogspot, detailing the possibility of a hive-like structure of human social organization, and further, that structure integrating in a closed digital internet.

   This proposition describes how convergent forces can produce unpredictible and often transcendent results.  Although broadly addressed in the first segment, some of the technical constraints of this outcome have been fulfilled and others advanced in scope since that time.

Below I will detail the possible determining factors which may influence who, or what, the "monarch" of a North American Hive Mind may be.

      Ants, like humans, are among the few species that practice domestication. Now, when I say domesticate, I don't mean like our relationship with dogs and cats; ants practice symbiosis with insect and plant species for the benefits of nourishment or shelter. This is true with Amazonian aphids, and even certain carnivorous plants.

      Some ant colonies even take slaves, or engage in brutal duels to determine who will be the genetic forebear of a future colony. These practices also ring true with antiquated human behavior.  In the earliest ethos of human life, before republics like Greece or even Persian, or Sumarian societies; tribes were the social structure of choice, usually no more than a hundred members. Out-group violence was so common, that more people died per capita to human violence in those days than during any period in human history since.  
      
       Ants, similarly, are constantly at war with other colonies (even colonies of the same species will fight over territory and resources). With the exception of a few recent speciations which will be discussed below, ants war with their own kind regularly.


      The need for resources, and the ability to hold a territory rife with them, is paramount for the survival of an ant colony. So too is it critical for human beings. The old societies were in need mostly of fresh water, food, and shelter.  Modern society has its own unique set of needs, as our slow hybridization with technology advances: energy, capital, sovereignty, science, law.. these are some of the many new requirements for a thriving modern civilization.  However, our genetic, and antiquated cultural compulsions remain, and waging war to gain capital or energy, for example, can have unintended consequences, such as backlash spurred by the abundance of information on the web (Wikileaks), or the promulgation of insurgency (as evidenced in Iran with the Shah in the 70s, and the current asymmetrical escalation in Iraq and Afghanistan). 

    Wars have been waged over resources since the beginning, and even modern humanity goes to war for economic reasons more often than any almost any other motivator. The study of history reflects the significance of war in human society.  Luckily for us, war is actually decreasing in frequency and length - compared to the Hundred Years War, or the Eighty Years War, for example. Since the Taiping Rebellion, the Second World War, and Genghis Khan's campaigns, deaths from war are relatively low.

      The point I'm illustrating is that out-group violence* and territorial defensiveness are still  prevalent in human society, but are reducing. Let me continue with an examination of the Argentine fire ant:

*Out-group violence: violence against only those outside your group or tribe
The Argentine ant originated in Uruguay, Paraguay Brazil, and of course, Argentina; but has since spread to every continent on earth.  Why is this?



      Scientists suggest that this has occurred because humans inadvertently spread the species, while, more importantly, the out-group violence between colonies has been abolished from their genetic code. What this means is that the colonies, which were superorganisms in themselves, have merged with other colonies in a de facto genetic alliance.  Typically, ants have a chemical signature which ties them to their colony, and immediately identifies disparate colony members or warring factions of their own species. This results in frequent territorial combat.  What makes the Argentine ant unique is that its chemical signature allows for members of different colonies to ignore this animosity.  The BBC reports that one such super-colony stretches over six thousand kilometers in Europe. Another, located in California, is said to span nearly a thousand kilometers along the coast.   Eiriki Sunamura of the University of Tokyo, stated:

"Argentine ants living in Europe, Japan and California shared a strikingly similar  chemical profile of hydrocarbons on their cuticles... [additionally] whenever ants from the main European and Californian super-colonies and those from the largest colony in Japan came into contact, they acted as if they were old friends.These ants rubbed antennae with one another and never became aggressive or tried to avoid one another. In short, they acted as if they all belonged to the same colony, despite living on different continents separated by vast oceans.[1]"

      The current state of affairs, then, is that ants have better diplomacy than humans.  All joking aside, the benefits of supercolonies are evident. This species has spread all over the world and dominated every other ant species it has come into contact with. (not unlike our long-lost hominid cousins may have met their demise).  Social insects, after all, appeared around 66 million years ago, one might expect that competition and macro-altruism might have, in combination with environmental pressures, selected for this this trait over time.


