Brave New War - Revision history

Marcin: /* OSE Perspective */

2022-06-01T14:43:57Z

OSE Perspective

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:43, 1 June 2022
Line 10:		Line 10:
	The open source economy is a critical reframe of the thinking around global security. '''The open source economy must be recognized as an aspect of global security - and indeed - it must be recognized as a precondition to prosperity and peace.'''		The open source economy is a critical reframe of the thinking around global security. '''The open source economy must be recognized as an aspect of global security - and indeed - it must be recognized as a precondition to prosperity and peace.'''

	This point needs to be communicated. Open source - hardware specifically - is much more than the currently playful though economically ~~impotent~~ ''maker movement''. ~~It's~~ about infrastructure towards world peace - and a tactical approach for getting there.		This point needs to be communicated. Open source - hardware specifically - is much more than the currently useful playful though economically inert ''maker movement'' - which is how 'open source' is commonly framed. [[Open Source Product Development]] can be about infrastructure towards world peace - and a tactical approach for getting there.

	In a true open source economy, any individual can rise to any level of responsibility that they choose, without the lack of access to knowhow or resources. An open source economy is equivalent to ''access to power''. That power can manifest in swarms of agile individuals or agents.		In a true open source economy, any individual can rise to any level of responsibility that they choose, without the lack of access to knowhow or resources. An open source economy is equivalent to ''access to power''. That power can manifest in swarms of agile individuals or agents.

Marcin: /* OSE Perspective */

2022-04-20T03:15:38Z

OSE Perspective

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:15, 20 April 2022
Line 16:		Line 16:
	Furthermore, it emerges that each individual in a swarm can have significant effect - depending on one's initiative. For example, an entrepreneurial individual who knows how to build things can create and crowdfund a swarm to produce an army of drone copters that can have a significant effect in war. Thus, the responsibility for peacekeeping can exist not only in powerful monopolies of violence (armies), but also in swarm-powered individuals. There are advantages and disadvantages to each route.		Furthermore, it emerges that each individual in a swarm can have significant effect - depending on one's initiative. For example, an entrepreneurial individual who knows how to build things can create and crowdfund a swarm to produce an army of drone copters that can have a significant effect in war. Thus, the responsibility for peacekeeping can exist not only in powerful monopolies of violence (armies), but also in swarm-powered individuals. There are advantages and disadvantages to each route.

	Swarm-based activity carries a risk of responsible stewardship - as a swarm must also have checks and balances on its decision-making capacity (so that its decisions are sound). This is a question of governance. It is a challenging question - because without due attention to governance or decision-making - the swarm can cause trouble if it is unguided or misguided. Such as if it is misinformed, unethical, or if it carries inaccurate mental models of reality. Same is true for centralized models - but centralized models typically have some form of established protocols. Thus, any beneficial swarm must carry informed responsibility. This may be a weak point of swarms. Thus, we must ask how a swarm learns, how fast it learns, and how well it adapts to new information. Attention must be given to swarm governance, or it can lead to [[Lord of the Flies]] anarchy.		Swarm-based activity carries a risk of responsible stewardship - as a swarm must also have checks and balances on its decision-making capacity (so that its decisions are sound). This is a question of governance. It is a challenging question - because without due attention to governance or decision-making - the swarm can cause trouble if it is unguided or misguided. Such as if it is misinformed, unethical, or if it carries inaccurate mental models of reality. Same is true for centralized models - but centralized models typically have some form of established protocols. Thus, any beneficial swarm must carry informed responsibility. This may be a weak point of swarms. Thus, we must ask how a swarm learns, how fast it learns, and how well it adapts to new information. Attention must be given to swarm governance, or it can lead to [[Lord of the Flies]]-style anarchy where lack of responsible guidance leads to death.

Marcin: /* OSE Perspective */

2022-04-20T03:14:51Z

OSE Perspective

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:14, 20 April 2022
Line 14:		Line 14:
	In a true open source economy, any individual can rise to any level of responsibility that they choose, without the lack of access to knowhow or resources. An open source economy is equivalent to ''access to power''. That power can manifest in swarms of agile individuals or agents.		In a true open source economy, any individual can rise to any level of responsibility that they choose, without the lack of access to knowhow or resources. An open source economy is equivalent to ''access to power''. That power can manifest in swarms of agile individuals or agents.

