Middle of the Road Radical

A few of the world’s richest techie’s have come up with a plan to protect us while they research an even more high tech world. The threat they worry about is right off the pages of a “Terminator” movie script. Elon Musk of Tesla and SpaceX, Peter Theil of Paypal, in association with tech giants Infosys and Amazon, have pledged one billion dollars toward “OpenAI”, a non-profit research facility with the goal of building only well-behaved Artificial Intelligence… the kind that will do us no harm.

Theoretical Physicist, Stephen Hawking, like Musk, Theil, Bill Gates, and Steve Wozniak, has stated a belief that AI may be humanity's closest thing to a true "Pandora's Box". Hawking fears that once created these newly sentient electronic beings could use their superior capacity to increase their intelligence - rapidly evolving beyond human management - and relegate us to second-class citizenship. In a world where everything from transportation, power generation, and worldwide communications, to IV monitors and toasters can be remotely manipulated, it is a viable concern.

People in the tech world have already accepted that AI is coming. Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, announced that his 2016 New Years resolution was to build an artificially intelligent butler to help him around the house. Facebook has a team dedicated to developing software for AI. Google has purchased “Deep Mind”, a British company that writes software to make computers “think like humans”.

The questions that need asking are; in what form and with what protections will this technology arrive? Will it simply be a matter of having a discussion with our washing machine about how white we want or clothes, or will it extend to fully functional “bots” taking over maintenance activities in our life – cooking, cleaning, bill paying, grocery buying. The vector is onward and upward. AI is happening and will be a part of our life very soon.

The fear, “OpenAI”, appears to be anticipating concerns non-techie people, (like me) who depend on external information sources provided by corporations and/or government, and how our hunger for more may push these companies to reach into dangerous theoretical territory. While they are looking to cash-in on these new technologies either industry or government could, inadvertently, create a self-aware electronic being.

The initial payout from AI has the potential to be huge. It includes the promise of a “Jetson’s” type future where all difficult, dirty and annoying work is accomplished by slave machines. Undoubtedly, the creators of such technology would promise a risk free process. However, should they be wrong, Stephan Hawking suggests the consequence may be life altering. We could become the slaves – or worse – superfluous to their needs.

“OpenAI” may have as its goal to ensure that all forms of Artificial Intelligence are clearly, and obviously, beneficial for humankind - but the question arises, who are they to make such a value judgment?

Just consider for instance that we, as in all of humanity on this planet, presently encompass a range of diverse societies. Some believe dying, when done for the right reasons, is the ultimate achievement in life, and is followed by eternity in the good graces of their God. Other societies have as their goal to live forever in a youthful and attractive form, surrounded by the trappings of wealth and status. The capitalist, materialist vision versus the mortal-life-is-Hell and all true rewards come in the afterlife vision.

This is just a sampling. Millions of variations exist. In fact, it is quite possible that each of us has a unique vision for what exactly is the perfect future - but not everyone has a say. Elon Musk, Peter Theil, Infosys, Amazon, Google, Mark Zuckerberg; they will have a say and, although their intelligence in undeniable and their philanthropy is well established, the high-tech crowd isn't exactly a microcosm of world diversity. Other insights may be needed. Yet, even then, who among us has enough knowledge and understanding to truly know what the future of humankind should be, and what role intelligent machines should play in it... if any?

Artificial Intelligence isn't just about developing cool toys or work-saving “bots”. In a world where a machine in everyone's home can perform millions of actions at light speed, have access to virtually every piece of information on the planet, do it all wirelessly, and without the restraint of human emotions – to write an algorithm giving even one of them a sense of self – an ego – would make them potentially the most powerful being on Earth. Who can you really trust to protect us from that?

                                                                                                      
         Part Two

Have you ever thought about why we need Artificial Intelligence? It’s obvious why industry needs smart robots. They work cheap. They can be on the job twenty four/seven. Their productivity is measurable, reliable and repeatable. They don’t argue or complain or object to what they are told. They are, in effect, ideal employees. They even problem solve. What industry wouldn’t want more of them? But why do you and I need them?

Technology has arrived at a point where the sophistication level of AI machines is increasing rapidly - and, so too, is our investment in building them. They are presently in a cascading creative environment and very soon we will see these AI machines showing up and replacing entire skill sets within industry.

People take time to learn. In the case of some medical professionals or academics it takes over a decade to complete their studies. On the other hand, once a comprehensive software program is written it can be installed in an endless number of intelligent machines. Programming AI takes seconds, and can be designed to accept continuous updates incorporating all the latest information. Of the human/machine options which do you think corporations, or consumers, will view as the best choice.

Take for instance taxis. When you have cars that drive themselves, and can be called by simply accessing a phone app, and their position and distance traveled is measured and monitored by GPS, all you need is a credit card and a place to swipe it - so why have taxi drivers? The same can be said for delivery vehicles or buses. Who needs a driver?

Education is moving online. Whether in a bricks and mortar school or from home, the same lessons can be beamed in, and the same interactive communication can be initiated. Even now it's possible to go from Kindergarten to a graduate degree without attending a regular school.