       Now, with the aid of technology, such super-colonies (hymenoptera, or humanoptera, as I like to call it) of human beings may be possible in the near future. Let's take a look at some of the evolution this thesis has undergone in the past two years:

      In "The Emergent Hive," I wrote that one of the necessary technical advancements required would be a quantum internet, and quantum servers.  This is a requirement because quantum coding is impossible to break without detection.  PCmag now reports that the Los Alamos laboratory has been operating a quantum internet for over two years in secret. Beyond its implications for cyber-security, this technology offers a scalable method to close the internet to international powers (or open it, as the case may be), while speeding up the net a thousand fold. 
      Another characteristic is law.  The past ten years have seen the most significant legal developments in modern history.  The induction of the Patriot Act, the creation of ACTA and the TPP represent a new era of corporate oversight on the consumption of citizens. These legal measures, specifically those that pertain to border security and intellectual property, are a method of consolidating economic policy power in a very small sphere of influence.  By itself, these laws may seem trivial in the scope of unifying humanity's disparate minds, however, because these laws are designed to regulate the use and enforcement of the internet, and by extension, all information in existence, it plays a significant role in the future of North America's global hymenoptera.

      This follows in the aggregation of important developments in technology and policy:
                   
      1 Digitization
      2 Algorithms
      3 Radical Abundance through Nanotechnology and 3D Manufacturing
      4 International Trade Consortium, Internet Control, Law Enforcement
              (Below to be discussed in Part 3)
      5 Ubiquitous Computation
      6 Hybridizing Humans 
      7 Merging Two Realities
      8 Homogenizing Human Thought

1)  Digitization

      We have already begun in force with respect to this movement, with the advent of social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, in addition to the consolidation of information channels into a few search mediums or smartphone providers like Google and Apple.  The technical capability of which allows Google, for example, to record and store every search you've ever made, as well as all your personal information in large data centers offsite. This has resulted in litigation in 6 european countries so far[2]. Recently, a leak of millions of unique UDIDs and files of personal data belonging to apple users was recovered from an FBI laptop - the likes of which were acquired without warrant or cause[3]. Additionally, Apple has admitted that they store user voice commands for years[4].
(They have me red-handed, calling Siri a stupid bitch).

Digitization has two faces, the first is human, and the other is machine. The first paradigm requires the reverse engineering of human emotion and intelligence in the form of algorithms (to be discussed below). The second represents the quantification of physical and systems processes, for example, in climatological models, evolutionary and chaotic systems, and Big Data.

      The fundamental constraints on the expansion of the above digitization are the mere capabilities of our computers.  However, as Moore's Law advances the architecture of microprocessors, computational power continually doubles with each machine generation. Already, the quantization of humanity has begun. Consider Google Maps, which has effectively digitized our mapping system. The effect of facebook and twitter, as well as the Big Data tools to analyze the information within, cannot be understated. Some sources claim as much as 500 terabytes per day[5]. The entire library of congress contains less than 350[6]. This pertains strongly to sec. 5 in part 3.

2) Algorithms for Intelligence

       It is important to note that raw data, in and of itself, is of little value unless it can be interpreted. One might imagine a self-obsessed scientist, poring over this data and trying to organize it into a simple schema of human behavior.

        However, such a task is characteristically impossible using traditional experiemental and theoretical means. Instead, what is called data mining is applied. It is an interdisciplinary field of interpreting large data sets using unique algorithms, large computing mediums, and artificial intelligence to dissect meaning out of seeming chaos.

       Part of the reason that companies such as google and facebook retain all this information is not to be, as they say, a dragon over a hoard.  The point is that when the AI capability becomes great enough, the ocean of data suddenly becomes invaluable to the advancement of algorithms

      An algorithm is just a iterative equation, which performs a specific function. There are already thousands upon thousands operating the standard requirements of our machine civilization; in the form of telecommunications, banking, internet, manufacturing, and so on. 

       The algorithms which will ultimately decode the behaviour of millions of people will undoubtedly arise from Google or Facebook's massive trove of high quality behavioral data.  In fact, Ray Kurzweil, a prominent Artificial Intelligence engineer, who was mentored by the great Marvin Minsky, has taken a position at google as the head of engineering.  
        
