Sci-fi writers join war on terror
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-05-29-deviant-thinkers-security_N.htm?csp=34
Looking to prevent the next terrorist attack, the Homeland Security Department is tapping into the wild imaginations of a group of self-described “deviant” thinkers: science-fiction writers.
“We spend our entire careers living in the future,” says author Arlan Andrews, one of a handful of writers the government brought to Washington this month to attend a Homeland Security conference on science and technology.
Those responsible for keeping the nation safe from devastating attacks realize that in addition to border agents, police and airport screeners, they “need people to think of crazy ideas,” Andrews says.
The writers make up a group called Sigma, which Andrews put together 15 years ago to advise government officials. The last time the group gathered was in the late 1990s, when members met with government scientists to discuss what a post-nuclear age might look like, says group member Greg Bear. He has written 30 sci-fi books, including the best seller Darwin’s Radio.
Now, the Homeland Security Department is calling on the group to help with the government’s latest top mission of combating terrorism.
*headdesk* I … I don’t even know what to say to this. The person who reported the article in /. says, “Here’s a suggestion: 9-11 could have been prevented with locks on the cockpit door.” I find myself of similar mind – we don’t need science-fiction-esque technology policing our minds, punishing us for our future actions, we need to follow through on the changes we’ve already agreed need to happen.
Regardless of how you feel about whether the Iraq war is necessary or not, don’t you think that it would have been wise of the government to spend, say, a scant billion dollars to update airport security throughout the country, increase barriers to sensitive infrastructure, and move the nation’s internet backbone to IPv6, which I gather is less vulnerable* to DDoS attacks like Estonia is facing right now?
PS if you have any thoughts on this, please feel free to comment – most of my LJ list didn’t get this far down my admittedly long entry.
* less vulnerable, but still vulnerable. IPv6 is more about preventing spoofing, as far as that goes, than Distributed Denial of Service.
Yeah, but we are talking about our government, the same one that spent millions developing a pen that can write in space. The Russians used pencils.
Not quite masters of the obvious, are they?
Though I cannot give you the source, I know that it was a widely respected sci-fi writer, possibly Asimov. The author said, approximately “good science fiction authors do not write about their dreams of utopia, they write about their nightmares.” To that end, I can see the idea that sci-fi writers have practice envisioning scenarios, and possible ways they could come about. But then, they are writing fiction, and they don’t need to think of everything.
First thing to come to mind
Do you think Tom Clancy is on the required reading list for the homeland security department?
I think you’re thinking about this the wrong way. They’re not looking for future-esq technology ideas or the like – that they get from engineers and scientists pushing the R&D envelope. They’re looking for people who can look at technology is a non-traditional manner, and come up with ways that it might be used unconventionally. This is where those sci-fi writers are going to excel. Because they play these sorts of mind games on a regular basis, they can brainstorm much more easily ways technology can be applied that aren’t being considered in current anti-terrorism thinking. Really, you could use any sort of “deviant” thinker (artists, writers, etc.) but the reason you go after sci-fi writers is because they’re the most familiar with science and technology, and thus have the easiest time coming up with those ways that it can be used against us.
Working in DC, I can tell you that originality and that sort of thinking “outside the box”, to use a common cliche, isn’t all that welcome, for the most part. Especially with this administration. So the fact that they’re willing to devote even a couple of days to listening to people who might be able to contribute on this issue, is very encouraging. And given that the group was last gathered in the late 90’s, we’re looking at what, once a decade? Hardly the type of behavior if you were serious about trying to develop some of those future-esq technologies you’re so worried about.
“Hardly the type of behavior if you were serious about trying to develop some of those future-esq technologies you’re so worried about.”
No offense, but it seems to me that you completely missed the point of my post. The vast majority of my commentary was about how we aren’t taking measures we know should be taken to protect our infrastructure and society, so what’s the point?
Ah, your commentary didn’t make that clear. If that’s your objection – that we already have solutions which are unimplemented, so why come up with more we’re not going to follow through on, then yes, I can sympathize.
Compared to the many billions they are spending on Orwellian double-speak in the U.S. media bubble to keep you frightened and tax-paying to defeat the next unknowable enemy, a billion spent on Cheney’s paranoia and the “one percent doctrine” barely rates a mention in the recent annual trillion dollar defense budgets.
-JfZ
Forecast: Thunderstorms in the Imajica