Thanks largely to the American desire for avoiding universal medical coverage, a substantial effort is being put toward artificially simulating doctors. Imagine this scenario; you walk into a clinic, sit in front of a technician (or robot) who feeds your symptoms into a computer, you answer comprehensive follow up questions supplied by a program, (which has access to all of the most up-to-date medical knowledge in the World), and within minutes, you are supplied with either a diagnosis and a prescription, or moved on to a different station for supplemental tests and scans. This is in the works, and Medical Doctor’s may not be major players in the process.

It may sound fantastic but when you think about it you begin to realize that the ultimate goal of AI is to eliminate everyone from the workforce, not just labourers and assembly line workers. They are the easy ones. Whether this is achievable is up for debate but the possibility of it causing massive job displacement isn't. Whole industries will soon find themselves instantly at risk - and what does society do with people who lose careers that took years of training and study?

Governments are constantly promising to create and protect jobs. It's such a fundamental and important goal they appear willing to put in jeopardy our environment, our health, our safety, all with this justification in mind. Yet, we are channeling toward a future where jobs will be ever more scarce - and no effort is being made to seriously anticipate the outcomes. No career, no trade, no profession has been deemed sacrosanct - and given the incredible amount of money being applied, and the results being achieved, we have to believe that this is going to happen fast.

How will we adapt? Consider that even if you are a business owner salivating over the prospect of replacing a great portion of your work force with intelligent machines, what happens when this becomes a widespread phenomena? More bluntly stated, who is going to buy your product if fewer people are working?

The unspoken goal of artificial intelligence is to replace us as employees. These machines will be smarter, faster, stronger, more reliable, less demanding, and cheaper to employ. Sorry people, it may hurt to admit it but when it comes to employment we, as living, breathing, human beings, will not be able to compete. And competition, fortunately or unfortunately (depending on your ideology), is the lifeblood of our entire economic system. We have enshrined its principles in our institutions and absorbed them within our personalities. How will we structure our lives once we have been deemed obsolescent by mechanized intelligence?

When the AI Economy takes over will we all go on some kind of guaranteed annual income and live a subsistence lifestyle based on minimal remuneration from government? That would hardly support the kind of living we have been taught to believe in. What does a nation do with 80% unemployment, or 40%, when even 20% now puts us in a severe depression? This trend toward AI will create situations our societies have never previously encountered. Basic changes to our value systems are inevitable. We may have to re-think our goals as individuals and nations - and do it quickly. The window of opportunity to absorb whatever negative impacts these changes provide could close in a hurry - and the subsequent upheavals could create desperation and conflicts. It’s time we took a more comprehensive look at this whole AI reality.

Some of these pieces are tough to write because they cross a line, an international border line.

Since my last Blog Talk I did a piece on Conversion which asks why some young people choose to become radicalized and, as part of that discussion, I suggested that our Western systems of government aren't helping the cause. The next piece was a mea culpa for my so-called "sixties" generation and the myth that we are supposed to be so much more enlightened than previous issuances. It may appear a bit over the top - but I don't think so. From mea culpa I move to picking on a foreign leader, Barack Obama, and then to taking a shot at his country's entire political system. Sounds controversial and inflammatory, I know, I'll probably get some flack on that one.

Writing anything critical about the United States is difficult. As a Canadian my opinions fall into the category of “outsider” or “foreigner” when being consumed by Americans - so they are easily written off as biased and uninformed. On the other hand, when I resided in the United States I learned that Americans who expressed the same criticisms weren’t treated much better. Even they must use kid gloves when suggesting the existence of possible fundamental faults within their system - or risk being labeled anything from a kook to a traitor.

Building this level of homogeneous support throughout their entire nation – especially given the diversity in the United States – is what helped achieve America’s stature as the most powerful nation on Earth. Unfortunately, it may also be their Achilles Heel. America is an example of how ultra-success inspires ultra-conservatism but, historically, ultra-conservatism is recognized as a prelude to decadence and a harbinger of institutionalized fear.

Since the beginning of civilization change has been the constant. It has proven time and again to be persistent and unavoidable regardless of opposition. As a result, one of our greatest challenges, as a human species, has always been choosing the right changes and implementing them in the least hurtful manner. To fight against change, or to fight against the recognition of its power, does nothing but magnify the eventual misery it will cause.

The United States has done a truly magnificent job forming a cohesive and patriotic nation from an array of highly disparate peoples, and one of its primary devices in this regard has been to convince the citizenry they live in a nation beyond compare. Yet, once you have convinced people they are at the top of the food chain, it becomes virtually impossible to continue evolving because people believe it places what has already been achieved in jeopardy. The most successful institutions are the ones that understand such fears but continue to embrace flexibility and a belief in our evolving maturity. For this to occur In America, at this stage, would require a level of openness and trust between the people and their leadership that has not been evident in many decades. It requires considerable courage and an open mind, within the halls of government, to challenge the citizenry to seek and accept the most forward thinking changes - to abandon retrenchment. Part of being a leader involves taking on the role of educator and discussion leader. However, modern political leaders appear more interested in pandering to their power bases and constructing negative attitudes toward their opposition. The result has been gridlock and a fear of transparency within governments.