      This is significant primarily because Ray employs the Markov Model, which, in his new book "How to Create a Mind," he details the use of.  The Markov Chain (specifically, Hidden Hierarchical Markov Chains) are algorithmic representations of neural modules. To simplify, HHMMs are a 'thought experiment' which mirrors the neurophysiology of the human brain. Other companies are making great strides toward emulating the complexity and redundancy of the human brain, such as IBM and their cognitive computing program, employing "neuromorphic chips[7]."  Additionally, IBM wants to create AI with sensors all over the world; deep in the ocean, in the stratosphere, below ground, in every city... with the idea that the inundation of information will contribute to a singular understanding, perhaps, of an AI with a full grasp on the complexity of interlocking systems.

     When near human levels of algorithmic complexity in AI are achieved, there will be a fundamental shift in economics, as the new AI takes the reins on the creation front of engineering science. This transformation has already begun, as algorithms frequently replace service industry and manufacturing positions. In fact, to my chagrin, a program has been created which writes articles on various topics, seemingly, without being easily identified as a machine[8].  The concession is that these algorithms aren't capable of capturing complex ideas and reflecting on them; so it wouldn't necessarily be a very good political correspondent (unless it was for the White House - that job requires being a robot - zing!).

      But the most important function, and the fundamental value of algorithms, ties in with the next point below:

3) Radical Abundance through Nanotechnology and 3D Manufacturing

      Below, I have outlined various scales of reality, and their energy density in relation to human manipulation, for the purpose of illustrating the capability of nanosystems. 

      Scaling paradigms:

A) Chemical Engineering, scale at post-atomic interaction.
Power output:
(TNT as an example)
 4.184 gigajoules/ton
0.004184gj/KG

B) Atomic Engineering (Fission), scale at atomic and subatomic
Power output:
(Plutonium-239 warhead "Fat Man," target: Nagasaki)
Weight: 6.2 K.g - 21 kiloton yield.

~62 terajoules/6.2 kg = 10 terajoules per Kilogram of plutonim


Making a fission bomb effectively ten thousand times more powerful than TNT per kilogram.

C) Atomic Engineering (Fusion), subatomic scale
Power output:
(theoritical yield calculations of thermonuclear reaction - NOT electromagnetically confined plasma fusion)
the practical limit for nuclear weapon yield to weight ratio is about 6 Kt/kg [9].
meaning a thermonuclear weapon is 25.104TJ/K
making fusion reactions twice as powerful as the bomb that destroyed Nagasaki. 

D) Sub-atomic Engineering (linear accelerators)
Power output:
(anti-matter, weight 1 KG)
theoretical yield of antimatter is 180tj/g[10]
making anti-matter annihilation 180, 000 terajoules per kg, effectively making antimatter nearly 7500 times as energetic as thermonuclear reactions, and 4.305^10 times more powerful than TNT.

      This simple progression illustrates the trend that the manipulation of smaller and smaller particles in the physical schema of the universe allows for greater and greater levels of energy control.  But this energy is not merely destructive, it can also be productive, as in the forms of nuclear plants, or nanotechnology, the topic of this section.

      There are many more considerations as it pertains to nano technological design, including tensile strength, electrochemical properties, quantum interactions, magnetic influence, "noise" from the outer system, vibrational frequency of the mechanical system, brownian motion and so on.  It is not necessary to cover all the requirements of nanotech, each of which has a field of researchers working to quantify those aspects. Instead, I prefer to elucidate its potential power in the words of Eric Drexler, from his seminal work entitled Nanosystems :

E) Nanomechanical systems

"The [below] expressions yield relationships for the scaling of mechanical power

power force · speed L2 (2.12)
and mechanical power density

power density L-1 (2.13)


A 10 nN force and a 1 nm3 volume yield a power of 17µW and a power density of 1.7×1022 W/m3 (at a speed of 1.7×103 m/s) or 10 nW and 1019 W/m3 (at a speed of 1 m/s). The combination of strong materials and small devices promises mechanical systems of extraordinarily high power density, even at low speeds (an example of a mechanical power density is the power transmitted by a gear divided by its volume)."
              - Nanosystems, Ch 2, "Classical Magnitudes and Scaling Laws"

      Above I have highlighted the important number, which is the energy density per nanometer cubed. As Joules and Watts are commensurable to a 1:1 ratio, we can calculate that a (10nN / 1nm3 / 17µW / 1.7×103 m/s) nanomechanical system has a power density of 17 000 000 000 000 000 terajoules (per second). This means that a fully optimized nanotechnological system, which is one million times smaller than the head of a pin, has the potential for harnessing the energy of nearly 700 trillion maximum yield thermonuclear reactions.

