Affordances of Good vs Evil

About

This article discusses whether open source military technology would help maintain global security in general, or help the 'good guys' win specific conflicts in particular. Conclusions are: depending on how it is executed, open source arms may help global security and economic development, but specific development of high tech, which can be copied by the adversary - may be detrimental. The outstanding question is thus, under what conditions can specific 'high tech military hardware' still be open source, while benefitting 'the good guys', or global security in general.

Discussion

The role of open source must be examined in war. Is open source military technology good, or does it help the enemy? Open access means open access to both sides - and would that actually help? Clearly we would be helping the enemy, and simple logic says that we should not aid the enemy directly. If we don't work open source (ie, eliminating all kinds of coordination and competitive waste) - we are losing out on efficiencies, exchanging energy required for secrecy for actual progress. Does this loss of efficiency (ie, proprietary military tech) make up for the greater advantage on the battlefield? And can open source be maintained, by including certain specific principles of open collaboration amongst the good side? And can even the good energy and good results embodied in open source convert the other side to walk over to the good side? Divergent thinking here clearly says yes. Let's take a look at some affordances and how tech development works to examine clear opportunities, and drawbacks, of open source military technology which can be used by both sides.

OSE's position is to make military hardware open source by open collaboration with evil guys, as such collaboration may have positive side effects. The premise here is that we would thus be saving massive amounts of resources that are otherwise going to competitive waste (many companies working on the same thing, while collaborating could remove all this waste). The end product is that each side develops death tech together, lowering costs, and minimizing arms smuggling or profiteering. Of course the preferred solution is livingry (borrowing from Fuller) over weaponry. However, even the very notion of collaborating on arms will expose the utter ignorance of pursuing such a course in the first place, which would be a good start of a paradigm shift to a non-scarcity based economic system - ie, one with a premise of abundance rather than scarcity.

If we talk about 'dual use' - then this development can be open source for both sides, and it can benefit both sides, while not disadvantaging the good side. There are many technologies that are already 'open source' - or that the adversary already uses from their own tech set and would not be interested in switching over.

Say we develop an open technology, the question is - what is the risk of the adversary adopting it? If the technology is new, then the adversary may adopt it. If the technology is old and the adversary already produces that technology, then the case for the adversary adopting it is low. However, any innovation - better, faster, cheaper, stronger - can likely be adopted. In practice, if an entire established industry already exists, that means that the entire industry would have to switch over. This would take a decade, as monopolies like to exist until forced out of existence.

The quick solution to the above is to develop deep technology - paradigm shifts which:

• Eliminate the funding base of the adversary. For example, hydrogen energy systems and engines may uproot 1/6 of Russian GDP or 1/3 of its government revenue [1] if they eliminate the oil and gas base of Russia

Deep technology refers to paradigm shifts in the economy. Such a paradigm shift may be technical or social innovation:

• Social innovation - democracy-branded dual use technologies which adversaries will be less likely to adopt because of pride in their own technology, which would be an admission that democratic collaboration is a superior method for economic progress. For example, technology is developed for swarm-based, distributed military production. Ie, leveraging large masses of private citizens who care - in swarm builds of military technology. It may be reasoned that 'democratic individuals' are more likely to collaborate as such than fascist individuals, thus pursuing Swarm builds of existing technology may be a good idea. Existing technology means that enemy infiltration into this ecosystem does not matter - because the technology already exists and the only innovation is 'collaborative builds' - in which fascist individuals would probably be less likely to get engaged. Thus, an action point of mass mobilization of swarm builds based on open technology may be a safe route to pursue for military support of Ukraine.
• Tech innovation - a highly Degenerate, modular product ecosystem for arms production can lower costs, provide more value, and succeed on the battlefield. This would mean a complete integration of design/build/enterprise ecosystems - with higher emphasis on dual use and overall reduction of complexity and cost. This is a deep change, and such a change would be desirable - as such a system would be deployable only after high learning curves and high coordination of the parties involved. In other words, the essential Affordances of such a system are an emphasis on collaboration and open innovation. This, from the getgo, introduces abundance thinking in all its agents. To say it in another way: if we learn to truly collaborate through such a process (open economic knowhow), this would induce a personal transformation essentially towards higher moral intelligence. When such intelligence is abundant, our capacity to deal with trauma and war will be increased significantly. This would cure the ill of The Best and the Brightest, therefore curing our ailing global diplomacy. When engaged fully - this process makes the absurdity of destruction evident. So far the nuclear weapon has not succeeded in providing security, as there is a lot of risk and uncertainty with nukes - though they have never been used for the 3rd time on the battlefield. The point here is - that such a deep social transformation through open collaboration would be a Trojan horse for a peacetime economy. This is wishful thinking, however, a viable business model based on a a highly Degenerate, modular, open source, collaborative product ecosystem for arms production would be a worthwhile experiment and something that OSE may consider once it gains sufficient economic power.

Points Being Explored

• Open sourcing of existing military technology would likely produce a good outcome by minimizing international arms profiteering, and could, if executed properly, contribute to demilitarization by deterrence. This paradigm appears to have no global precedent.
• Swarm or distributed builds of existing military technology may be a viable way to provide military assistance in crisis situations, and indeed DIY arms production is common especially on the defensive side, whether drones in Ukraine or Blyskawica in WW2.
• Many times, the military technology in question may rely on asymmetric warfare, and thus asymmetric warfare favors the defensive side and the 'evil guys' are not likely to reciprocate with such tactics because they have more 'advanced' equipment. This does not mean that the asymmetric warfare could not be effective. In asymmetric warfare, innovation and adaptation are key - thus producing a good case for open source collaborative development.
• Controversially, conversion of the military industrial complex into its open source, collaborative equivalent contains Affordances that may facilitate, paradoxically - a transition to the peacetime economy. This is a big important question to answer for any student of peace and prosperity, and certainly innovative startup experiments are worthwhile in this area. There is no known precedent for such a startup.
• Certainly purely defensive and remedial efforts (missile defense, demining, hospitals, evacuation, prosecution) are a big field of endeavor and can be engaged collaboratively in the open source, while collaborating with evil guys on prosecution, as The Guilty Will Be Punished

Enterprise Specifications

• Moral intelligence
• Balls
• Integrity
• Global financial independence
• Efficiency
• Inclusiveness
• True collaboration
• Divergent thinking with critical implementation