	Furthermore, it emerges that each individual in a swarm can have significant effect - depending on one's initiative. For example, an entrepreneurial individual who knows how to build things can create and crowdfund a swarm to produce an army of drone copters that can have a significant effect in war. Thus, the responsibility for peacekeeping can ~~transition from large power~~ monopolies to swarm-powered individuals. ~~This~~ carries a risk of responsible stewardship - as a swarm must also have checks and balances on its decision-making capacity so that ~~the~~ decisions ~~that it makes~~ are sound. This is a question of governance. It is a challenging question - because without due attention to governance or decision-making - the swarm can cause trouble if it is unguided or misguided. Such as if it is misinformed, unethical, or if it carries inaccurate mental models of reality. Thus, any beneficial swarm must carry informed responsibility. This may be a weak point of swarms ~~- and its effectiveness depends on its attention to sound governance~~. ~~The biggest question for effective governance is~~ how ~~the~~ swarm learns, how fast it learns, and how well it adapts to new information.		Furthermore, it emerges that each individual in a swarm can have significant effect - depending on one's initiative. For example, an entrepreneurial individual who knows how to build things can create and crowdfund a swarm to produce an army of drone copters that can have a significant effect in war. Thus, the responsibility for peacekeeping can exist not only in powerful monopolies of violence (armies), but also in swarm-powered individuals. There are advantages and disadvantages to each route.

			Swarm-based activity carries a risk of responsible stewardship - as a swarm must also have checks and balances on its decision-making capacity (so that its decisions are sound). This is a question of governance. It is a challenging question - because without due attention to governance or decision-making - the swarm can cause trouble if it is unguided or misguided. Such as if it is misinformed, unethical, or if it carries inaccurate mental models of reality. Same is true for centralized models - but centralized models typically have some form of established protocols. Thus, any beneficial swarm must carry informed responsibility. This may be a weak point of swarms. Thus, we must ask how a swarm learns, how fast it learns, and how well it adapts to new information. Attention must be given to swarm governance, or it can lead to [[Lord of the Flies]] anarchy.

Marcin: /* OSE Perspective */

2022-04-20T03:09:10Z

OSE Perspective

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:09, 20 April 2022
Line 8:		Line 8:

	=OSE Perspective=		=OSE Perspective=
	The open source economy is a critical reframe of the thinking around global security. The open source economy must be recognized as an aspect of global security. This point needs to be communicated. Open source is much more than the currently ~~lame~~ ''maker movement''. It's about ~~tactics~~ towards world peace.		The open source economy is a critical reframe of the thinking around global security. '''The open source economy must be recognized as an aspect of global security - and indeed - it must be recognized as a precondition to prosperity and peace.'''

			This point needs to be communicated. Open source - hardware specifically - is much more than the currently playful though economically impotent ''maker movement''. It's about infrastructure towards world peace - and a tactical approach for getting there.

	In a true open source economy, any individual can rise to any level of responsibility that they choose, without the lack of access to knowhow or resources. An open source economy is equivalent to ''access to power''. That power can manifest in swarms of agile individuals or agents.		In a true open source economy, any individual can rise to any level of responsibility that they choose, without the lack of access to knowhow or resources. An open source economy is equivalent to ''access to power''. That power can manifest in swarms of agile individuals or agents.

	Furthermore, it emerges that each individual in a swarm can have significant effect - depending on one's initiative. For example, an entrepreneurial individual who knows how to build things can create and crowdfund a swarm to produce an army of drone copters that can have a significant effect in war. Thus, the responsibility for peacekeeping can transition from large power monopolies to swarm-powered individuals. This carries a risk of responsible stewardship - as a swarm must also have checks and balances on its decision-making capacity so that the decisions that it makes are sound. This is a question of governance. It is a challenging question - because without due attention to governance or decision-making - the swarm can cause trouble if it is unguided or misguided. Such as if it is misinformed, unethical, or if it carries inaccurate mental models of reality. Thus, any beneficial swarm must carry informed responsibility. This may be a weak point of swarms - and its effectiveness depends on its attention to sound governance. The biggest question for effective governance is how the swarm learns, how fast it learns, and how well it adapts to new information.		Furthermore, it emerges that each individual in a swarm can have significant effect - depending on one's initiative. For example, an entrepreneurial individual who knows how to build things can create and crowdfund a swarm to produce an army of drone copters that can have a significant effect in war. Thus, the responsibility for peacekeeping can transition from large power monopolies to swarm-powered individuals. This carries a risk of responsible stewardship - as a swarm must also have checks and balances on its decision-making capacity so that the decisions that it makes are sound. This is a question of governance. It is a challenging question - because without due attention to governance or decision-making - the swarm can cause trouble if it is unguided or misguided. Such as if it is misinformed, unethical, or if it carries inaccurate mental models of reality. Thus, any beneficial swarm must carry informed responsibility. This may be a weak point of swarms - and its effectiveness depends on its attention to sound governance. The biggest question for effective governance is how the swarm learns, how fast it learns, and how well it adapts to new information.