As an outsider what I have is the privilege of being critical without having to confront the suspicions of my neighbors and my community. Whether this is a good or bad condition is up for debate. Criticizing from a distance can easily be portrayed as cowardly and opportunistic. Still, when a nation calls itself the best and the greatest on so many levels - and the model against which other systems should be measured - it is bound to invite a bit of contrarianism, from the other side of the line.

The United States is a conundrum in many ways but, to me, healthcare policies are one of the most obvious. Just imagine, they live in a nation that is so wealthy, so powerful, and so proud to call itself the greatest nation on Earth and, yet, for some reason, they can’t get their heads into providing basic medical protection to all citizens. Virtually every nation listed in the top ten for livability has universal health care, but the United States doesn't. Nationalism, individualism and consumerism are raised to heroic proportions but a high level of social responsibility is, seemingly, anti-American. In the presence of such abundance what possible justification can there be for ignoring people who get sick or hurt?

Obama fought hard to bring in the Affordable Health Care Act but, by the time the bill passed, so many compromises had been reached it was hardly worth the effort. As well, since the bill's passage constitutional challenges have been launched, (the Supreme Court has chosen to hear a case which may kill Obamacare altogether), huge amounts of money have been spent criticizing the day-to-day viability of the program, and almost every power player in the Republican Party, who now control both the Senate and the House, has promised to deactivate the program. Obviously this attempt to care for those who can't care for themselves is on shaky ground.

How can the richest country on Earth expect everyone to be totally responsible for their own well being when good health is such a highly random event - particularly in children? Adults may make lifestyle choices putting their health at risk, even some forms of employment are harmful but, given this reality, how someone responds to a risky lifestyle impacts each individual differently. Some live long vibrant lives in spite of their choices while others can be disabled by the most innocuous of situations. Only a few deserve their injury or illness, not enough to be statistically significant, and certainly not enough to create a model for a health care system. On the other hand, popular ideologies preclude regulating medical professionals compensation thereby allowing America to have one of the most expensive systems in the world.

Our health is vital to every aspect of our moment-to-moment lives, and to live without the ability to get qualified help in an emergency must create a high level of anxiety. How do you live with ongoing or increasing symptoms you can’t afford to get diagnosed, or a deadly disease which you have no resources to treat – or, if you do choose to treat a debilitating disease, live with the knowledge it would bankrupt your entire family?

The American justification for having no universal healthcare is, supposedly, that it’s run by the government and is, therefore, socialist, (it’s referred to as socialized medicine). When you add to this the popular perspective that all government enterprises are over-bureaucratized and wasteful of resources, while private industry runs everything efficiently and humanely, a psychological barrier to universal healthcare is programmed in.

Of course, by unequivocally believing that private industry provides more for less, the American people may possibly be under the influence of the constant, sometimes intense, promotional campaigns paid for by industry. Advocating for specific policies in support of industry, unlike advocating for universal healthcare, is a fundamental freedom in the United States, which gives the medical community every right to contribute multi-millions of dollars toward lobbying politicians while, simultaneously, portraying a host of negative scenarios about "socialized medicine" to the general population. And In a culture where "spin" has been raised to an art form, determining whose story is the real one is not an easy task.

Indeed, can a level playing field exist between citizens and special interests when, officially, over 12,000 registered lobbyists are spending around 29 million dollars per year in Washington DC and, unofficially, Opensecrets.org puts the estimate of money spent to influence policy closer to 3 billion dollars? It’s a wide-ranging figure at the very least. With 435 elected members in the House of Representatives and 100 in the Senate – multi-billions of dollars per year is a lot of money being used to influence 535 people – although, as Opensecrets.org also noted, in 2012 incumbent House members spent an average of over 3 million dollars each to get re-elected. Politics in the United States is, without a doubt, very expensive.

Strategically, of course, it’s not necessary for lobbyists to get all politicians onside. You only have to influence 50% plus one to win a vote in both Houses - less if you are trying to prevent a bill from passing. To stop a bill you only have to influence 50% plus one in one House because legislation has to be passed in both Houses, then approved by the President, to become law.

Admittedly, expressions of influence are seldom this blatantly transparent. More subtle results may be achieved by altering a bill's detailed technical language or through amendments attached during the committee process. Remember, lobby groups are spending billions and hiring the best and brightest minds in the country. Legislation that says all the right things, while doing little of it, is not that difficult to craft.

A couple days after I began writing this piece my wife and I were in the mountains near our home, gathering firewood, and I managed to drop a Douglas Fir on my head. In forty years of running chainsaw, both professionally and domestically, it was a first. I didn’t lose consciousness but I was dazed and bleeding so my wife administered first aid, gathered up our tools and drove my truck, and me, down into our little town where I was dropped off at the door of the local medical center, (while she went looking for the ever elusive parking space).