(Note: this last figure is my own calculation, so beware)

      The point of illustrating the increase in orders of magnitude over scales of reality, is that "radical abundance" is true to its name with respect to additive manufacturing and nanotechnology. We operate all our manufacturing in the macroscopic world of big things.  We put pieces together and they fit pretty well, and that has worked for us for a long time.  The industrial revolution heralded assembly lines and robotics, and nanofabrication, atomically precise manufacturing, and biological and chemical three (and four) dimensional printing are extensions of that early transition.

     The key difference with nanotechnology is that atomically precise systems are surprisingly predictable, and subject to little mechanical decay, unlike the rather sloppy manufacturing methods we currently employ.  Not only this, the same principles that turn societies into emergent superorganisms are the same principles that give metamaterials and nanomaterials special properties with precisely arranged atoms.  Things are not a mere sum of their parts, and any conscious human will agree.  This principle makes it possible to design materials such as Carbyne, with triple the tensile stiffness of diamond, the ability to kill cancer cells using gold, or as in the case of the Nobel winning graphene, electrical, heat, and structural properties exceeding any macroscopic material as in refined copper or steel.  But the possibility doesn't end there.  Invisibility cloaks, superlenses, advanced solar panels and earthquake resistant buildings are just a few applications of nanotechnology. 

      The role that nanotech plays in the Hymenoptera is that it facilitates an "information based" economy, in which the manufacturing process becomes decentralized through the digital diffusion of the internet and at-home printing devices. Therefore, the valuation of physical objects must plummet, while informational value skyrockets, in the form of patents and algorithms. This brings me to my next point:

4) International Trade Consortiums, Internet Control, Law Enforcement

Research Materials in Advance:

      - Trans Pacific Partnership
      - ACTA
      - Beyond the Border
      - CISPA

(I am constantly researching this and other avenues for legal implementation of internet control, and will update accordingly - if anyone finds further information which corroborates or refuetes these premises, I'm interested in reading them).

These provide a small summary of the current state of legal hive-mindery.    Remember, consolidation is the hallmark of the Hive.

      Mussolini once said that blood alone moves the wheels of history. It is ironic, living in a society where evil and good are not clearly defined, not like they were during the Third Reich. The US government tells its people who to fear and who to fight, while the internet leaks documents disparaging their lies. It is a fundamental era of cognitive dissonance. Chuck Palahniuk wrote in Fight Club that "our great war is a spiritual war," and I remember even as a young man agreeing with the sentiment.

      Still, the wheels of history must turn.  The question always becomes, which branch will the blood trickle down, which path will we take into the future?

       The information economy is already here, and about to be amplified by additive manufacturing and the AI boom. Bitcoin and the dot com bubble are good examples; however the full spectrum of change has yet to take place. To put things in perspective, a market research firm called Plunkett Research Ltd. published an E-commerce report which numbers online retail sales at nearly $5 trillion. A survey in February of last year details that 60% of Americans use a search engine daily for information. These shifts have not gone unnoticed, and the American government has the best science advisors on earth. Unsurprisingly, the Obama administration is heavily invested in additive manufacturing[11] and reverse engineering the brain[12], to the tune of 200 million for advanced manufacturing, and 100 million for the brain in the first year. 

      Ominously, they are putting together a string of trade and enforcement laws which will forge a de facto North American Union under a single currency and body of tort law. Nobody will stop them, because they most likely can't. Canadians will need to use the Supreme Court.  The participants in the negotiations of, for example, the TPP, host their negotiations for these treaties in places like Nepal so nobody can protest. 
       In any case, it won't be evident until someone you know is indicted for consuming ostensibly copyrighted material, or engaging in another vague infringement of informational hegemony. The reality is that cyber security and anti terrorism bills, in concert with international trade agreements, gives law enforcement carte blanche to spy on the population. Once the monitoring system is in place, and the government is in a position of absolute oversight with respect to economic development, the process begins.

Post Edit: Edward Snowden has leaked documents revealing the US government collects most data on the internet.