Marcin: /* OSE Perspective */

2022-04-20T03:06:25Z

OSE Perspective

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:06, 20 April 2022
Line 10:		Line 10:
	The open source economy is a critical reframe of the thinking around global security. The open source economy must be recognized as an aspect of global security. This point needs to be communicated. Open source is much more than the currently lame ''maker movement''. It's about tactics towards world peace.		The open source economy is a critical reframe of the thinking around global security. The open source economy must be recognized as an aspect of global security. This point needs to be communicated. Open source is much more than the currently lame ''maker movement''. It's about tactics towards world peace.

	Furthermore, it emerges that each individual in a swarm can have significant effect - depending on one's initiative. For example, an entrepreneurial individual who knows how to build things can create and crowdfund a swarm to produce an army of drone copters that can have a significant ~~military~~ effect. Thus, the responsibility for peacekeeping can transition from large power monopolies to individuals. This carries a risk of responsible stewardship - as a swarm must also have checks and balances on its decision-making capacity so that the decisions that it makes are sound. This is a question of governance. It is a challenging question - because without due attention to governance or decision-making - the swarm can cause trouble if it is unguided or misguided. Such as if it is misinformed, unethical, or if it carries inaccurate mental models of reality. Thus, any beneficial swarm must carry informed responsibility.		In a true open source economy, any individual can rise to any level of responsibility that they choose, without the lack of access to knowhow or resources. An open source economy is equivalent to ''access to power''. That power can manifest in swarms of agile individuals or agents.

			Furthermore, it emerges that each individual in a swarm can have significant effect - depending on one's initiative. For example, an entrepreneurial individual who knows how to build things can create and crowdfund a swarm to produce an army of drone copters that can have a significant effect in war. Thus, the responsibility for peacekeeping can transition from large power monopolies to swarm-powered individuals. This carries a risk of responsible stewardship - as a swarm must also have checks and balances on its decision-making capacity so that the decisions that it makes are sound. This is a question of governance. It is a challenging question - because without due attention to governance or decision-making - the swarm can cause trouble if it is unguided or misguided. Such as if it is misinformed, unethical, or if it carries inaccurate mental models of reality. Thus, any beneficial swarm must carry informed responsibility. This may be a weak point of swarms - and its effectiveness depends on its attention to sound governance. The biggest question for effective governance is how the swarm learns, how fast it learns, and how well it adapts to new information.

Marcin: /* OSE Perspective */

2022-04-20T02:59:24Z

OSE Perspective

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:59, 20 April 2022
Line 8:		Line 8:

	=OSE Perspective=		=OSE Perspective=
	The open source economy is a critical reframe of the thinking around global security. The open source economy must be recognized as an aspect of global security. This point needs to be communicated. ~~It's~~ more than ~~about~~ the lame ''maker movement''. It's about tactics towards world peace.		The open source economy is a critical reframe of the thinking around global security. The open source economy must be recognized as an aspect of global security. This point needs to be communicated. Open source is much more than the currently lame ''maker movement''. It's about tactics towards world peace.

	Furthermore, it emerges that each individual in a swarm can have significant effect - depending on one's initiative. For example, an entrepreneurial individual who knows how to build things can create and crowdfund a swarm to produce an army of drone copters that can have a significant military effect. Thus, the responsibility for peacekeeping can transition from large power monopolies to individuals. This carries a risk of responsible stewardship - as a swarm must also have checks and balances on its decision-making capacity so that the decisions that it makes are sound. This is a question of governance. It is a challenging question - because without due attention to governance or decision-making - the swarm can cause trouble if it is unguided or misguided. Such as if it is misinformed, unethical, or if it carries inaccurate mental models of reality. Thus, any beneficial swarm must carry informed responsibility.		Furthermore, it emerges that each individual in a swarm can have significant effect - depending on one's initiative. For example, an entrepreneurial individual who knows how to build things can create and crowdfund a swarm to produce an army of drone copters that can have a significant military effect. Thus, the responsibility for peacekeeping can transition from large power monopolies to individuals. This carries a risk of responsible stewardship - as a swarm must also have checks and balances on its decision-making capacity so that the decisions that it makes are sound. This is a question of governance. It is a challenging question - because without due attention to governance or decision-making - the swarm can cause trouble if it is unguided or misguided. Such as if it is misinformed, unethical, or if it carries inaccurate mental models of reality. Thus, any beneficial swarm must carry informed responsibility.

