Rebooting Haiti: Eliminating poverty to reduce the impacts of disasters

With the search and rescue efforts officially called off in Haiti, the time has come for reconstruction. But with nearly 200,000 dead and one in nine Haitians currently homeless, it's easy to get caught up in the numbers and lose sight of the primary lesson learned from the catastrophe.

That poverty kills. And it kills big time.

Stop for a moment and imagine an earthquake of similar magnitude in San Fransisco. It's highly unlikely that we'd see a similar death count -- not with San Fran's first-world infrastructure and emergency response network, not to mention the support from surrounding areas.

But we don't have to imagine these things. Back in 1995 the Great Hanshin Earthquake rocked the Kobe area in Japan killing 6,434 people. This earthquake hit 6.8 on the Richter scale and struck a heavily populated area -- very comparable to Haiti. And in 2008 the Sichuan Earthquake killed nearly 68,000 people in China, a country that sits firmly between the third and first worlds.

There's obviously a direct correlation with the relative affluence of a community and their ability to cope with disaster. There's no question that the the death toll in Haiti was severely accentuated by the poor state of affairs in that country.

It's all fine and well that the world's attention is now focused on Haiti, but the damage has already been done, an outcome caused directly by the earthquake and indirectly by years of global neglect and indifference. As Mahatma Gandhi once said, "Poverty is the worst form of violence." Indeed, this is exactly the kind of unintended violence we impose upon the impoverished peoples of world when they're largely forgotten.

Moreover, the violence that's unleashed by poverty is hardly limited to the impacts of natural disasters. As Peter Singer recently noted, "Every year, more people die from poverty related causes than entire population of Haiti."

It's clear that poverty has to be eliminated, and Haiti offers a remarkable opportunity to take a de facto post-apocalyptic society and set them on the right track. Success in this matter could provide an unprecedented blue print for similar reconstruction efforts around the world.

Here's what has to happen in Haiti:

• All the money that's pouring in has to be routed to the right areas. While aid agencies are doing an exemplary job dealing with the initial humanitarian crisis, they are far too chaotic, uncoordinated and decentralized to rebuild the country. Rebuilding efforts will have to be conducted by dedicated transnational institutions working in tandem with private industry.
• Haiti's infrastructure will have to be rebuilt from scratch. This will include roads, ports, housing, electricity, sanitation and water. The entire Haitian country has to be redesigned for resilience in anticipation of another earthquake.
• The development of viable economic opportunities is paramount, particularly ones that are sustainable. Agriculture would be a good start; Haiti has some of the sweetest mangos on the planet. Looking further ahead, however, the country's infrastructure needs to be brought to first world standards if it hopes to compete and do business with the rest of the world.

All this is easier said than done, I know. And quite obviously the reconstruction effort will be more complicated than my four bullet points. But we have to start somewhere and something has to be done.

As Bono of U2 once said, "We're not looking for charity, we're looking for justice."

Future terror: neurohacking - A SentDev Classic

In the 1995 anime sci-fi classic, Ghost in the Shell, a futuristic world was envisioned in which cybernetic individuals routinely operate in the virtual world as easily as in the real one. Transhuman cybernetic minds are inextricably connected to the cyber-realm, leaving them vulnerable to attacks.

In this projected future people are subjected to 'ghost hacking' in which their minds are taken over by computer hackers without their knowing it. Their 'ghost' or essence, or soul, or self, or whatever descriptor you want to give for self-identity, is manipulated and controlled from a remote source.

As disturbing as this sounds, it's not beyond the realm of plausibility. When considering the Church-Turing thesis of computational compatability, and given recent insight into cognitive computationalism (or functionalism), one can make the assumption that future human minds will be indelibly linked to extraneous computer systems.

And as a frightening precursor to 'ghost hacking', also known as neurohacking, a recent article in Technology Review reveals that the first generation of invasive neurohacking may be only years away.

In her article, titled "Could Terrorists Hijack Your Brain?" Emily Singer reports on how security experts are warning that we need to prepare for a much broader spectrum of potential bioterror agents -- this according to a report released this week by the Washington, DC-based National Academies.

While most bioweapons research is focused on the usual suspects, namely such agents as anthrax and smallpox, it is now thought that emerging technologies in biotechnology and the life sciences could be usurped to take control of genes, immune systems, and even brains.

Terrorists, or even state-actors for that matter, could also co-opt relatively new technologies, such as synthetic biology (which aims to build organisms that can detect or produce chemicals or perform other functions) or RNA interference (a technique that allows scientists to easily control gene expression).

There is also concern about the potential of bioregulators -- small, biologically active organic compounds that can regulate different systems in the body. Newer technologies such as targeted delivery methods that zero in on the immune or neuroendocrine systems could make it easier to use bioregulators in evil ways.