Immediately I was placed on a gurney in the emergency ward and a nurse began cleaning the gash on my head to have a better look. Shortly thereafter a doctor came by and said my wound went right to the skull and I also had a severe concussion (which is probably why I kept falling over whenever I tried standing up). He also wanted an x-ray of my upper spine. Within and hour I had the x-ray followed by ten stitches and, still, the doctor wasn’t satisfied. The x-rays showed nothing - but my neck was sore so he decided to send me to the regional hospital for a scan. It was a tremendous inconvenience that included a three hour ambulance trip and further hours waiting in a crowded emergency ward - to get the scan - and then more hours to get someone to read it, but at two o’clock in the morning a doctor wandered over and informed me that I had a broken neck. A vertebra was cracked in two places, one of them right through and, if subjected to more strenuous activity, (my rural lifestyle) the vertebra could split and expose or even damage my spinal cord.

I spent the rest of the night in the regional hospital and the next day I was visited by a neurologist who suggested that if the break was properly protected it could heal on its own. I would be required to spend twenty-four hours a day in a neck brace for some months and undergo follow up physiotherapy. If we didn’t have a full coverage medical plan (Thank you Canada.) I would have tried to patch up my head at home and tough out the pain by telling myself that my neck was just jammed when that sneaky limb swung around and whacked the top of my skull. Such a rationalization could have been life threatening.

When this happened had I been living in the United States, (which I did for a few years), I would either have enjoyed good coverage paid for at great expense from a medical insurance provider, and subject to a myriad of terms, conditions, deductibles and spending limits, all outlined in a complex and detailed signed agreement… or I would have nothing. The Canadian system is far from perfect and studies show that superior models exist, which we can learn from. Particularly in their ability to reduce wait times and place superior technology, and administrative procedures, in the hands of health care providers - but our system is still world class, and the fact that it exists at all is a testament to this country and the value we place on providing the comfort and security each of us needs to live the best life we possibly can.

Americans seem fond of portraying Canadians as sort of generally laid back and easy going (as in lacking ambition) and, comparatively speaking, this may be true. However, it behooves them to take a closer look. Perhaps this easy going cultural divide relies, in part, on the ability our health care system to offer protection from some of life's most frightening anxieties.

I get grumpy (even more than usual) when I hear young environmentalists go on about how we must “act now” before it’s too late. The truth is; all of that passion, rhetoric, and science is just a waste of everybody’s time. I know the reality. I went the serious environmentalist route and fought a battle to protect wilderness. I even attended grad school so I could get the proper initials after my name and confront the foresters, biologists, and anyone else who works for those powerful resource users. Yet, ultimately, what I learned was that it isn’t chemistry or biology or geology or hydrology or any other “ology” that defines the problem – it’s flawed humanity.

North America is home to two of the most educated and sophisticated nations on this planet – both regarded as fortresses of freedom and democracy – and we are two of the youngest. Our nations are barely a few hundred years old which means that everything that happened here has happened recently. We can’t blame ancient peoples or long lost kingdoms or historic cultural imperatives for our mistakes – and the changes we made, or are making, are “in your face” obvious. The growth in our physical impact on the land and the resulting pollution, desertification, increasing toxicity, CO2 production, holes in the ozone layer, dying oceans - it’s all ours. We own it, and if we don’t see it as a problem now than, chances are, we never will.

The only real question is; how have we managed to get away with it? How do our societies, which are so educated, free to think and make decisions, get away with consistently downplaying the fragility of this world as we close our ears and eyes to any argument against exploitation? The warnings began in the sixties and seventies, continuing into the eighties, nineties and every year since - and it has made no difference. We put a bit of wilderness aside and removed some poisonous chemicals from our air, food, and water, but even those were difficult battles, and it was little more than chipping away at the edges. The Earth is getting dirtier and sicker every day and the systems that heal it have gone beyond overload while we continually refuse to admit the seriousness of the problem.

What’s to worry? Read the paper, watch your television, the good times are still going strong. New and exciting things are happening each and every day. All of the doomsayers, like me, are just exaggerating to make headlines and, besides, even if the problems are real someone will solve them… eventually. There’s no way the entire world can be in jeopardy.

If a thousand people say it’s a problem and ten say it isn’t we will listen to the ten because we want upbeat and positive, not negativity. Psychologists call this “cognitive dissonance” and suggest it’s built in to our human nature. We grow up with positive expectations for the future. When these beliefs encounter contrary information the easiest and least stressful way to deal with it is to find the means for rejecting the negative… deny, deny, deny.

After all, we are God’s children. He won’t let anything really bad happen to us.

Just look at what is happening every day around us. Let’s say, for instance, you want to develop a controversial industry that involves significant changes to the environment; all you need is the promise of more money for everyone and a believable expert, or two, minimizing risk and spouting suspect solutions to each problem and, voila, instant support. And you really need very few experts, and they don’t have to be particularly special, or even highly qualified in the field they are commenting on. They simply have to appear confident and put forth positive sounding arguments – celebrities are known to work well for this. Unless the alternative is so gross and blatant as to personally frighten or disgust people, most will want to believe them. We simply wish to keep living the life we are living and not have to change - especially if it looks like we are changing to something less.