Marcin: /* OSE Perspective */

2022-04-20T02:58:40Z

OSE Perspective

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:58, 20 April 2022
Line 9:		Line 9:
	=OSE Perspective=		=OSE Perspective=
	The open source economy is a critical reframe of the thinking around global security. The open source economy must be recognized as an aspect of global security. This point needs to be communicated. It's more than about the lame ''maker movement''. It's about tactics towards world peace.		The open source economy is a critical reframe of the thinking around global security. The open source economy must be recognized as an aspect of global security. This point needs to be communicated. It's more than about the lame ''maker movement''. It's about tactics towards world peace.

			Furthermore, it emerges that each individual in a swarm can have significant effect - depending on one's initiative. For example, an entrepreneurial individual who knows how to build things can create and crowdfund a swarm to produce an army of drone copters that can have a significant military effect. Thus, the responsibility for peacekeeping can transition from large power monopolies to individuals. This carries a risk of responsible stewardship - as a swarm must also have checks and balances on its decision-making capacity so that the decisions that it makes are sound. This is a question of governance. It is a challenging question - because without due attention to governance or decision-making - the swarm can cause trouble if it is unguided or misguided. Such as if it is misinformed, unethical, or if it carries inaccurate mental models of reality. Thus, any beneficial swarm must carry informed responsibility.

Catarina: /* OSE Perspective */

2022-04-19T23:20:20Z

OSE Perspective

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:20, 19 April 2022
Line 8:		Line 8:

	=OSE Perspective=		=OSE Perspective=
	The open source economy is a critical reframe of the thinking around global security. The open source economy must be recognized as an aspect of global security. This point needs to be communicated. It's more than about the lame maker movement. It's about tactics towards world peace.		The open source economy is a critical reframe of the thinking around global security. The open source economy must be recognized as an aspect of global security. This point needs to be communicated. It's more than about the lame ''maker movement''. It's about tactics towards world peace.

Catarina at 23:20, 19 April 2022

2022-04-19T23:20:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:20, 19 April 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:

			=Background=
	*Book by [[John Robb]] - [https://www.amazon.com/Brave-New-War-Terrorism-Globalization/dp/0470261951#customerReviews]		*Book by [[John Robb]] - [https://www.amazon.com/Brave-New-War-Terrorism-Globalization/dp/0470261951#customerReviews]
	*Article in the Atlantic - [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/12/war-2015-china-russia-isis/422085/]		*Article in the Atlantic - [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/12/war-2015-china-russia-isis/422085/]
Line 4:		Line 6:

	Laura Jackson proposes a similarly preemptive approach for the Three Warfares, encouraging the permanent stationing of cameras on military vessels in the South China Sea and the satellite streaming of Chinese island construction to better stop “unilateral, yet subtle, revisions of reality.” Mark Galeotti, a professor at New York University, advocates a “non-kinetic NATO” equipped to counter challenges such as corruption. Russian doctrine argues that corrupting another country’s elites is part of “new-generation” war. Isn’t it therefore time for the West to consider corruption a security issue?		Laura Jackson proposes a similarly preemptive approach for the Three Warfares, encouraging the permanent stationing of cameras on military vessels in the South China Sea and the satellite streaming of Chinese island construction to better stop “unilateral, yet subtle, revisions of reality.” Mark Galeotti, a professor at New York University, advocates a “non-kinetic NATO” equipped to counter challenges such as corruption. Russian doctrine argues that corrupting another country’s elites is part of “new-generation” war. Isn’t it therefore time for the West to consider corruption a security issue?

			=OSE Perspective=
			The open source economy is a critical reframe of the thinking around global security. The open source economy must be recognized as an aspect of global security. This point needs to be communicated. It's more than about the lame maker movement. It's about tactics towards world peace.

Catarina at 23:14, 19 April 2022

2022-04-19T23:14:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:14, 19 April 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Book by [[John Robb]		*Book by [[John Robb]] - [https://www.amazon.com/Brave-New-War-Terrorism-Globalization/dp/0470261951#customerReviews]
			*Article in the Atlantic - [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/12/war-2015-china-russia-isis/422085/]


			Laura Jackson proposes a similarly preemptive approach for the Three Warfares, encouraging the permanent stationing of cameras on military vessels in the South China Sea and the satellite streaming of Chinese island construction to better stop “unilateral, yet subtle, revisions of reality.” Mark Galeotti, a professor at New York University, advocates a “non-kinetic NATO” equipped to counter challenges such as corruption. Russian doctrine argues that corrupting another country’s elites is part of “new-generation” war. Isn’t it therefore time for the West to consider corruption a security issue?