Such is the double-edged sword of technological development. For each advancement, someone can twist it for self-serving and nefarious purposes. Consequently, in order to prepare for the ever-changing "threat spectrum," the advisors recommend that technologies with dual-use potential -- those that can be used to either help or harm humanity -- be continually reassessed to take account of rapid advances in biotechnology.

Additionally, it is suggested that a scientific advisory board be developed to assist the national security community and to ensure that teams monitoring these threats have the most up-to-date scientific expertise. It was also advised that public health infrastructures be strengthened and that incentives be put into place for the creation of broadly active vaccines and other products that can protect against diverse agents.

"It's like the transition from trench warfare to mobilized warfare between World War I and World War II," notes one of the report authors. "How do we begin to defend ourselves against that dynamic threat landscape? How do we adapt our health, medical, and biodefense systems to respond to that?"

Interestingly, the advisors also endorsed an open exchange of information in the life sciences as much as possible, emphasizing that the best means of protecting against future threats is further advances in technology.

So, are we indelibly headed for a Ghost in the Shell like future? Quite possibly yes, but it appears that we may have the safeguards, firewalls, and prophylaxis in place to deal with the problems as they arise.

As a final aside, humans have had to deal with 'neurohacking' for quite some time now, but not in such invasive ways. Ever since propaganda was developed, people have had their minds influenced by external sources. And memes themselves, whether they be autonomous or created and directed by individuals or groups, are impacting on their hosts, directing the human sense of self and how decisions are formulated.

It looks, however, that keeping control of our minds is about to get harder by an order of magnitude.

This article was orginally published on February 1, 2006.

Messages to ET and the precautionary principle

Science fiction author and futurist David Brin recently contacted me and brought me up to speed on his efforts to raise awareness about the active SETI approach, also known as METI (messages to extraterrestrial intelligences). Brin is vehemently opposed to this idea, as he believes it could put humanity in great peril. For all we know, he argues, some malevolent ETI is lurking in the neighborhood waiting for less advanced civilizations to draw attention to themselves.

Brin writes,

Let there be no mistake. METI is a very different thing than passively sifting for signals from the outer space. Carl Sagan, one of the greatest SETI supporters and a deep believer in the notion of altruistic alien civilizations, called such a move deeply unwise and immature....

Sagan — along with early SETI pioneer Philip Morrison — recommended that the newest children in a strange and uncertain cosmos should listen quietly for a long time, patiently learning about the universe and comparing notes, before shouting into an unknown jungle that we do not understand.

Brin invited me to join a closed discussion group where this issue is examined and debated. The purpose of the exercise is to not just think more deeply about this issue, but to also raise awareness and possibly prevent a catastrophe (i.e. alien invasion). Essentially, Brin argues that METI needs to be strongly considered before any group or individual takes it upon themselves to shout out to the heavens. He is particularly concerned how some groups, including SETI, are dismissive of his concerns. His fear is that someone will unilaterally decide to start transmitting messages into the depths of space.

I was unsure at first about whether or not I should join this group. As a contact pessimist I’m fairly certain that the fear about a METI approach is unwarranted -- not because ETI's are likely to be friendly, but because no one's listening. And even if they are listening, there's nothing we can do about it; any advanced ETI that's on a search-and-destroy mission would likely have the 'search' aspect figured out. I'm not sure how any civilization could hide in the Galaxy. Consequently, METI is somewhat of a non-issue in my opinion.

That being said, however, I did reach the conclusion that there is a non-zero chance that we could run into trouble should we change our approach from listening to messaging. For example, resident berserkers could be waiting, for what ever reason, for this sort of change in our radio signals. Perhaps they are waiting for a sign that we've passed a certain developmental threshold.

I think this argument is extremely weak and improbable, but it's not impossible; it should not be ruled out as a potential existential risk.

Which leads me to the precautionary principle. Since no one is listening, there is no harm in not sending messages out into the cosmos. Again, if a friendly ETI wanted to do a meet-and-greet, they should have no trouble finding us. But because there is the slim chance that we may alert a local berserker (or something unknown), we should probably refrain from the METI approach for the time being.

So, I took Brin up on his offer and I’ve joined the discussion group. We are currently considering the possibility of organizing a conference centered around the issue. I’ll continue to post about this topic as news develops. More information can be found here.

Blessed are the doomsayers

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -- Woody Allen

Back in 2000 Sun Microsystems chief scientist Bill Joy published his now famous (or is that infamous?) warning cry, "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us." Soon thereafter philosopher Nick Bostrom published his seminal paper on existential risks and Sir Martin Rees released his book, Our Final Hour. Even thinkers like Stephen Hawking and James Lovelock chimed in, warning that human civilization is headed in a bad way.