So here's the quandary, our societies follow experts who we want to believe as they argue with experts who we don’t want to believe. Meanwhile, our leaders, the politicians, are constantly in need of support to keep running expensive campaigns and, once elected, the are constantly in need of money to provide services to keep voters supporting them, (and you don’t get money from the doomsayers) so how many high risk development proposals do you think will get turned down? How many do you know of that have been turned down? Get this through your head, it’s just a matter of time. Still, these noisy, young, environmental crusaders keep shouting facts and presenting data and talking about the need to change as if we had the luxury of waiting for that to happen. At most maybe a few million people on this planet really know the score. Do these young environmental activists actually believe they are going to enlighten all of those other billions in such a way that they will suddenly accept how precarious this situation is?

This is a done deal and as a member of the generation that stole it all I’m not particularly proud of our accomplishment. We pillaged this earth to buy toys and entertain ourselves, and stretch our lives out beyond where they had gone before, and now as we get down to our last feeble decade or two we appear determined to keep the lies going. We managed to train the next couple of generations to think like us – maybe even more so – and that, happily, allows us to shuffle off into the great beyond smug in our delusion that we leave the world a better place. The world is certainly more constructed, more “human”, displaying tremendous creativity, diversity, and artistry… if not rationality. The knowledge base has grown tremendously, almost beyond belief, and popular science has exploded with information that reaches into every corner of the universe. It looks like progress. Just when did this aggregation of our greatness convince us we had grown too smart to totally screw things up?

This fantasy is so powerful it’s as if our species now believes we live above the surface, detached, no longer needing the Earth for our survival. So when our oxygen begins disappearing as that micro-layer of phytoplankton on the surface of the oceans dies – or the intensity of UV rays grow to dangerous levels with expanding holes in the ozone layer and, in concert with increased toxicity in our air and water, mutate viruses and bacteria to cause pandemics, will we even see a connection? (Does that sound ridiculous? Did you know that at one time scientists feared that HIV could become airborne and decimate all human life?)

If not that particular disaster, perhaps the scarcity of potable water and arable land resulting from human caused drought, and/or volatile weather, will force us to adopt even wilder genetic modifications to our food supply, thereby creating agents that begin reacting with our basic molecular structure. Mind you, it could just as easily be a calamity we have yet to imagine arising and threatening to end our reign as the dominant species on Earth. Open a newspaper, new dangers abound, are they all smoke and mirrors? Of course, some say the more plausible scenario is that our future will come down to the proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction as people respond to the scarcities and injustices caused by the above.

Not that it matters to my generation. We won’t be here to see it. It’s not fair, I know, and I wish we had done things better, but we didn’t so the problem now belongs to the rest of you. (I keep thinking, wouldn’t it be funny if some lab all of the sudden announced a discovery reversing the aging process so my contemporaries and I would have to actually live with our decisions? Wouldn’t that be a kick in the pants?)

I’ve been to a lot of meetings in my adult life and no matter what the particular title, or reason given for holding them, a large percentage surrounded the issue of short-term wealth creation vs. long-term people protection, and it would be a lie to suggest that a balanced debate ensued, or that minds were significantly changed. In retrospect, what sticks with me the most is all the times I heard someone stand up and talk emotionally about how we have to fix this for our children and our children’s children. But we didn’t fix it because we learned that it would cost us. It might have meant living in a smaller house or driving cars that didn’t have power windows or heated seats, or not taking that European vacation or the annual trip south in winter. We were warned about the consequences, but it was more fun to ignore them and, apparently, for some reason, we got it in our heads that we had a right to this good life regardless of cost. Well, we danced the dance and now the time is coming to pay the piper, and that is the legacy we are leaving to our children and our children’s children.

I probably get a hundred ads a day on this site. A few of them have real comments attached, but very few, and it takes time to separate them and post them. When I do get a thoughtful comment it stands out. I'm obviously easily pleased.

I re-published Ego Politics and the Quantum Economy, with a few editing updates, (I'm a better writer now than I was when it first appeared in the "Georgia Straight"). It's a another rant, which I'm prone to on occasion, but people of advanced age are often prone to ranting so, perhaps, it's a normal and natural activity for our species. I followed that piece up with The Cost of the One Free Shot Rule which harkens back to the horror of watching Sept. 11/2001 live on television, as it was happening. I don't think anyone who watched could come away unchanged in a very fundamental way. Still, what people do with tragedies after they occur may be more related to their own agendas' than to solving the actual problem. We, the people, must be vigilant and very demanding when it comes to threats against our rights and freedoms. If we aren't than maybe we deserve being treated like domesticated animals. The last piece in this series, No Hard Ground, is a bit whimsical and fun but still has a strong message. I apologize for its length, I prefer to keep my essays between 1500 and 2000 words, but some just keep creeping along until they stretch even the overload limit. It does read fast, which is a saving grace, but it isn't a harbinger of things to come. It's an anomaly, pure and simple, so please don't be deterred.

I get a lot of questions in the comments section. Answering them is a chore because many of them are already answered in the previous Blog Talks or they require me to go through a website I really don't have time to sort out. If you do have a serious question that I should answer, and am technically capable of answering, please use the email address on this site. Thanks again for being a reader, Ross

Every September 11th the, now historic, video footage of large passenger aircraft disappearing into the Twin Towers, followed subsequently by images of their slow motion collapse, bring about a reaction that may best be described as hypnotic - in an almost disbelieving way. It’s a difficult scene not to watch, regardless of how many times you’ve seen it. So jarring are these images that many films shot in New York before the attack were altered to hide the World Trade Center in fear of disturbing the mood of the viewing public.