     In sum, the economic ramifications of bottom-up nano systems manufacturing are a fundamental shift from a material economy to an immaterial creation economy.  Therefore, where 'colonies'  or societies, previously competed for material resources like oil, now they will compete for immaterial resources like computational capacity, and algorithmic creation capabilities for the production of patents. It is likely that a concession of participation in the Hive Mind will be a partition of some element of thought* in contribution to the creation machine.  I doubt highly that singular individuals will be tasked as algorithmic engineers. Rather, those engineers who are highly trained will work in tandem with artificial intelligence, creating ever more powerful architectures for harnessing human thought and computation at large.  

      Think of all human discovery (not just scientific, but conceptual) as a 3d map, representing the landscape of possible discovery; ranging all the way from a clay pot, a spoked wheel, or a steel sword - to quantum computers, a cure for cancer, and nanomachines capable of producing specific products.  Imagine a single luminescent point at the bottom of this graph- and we'll call this point - human creation capability tree.  It flows upward and touches all the possible points of discovery. So language, euclidean mathematics, Platonic philosophy, communism and Nazism. We can consider Relativity to be there, as well as Newtonian physics. 

      But also let's consider a scenario in which Einstein became very ill and passed away before he could publish his famous papers.  It's conceivable that another physicist would have discovered the equations eventually.  In fact, the history of science reflects this well: Newton had several competitors for calculus.  When the Wright Brothers were testing their first flights, they weren't the only ones.  The landscape of discovery exists but must be pursued. There are infinite configurations of design that are possible, but we choose the most useful ones.  For example, a wooden chair is more useful than a wooden apple.  Chairs were inevitable given the proportions of the human body, they are simply ideal for our size. The point of this tangent is that all human discovery, in the map of knowledge, must be pursued by virtue of the very nature of science.  Each discovery heralds the next - we couldn't have space flight without Netwonian mechanics, and couldn't calculate the path of a photon from across the Universe without Einstein's relativity.  Human beings are uniquely qualified to explore the Universal map of knowledge.

Human thought has the advantage of connecting disparate concepts and information together, of being creative and synthesizing ideas; of stepping outside the system in which considerations are made, approximating risks and rewards for future events... conversely, computers are good at remembering large amounts of data arbitrarily, finding patterns in numbers, performing large-scale, accurate computations in real-time, and solving complex problems like climatological systems modelling or genomic information mining. 

      This self-reinforcing system of intelligence; we discover computers - computers discover ways to make more powerful computers and so on; is often said to be an inevitable extension of human evolution by futurists and computing scientists (see Kevin Kelly).  Moore's Law has not seen a single drop since its inception in the mid 20th century (although the process at work is much deeper than just computers).  Watson defeated the world's greatest Jeopordy champion, while also helping to diagnose cancer

       There is a fog of unsettled destiny about us now.  In The Emergent Hive Part 1, I detailed the socio-cultural, economic, psychological and political ramifications of the Hive, as well as the ideological permutations that are possible; in the form of gross tyranny, shining freedom, or perfect union (supposedly).  There are grades of possible technological infusion based on a given society's laws.  That's why a North American Union may be a possibility, and may also be a subject of division between Canada, the US and Mexico.

          No single outcome is set in stone, however.  The opinion of a people matters. The technologies which empower governments to control their populations are ironically well-suited for opposing them as well.  In my opinion, there will be two possible [North American] hives - a decentralized free market energy economy based on solar power and creativity, with a cloud information infrastructure - controlled by mass-shareholding*. Or, a heavily centralized internet with legal provisions of participation, in which all activities are monitored, dissent is criminalized, and quantum cryptographic intranets and systems are illegal except for use by the government. Corporations specializing in computation will be proxies for the US govt, and will help to apply the provisions of the hive well in advance of its 'arrival'. A good example of this would be Lockheed Martin's D-wave quantum computer, which has been vetted by independent scientists as the first true large-scale quantum (annealing) computer in history. 

*mass shareholding refers to part ownership as a requirement of participation (democracy is in theory a type of mass shareholding)

      So concludes part 2 of The Emergent Hive.  The next part in the series documents a set of new predictions and muses on the long-term consequences and characteristics of a Hive-Mind. 

       I urge everyone to take an interest in the topic of international trade law as it pertains to the North American Union, as it will affect everyone one way or another.  Stay tuned for the more whimsical part 3 of "The Emergent Hive," and thank you all for reading.