And it was only recently that the Doomsday Clock was once again moved foward.

Indeed, doom mongering has suddenly crept back into fashion. A new breed of Chicken Littles has emerged. But these aren't your run-of-the-mill street corner nut jobs warning that the end is nigh. Rather, these are serious thinkers with excellent credentials.

And in my own small way I have also contributed to this burgeoning neo-doom culture. A good portion of my thinking and writing is devoted to the topic. It's an important issue for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (where I'm on the Board of Directors). I'm also advising for the Lifeboat Foundation, an organization dedicated to foresight and disaster prevention.

I settled into this vein quite unintentionally and unwillingly; the more I delved into the issue, however, the more I became convinced that looming catastrophic risks were indeed a problem.

Needless to say there has been considerable negative reaction to what is perceived as unjustified fear mongering and hyper negativity. Doomsayers are often scorned and put to task on their grim prognostications. Many critics contend that today's catastrophists are no different that those from the past. For them, it's deja vu all over again.

Popular targets

Doomsayers are often ridiculed or ignored altogether mainly on account of the fact that an existential catastrophe has yet to actually happen. Catastrophism evokes images of apocalyptic religions and doomsday cults -- Book of Revelations type stuff, end of the world, judgment day, and so on.

Observation tells us that the worst predictions rarely, if ever, come true. Humans, after all, are still alive and kicking 60 years after the development of the atomic bomb. Moreover, despite localized violence in many parts of the world today, conditions for human existence have never been better. And the problems that do exist, like climate change, do not appear overwhelming intractable.

The human psyche is repelled by despair; it flees from it like the plague. Few want to associate themselves with the fear mongering doomsayers. It is a position that is inherently unattractive, with all its pessimism, defeatism and paranoia.

Catastrophists have been accused of using their position to increase social status. Worse, doomsayers are seen as providing fodder for advantageous politicians who use scare tactics in their politicking. There's no better way to control and manipulate a populace by exploiting their fears.

Enter the new doomsayers

Doomsaying went out of style thanks to the euphoria caused by the end of the Cold War. An idealistic complacency settled in, and much of society lived in utter denial of humanity's ongoing apocalyptic potential.

These days, in our post 9/11 world, disaster scenarios have once again regained currency. The fall of the bi-polar geopolitical arrangement has led to a much more unstable multi-polar global regime, while the United States exhibits a hegemonic attitude despite not actually being one.

Further, an entirely new generation of apocalyptic threats have been uncovered by scientists and technologists. Theoretical possibilities include catastrophic devastation in the wake of deliberately engineered pathogens, self-replicating molecular nanotechnology run amok, run-away global warming, and poorly programmed artificial intelligence. There are undoubtedly many more. Humanity will in short order have access to a growing arsenal of apocalyptic technologies; we'll soon be spinning plates -- and eventually one of them is going to fall.

Adding insult to injury are philosophical and observational indicators suggesting that humanity does not have a very promising future. These include the Doomsday Argument and the Fermi Paradox.

Confronting the grim and bitter truth

Intelligence, which has in the short run been the most powerful evolutionary trait ever witnessed, may ultimately prove to be a fatal adaptation. It may very well be that civilizations eventually extinguish themselves under the weight of their untenable technological complexity.

Our past success as a civilization does not guarantee future gain. Yes, we survived the Cold War, but as an apocalypse wielding species, we are now perpetually living on borrowed time. In our militaristic, real politik world, the notion of abolishing and containing these weapons is a pipe-dream.

Off the mark?

Of course, I and many other doomsayers may be wrong; my view of the future may be considerably off the mark.

A number of scenarios come to mind. A quasi-totalitarian and planetary wide police state could be imposed; the nation state may die as a political entity resulting in the significant lessening of geopolitical tensions; ongoing memetic homogenization may alleviate the pressure exerted by radical non-state actors; democratic institutions may prove to be successful in how they manage the development, application and proliferation of apocalyptic technologies; effective prophylaxis may be developed to counter the effects of catastrophic technologies (e.g. space-based defenses and Active Shields).

Don't blame the messenger

More to the point, however, none of the doomsayers are saying, "abandon hope all ye who enter here." On the contrary, despite the seemingly impossible odds, the purpose of the doomsaying exercise is to raise awareness. Human civilization needs to work to prevent catastrophe -- and prevention cannot happen without foresight. These threats are a call to action. Failure to properly assess and elucidate these threats could quite literally result in human extinction.

Societies need doomsayers to eliminate passivity and indifference so that a safe future can be engineered.

Even if that may be an impossible task.