Our lives changed that day, as did the lives of everyone living in a free society. The “enhanced” security, and the general policy of rampant paranoia that followed, continues to hold us in its grip. Governments use this tragedy to become less transparent while demanding that we, as individuals, become more transparent – physically so at large airports – and if we take issue with this foray into our intimate lives we are deemed either, selfish, sympathetic to the bad guys, or, indeed, simple-minded when it comes to foreign affairs.

It appears, at times, elements in government are abusing this situation for their own obscure reasons, as exemplified by the ongoing communications monitoring of each citizen, (as well as of select foreign dignitaries) but, then, we can’t know this for certain because only our government can tell us – and they say opening their methods to scrutiny could jeopardize our safety. Consequently, we are forced to trust them, and this becomes a difficult pill to swallow given that all governments are prone to varying amounts of corruption – and history, even recent history, has shown that the abuse of power tends to flourish when hidden from the watchful eyes of the public.

Challenging governments on this point comes with a few significant moral dilemmas. One very real problem with defending against terror attacks is that, as any military expert will readily admit, the defenders, by necessity, are always one step behind the attackers. In other words, the aggressor always has the potential for one free shot. After terrorists fly planes into tall buildings we make it difficult to do the same thing again. When a van loaded with home-made explosives is parked in front of a public building, then explodes killing hundreds of people, new policies and training are put into effect to combat more of the same – but it has already been successful.

Intelligent terrorists learn that the best way to cower the enemy into confusion is to use a different method of attack each time, creating new layers of paranoia. Defenders can only respond to what they have experienced and not to every new attack the terrorists are capable of dreaming up (shoe bombs and underwear bombs for instance). The reality of modern terrorism is that it takes hundreds, thousands, perhaps millions of times more effort to defend against, than to perpetrate, because you are trying to defend against every attack “imaginable”.

Unfortunately, terrorists have learned that simply by causing an extreme level of activity within the “enemies” borders they gain ground in their battle. You can see it in their propaganda. As a small group taking on a great western power they will always be able to portray themselves as the underdog and, thus, expectations are low while achieving small but well publicized victories is relatively easy. All they need do is shoot up or blow up or execute any group of people not in sympathy with their cause, anywhere in the world. Add in the incredible frustration caused by this imbalance within defence forces, and abuses become common (Abu Ghraib prison, water boarding, Marines urinating on enemy bodies), and these abuses further strengthen the terrorist position.

As far as most Western nations are concerned these two wars created by the attack on the Twin Towers, in Iraq and Afghanistan, are over, although neither was won and the fighting continues under different circumstances. Seemingly, abandonment of these wars was the result of political fatigue and the long overdue acknowledgement of how silly it is to try and bully, or bribe, a radically different culture into accepting significant social and political change. In both places it was beneficial to throw out the brutal and morally corrupt governments but, for the thousands of lives lost and the trillions of dollars spent on bringing about structural change, there is precious little evidence anything positive remains – and even less evidence that a level of gratitude, or even good will, toward the countries that participated, still exists.

For all of the patriotic hoopla and warriors for democracy speeches, fighting terrorism on the ground in a foreign country has proven a bust. The mere fact that you come from a totally foreign land with a totally foreign culture, aspects of which you are trying to impose on them, makes you the invader. The brave soldiers who died in the attempt did so for the right reasons and still deserve to be honored for their sacrifice – but it becomes difficult to understand how nobody in all that vast storehouse of wisdom and knowledge called government, could not have foretold such an obviously poor result.

So how should terrorists be dealt with? If the model the U.S. has recently developed can be taken as the reigning example, (one learned after many years of sacrificing their young people in battle and financial resources in support), it’s more efficient to put your efforts into determining, through intelligence gathering, who are the brains and the leadership behind the terrorist organization – and to fly an unmanned drone to their location and blow them to bits, (I wonder if Tom Clancy gets royalties from this). If they miss, the drones are relatively cheap and another chance will sooner or later arise. In the meantime terrorist leaders are now, themselves, being terrorized by the constant threat of bolts from the sky… and perhaps there is justice in that.

However, this technique may be effective only with large, well-organized, terrorist groups – ones capable of being studied. The fact is, we continue to live in a world where many thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of people are willing to die for a cause – and where ongoing technological developments place more and more destructive power in fewer and fewer hands. Indeed, bombs no bigger than briefcases have been tested which are capable of wiping out the downtown core of virtually any city on Earth and leaving it a moonscape for generations to come. The mere existence of such potential ensures the future of continued anti-terrorist activities.

Our governments continually seek to destroy those who promote terrorism and, hopefully, intercept those who perpetrate it, but bitter and angry people will always be with us. It’s a disease for which no cure has yet been found, and whether we call the more extreme proponents terrorists, mass-murderers or, simply, fanatical psychopaths, their goal is to rid the world of “us”. The questions each of "us" must ask are: How great a threat are they really – and what are we willing to sacrifice to stop them? So far we have been leaving these questions up to our government and they have been working out on the extreme edge, fearful of being blamed if something gets by.

As individuals, who are now being forced to live within the ever-shrinking boundaries our governments impose, what we have left is the opportunity and, perhaps, the obligation, to live our lives boldly and confidently – setting clear and transparent goals and working to achieve them – because only by displaying the value and joy in living with freedom, and its privileges, can we encourage the rest of the world to copy us. Only by giving those who live in fear a positive vision of life – one ultimately open to them – will we bring about real change. Inherent in this belief, certainly, is the need to maintain or even enhance our freedoms and, unfortunately, this is not the direction we are moving in. I suppose this means the terrorists are winning.

I'm still getting a pile of comments but as I learn more about the blogging process I'm discovering the extent of the challenges involved. All comments come to the admin site and I read them and post the ones which apply. As I do this I have come to realize many are "robo comments" - companies just trying to get their website in circulation. Consequently, I am posting far fewer than I did initially (during my more naive period). If it looks like someone did read any of the pieces I will give them the benefit of the doubt, regardless of whether they appear to be advertising themselves, however, I have become more discerning.

A number of times I have been asked for my email address (I'm a bit afraid to ask why), and it isn't a particular secret but I have been working on one especially for this site which is, Ross at <middleoftheroadradical@gmail.com>. The reality though, is that each article is its own creation and I may not have much more to add - and my life is too demanding to do a lot of exploratory chatting. I am always behind and trying to catch up when it comes to this blog and being old, for those of you who aren't there yet, takes a lot of time all by itself.

For those offering to guest write on this blog, I'm not sure what to tell you. That is a situation where I need to get some feedback because I don't know the parameters. I'll get back to you when I've completed my research. Thanks again for reading, Ross

Are you looking for a job? Maybe you're just psychically adrift in this wonderfully complex world. If so, you need a grand enterprise to lift the malaise from your shoulders. Despair no longer. Exciting opportunities exist in the world of real fantasy (or is that fantasy reality, no matter). Join the march to wealth and fame (or, at the very least, comfort and acceptance), and cast off the shackles of the working world by becoming an entrepreneur. Your future awaits in a field as relevant and alive as the memories of our long dead heroes. You need nothing to begin with except the power of your mind and the courage to accept a challenge. A million times a day, in every corner of the world, this path is a proven success. Jump on the bandwagon; reap a whirlwind of potential with no expiry date. Read on and enter your new life.

The first requirement on this journey is expertise. Don’t despair if it sounds technical or difficult. It doesn’t have to be. Let’s say, for instance, you are a fan of Crystals, Tarot Cards, Palm Reading or, one of my all time favorites, Distance Healing; like a bolt from the blue all of the sudden you “discover” that your grandmother was the last in a long line of Gypsy princesses and your grandfather the only surviving son of a powerful Native Shaman – and that their lovechild daughter, your mother, during her impetuous youth, travelled to Nepal and spent her formative years in a monastery high above Katmandu studying the ancient healing arts passed down through a select group of Master Healers, (not to be confused with Blue Heelers, which are an excellent cattle dog). While there she first encountered your father, a treasure hunter and adventure seeker, on a mission to find porous stones reputed to be from the fabled Fountain of Youth. These stones were believed to contain the pure essence of life as they filtered the sacred waters of the Fountain for thousands of years. Alas, we know not if he found them but he did find the adoration of a beautiful, if somewhat flakey, young woman. As a result, you, of course, being the direct descendant of this far-flung, spirit-laden, exotic joining, have become the ultimate repository of esoteric knowledge – and an exalted guide to the ancient mysteries of the netherworld. Only a pudgy, bald, old, skeptic (perhaps a poor choice of words) would dare entertain doubts as to your authenticity?

Now that you have established credentials, the second thing you need is truth. We’re not talking objective truth here like the kind science is looking for. We’re talking "television" truth. The kind where famous celebrities relate awe-inspiring anecdotes containing real events, which they personally witnessed, and which could only have occurred under the influence (perhaps another poor choice of words) of shadowy forces from outside the physical world… all of this happening while an audience sits breathless with incredulity, bobbing their heads, delighted at being given the opportunity to participate in such a ground breaking lifetime event. Who would dare presume to suggest that an award winning actor or renowned politician was anything but sincere in their pronouncements? Didn’t you see the tremble of their hand, hear the crack of their voice, or watch the tears glide slowly down their cheek? How crude and unmannerly to imply that the aforementioned events wouldn’t survive dispassionate scrutiny. Such truth is beneath questioning.

Expending time and energy convincing people that forces exist in nature, beyond the purview of science, is easier than giving puppies to children. Every religion in the world teaches you that in the absence of evidence (perhaps even in spite of it) you must rely on faith. Just doubting the existence and power of spirits can condemn you to an eternity burning in the fires of Hell (wherever that is). We grow up badgered, bullied, and cajoled into believing all manner of strange, unexplainable events, people walking on water and rising from the dead, Holy Ghosts, and virgins having babies.

Is it any wonder some of the most important decisions in our lives are made based on “signs” or “good vibes” and, yet, those silly scientists tell us to ignore all of this in favor of something called empirical evidence or rational choice. What kind of life would that be? Science denies there is even such a thing as luck. If that were true who would ever buy a lottery ticket. Do you know that dogs are now being trained to find cancer? They can smell it, especially skin, prostate and cervical cancers. Hundreds of years of scientific research and billions of dollars invested in infrastructure, and now we are being told that for a dog biscuit and a pat on the head we can diagnose our deadly diseases. Science is just one great conspiracy.

At the same time, riveting and dramatic evidence fills our libraries and overflows onto our cable channels, vividly detailing the legions of individual spirits roaming the earth – and all, apparently, in search of communication with the living. We simply have to open our ears to their call. The spirits are anxious to enlighten us with their truths, and duty bound to inform us of past injustice and future danger. Why shut them out? Why deny their existence when an open mind will give us the secrets of the universe? Through human mediums, prayer, meditation, (even Ouija Boards) we forge connections and gain peace and knowledge – but only through a psychic guide can we be certain our search isn’t in vain. Only with one who commands the language can we open the lines of communication and truly fulfill our spiritual needs… and never will our lives be complete if we fail to do so. It is really this easy folks, and the only thing easier than stringing a line of this horsepucky is finding “clients” who believe it.

If spirits aren’t in your comfort zone perhaps technology can be your shtick. Great opportunities exist in the fog of pseudoscience. Never in history was the saying, “They know so little they think they know it all,” more relevant or applicable. In a complex, fast-changing world most of us learn just enough to create confusion. For example: Did you know that our bodies run on electricity? Each time we make even the slightest movement it’s triggered by an electrical charge sent from our brains, along nerves, activating individual muscle fibres. Our bodies, like the bodies of all living things, are continuously running mini generators, using electrical energy to power all of our diverse systems. As a result, electromagnetic fields surround every living thing with halos of energy. Special cameras can photograph it. And this energy radiates outward and joins with the halo’s of others to form a great maelstrom of invisible, vibrating ions. If one could but harness this energy and refocus it to maintain a positive state of electromagnetic balance no deadly disease would ever wreak its havoc again – and all you need are these magnets or, perhaps, these crystals or, if you want absolute certainty, these special herbs grown in ionized soil and hand-ground by the granddaughter of a gypsy princess using porous stones secretly taken from the Fountain of Youth…

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, seek your fortune in a field as old as human existence. Take on the best in a world where gurus, positivists, transcendentalists, and astrologers mingle with priests, homeopaths, chiropractors, and acupuncturists in a never-ending struggle to reach that holy grail of achievement, Master of the Fog, Visionary of the Void, Prophet of Profit, and Cure for All that Ails You. Learn to balance the flow of energy in your client’s bodies, cleanse their organs with mystical herbs, seek wisdom for them through communication with the long departed, then elevate them to the astral-plane. Take your clients beyond the boundaries of physical existence to a place where they will forever enjoy the ecstasy of Nirvana. All of this while you bravely sacrifice your youth and vitality by remaining in the shallow, physical world of peach flambé, steamy sexuality, and single malt whiskey, enduring a life of hardship to aid those less fortunate in fulfilling their spiritual needs. Perhaps one day the world will truly recognize and understand the depth of your commitment.

It's gratifying to see all the comments but I wish I knew how many of them actually apply to my site. It's obvious that some of them wandered in from somewhere else, (weight reducing and electrical contracting?) and I know so little about the technical aspects of their arrival that I am at a loss to weed them out in advance. Also, many of the comments are so vague and generic they could apply to anything. Spam filters work to a certain degree but, then, I have found some of my best comments on the spam list.

Some visitors ask technical questions and, as much as I would like to help, I can't. I had a local entrepreneur (and friend) set this site up, and it is still a work in progress. There are other aspects we are working on and hope to make improvements as we go.

If you, the reader, are looking for a theme, it probably hasn't appeared yet and it's not likely to for awhile. Some of my subjects are random, however, certain topics I will keep rounding back to. I wrote an ebook doing much the same and discovered that those who reviewed the manuscript enjoyed me throwing in chapters where the mood and focus was changed significantly. It helped readers enjoy the whole experience. (The book is coming out in print, by the way.)

So far the blog has done a rant on the Snowden controversy, which I wrote in a gush and then set aside, going back and tinkering on occasion before I brought it here. It still turned out to be a rant, but that might have been inevitable. The essay on happiness was a labor of love. Who isn't interested in finding happiness, and over a lifetime you learn a few things. I thought it would be a shame not to learn some of them sooner. The piece on young people committing suicide was difficult to write because it is such tragic and emotional topic. It takes us to places in our youth where we don't like to go, and to write about it without trivializing or denigrating the events, and the feelings that precipitated them, is a tightrope walk. I just thought young people should have a perspective from someone at the other end of life who still remembers what it was like.

There is more to come and I hope those pieces will be read and commented on as well. It doesn't take much to encourage me, (I guess I have low expectations), and new ideas are always being brought forth for discussion. Until writing stops being fun this blog will continue. Thanks for your interest. Ross