It is a thoroughly interesting consideration at RTJ. I do suppose however that the focus on sudden system shocks, or Black Swans, offsets the caveat about states swatting down your average punk SEI wannabe. I.e., "hit em, then burn and die; or, hit em so hard in one fell swoop they can't go after you."
"I argued that the real power of the super-empowered individual lay in his or her ability to exploit the increasing realism of communications technology to achieve a mass psychological ripple effect."
Yes, perhaps. But that pudding is a slippery milieu.
Nice article! My only quibble is that Friedman makes a clear distinction between the ability of the super-empowered individual and the motivation of the Super-Empowered Angry Man. Both have the same capability but only one is truly interested in creating a harmful 'Black Swan' event. SEIs and the power they may have aren't inherently bad, it is the application of that power by the Angry that may be harmful.
Therefore, the 'state' should cultivate and harness those with motivation to do good (which is why SEIs and capitalism get along so well, Hello Oprah!), as it seeks to restrain those who actively seek to do harm. Actually, most worrisome to the state should be the potential that super-empowerment should come to those who lack the disciple to control and correctly apply the power they may potentially wield.
Any number of science fiction novels (Jurassic Park for a quick example) carry this as the central point to their plot.
In discussing force multipliers for SEIs, we might think of anonymity as a supplemental force multiplier. OBL and company have repeatedly added to their mayhem by carefully choosing when, and whether, to acknowledge their part in an attack. A better example might be the (1960?) Saigon bicycle bombings, intended as misdirection and more effective because no one claimed responsibility and therefore the insurgents couldn't as effectively defend their innocence.
What I find especially troubling about prospects for anonymous SEIs and similar small group attacks is the potential resulting harm to our civil liberties. Anonyimous attacks are very plausible in our 2009 but much more difficult in Orwell's 1984. Given the aftermath of 911 we can only wonder how far a government might be allowed to go after an anonymous mega-death event. My (beginning) thoughts on this fear are posted at www.blogspot.sustainablerights.com. All feedback is appreciated, especially opposing viewpoints.
Get pleasure from your weblog really a lot.I've understand your chest on frame article& noticed you make your own forged nails from common nails.I wonder if you might tell how you do this in a future weblog.
It is a thoroughly interesting consideration at RTJ. I do suppose however that the focus on sudden system shocks, or Black Swans, offsets the caveat about states swatting down your average punk SEI wannabe. I.e., "hit em, then burn and die; or, hit em so hard in one fell swoop they can't go after you."
"I argued that the real power of the super-empowered individual lay in his or her ability to exploit the increasing realism of communications technology to achieve a mass psychological ripple effect."
Yes, perhaps. But that pudding is a slippery milieu.
Posted by: Account Deleted | June 27, 2009 at 09:14 PM
It is somewhat slippery, but it does offer an alternative means of SEI-ness.
Posted by: A.E. | June 28, 2009 at 09:44 AM
I think the other question is what we necessarily define as power and/or disruption.
Posted by: A.E. | June 28, 2009 at 09:45 AM
Lastly, I'm happy to see you blogging again Curtis!
Posted by: A.E. | June 28, 2009 at 09:47 AM
Nice article! My only quibble is that Friedman makes a clear distinction between the ability of the super-empowered individual and the motivation of the Super-Empowered Angry Man. Both have the same capability but only one is truly interested in creating a harmful 'Black Swan' event. SEIs and the power they may have aren't inherently bad, it is the application of that power by the Angry that may be harmful.
Therefore, the 'state' should cultivate and harness those with motivation to do good (which is why SEIs and capitalism get along so well, Hello Oprah!), as it seeks to restrain those who actively seek to do harm. Actually, most worrisome to the state should be the potential that super-empowerment should come to those who lack the disciple to control and correctly apply the power they may potentially wield.
Any number of science fiction novels (Jurassic Park for a quick example) carry this as the central point to their plot.
Posted by: Arherring | June 30, 2009 at 08:52 AM
A thought-provoking post. Thanks.
In discussing force multipliers for SEIs, we might think of anonymity as a supplemental force multiplier. OBL and company have repeatedly added to their mayhem by carefully choosing when, and whether, to acknowledge their part in an attack. A better example might be the (1960?) Saigon bicycle bombings, intended as misdirection and more effective because no one claimed responsibility and therefore the insurgents couldn't as effectively defend their innocence.
What I find especially troubling about prospects for anonymous SEIs and similar small group attacks is the potential resulting harm to our civil liberties. Anonyimous attacks are very plausible in our 2009 but much more difficult in Orwell's 1984. Given the aftermath of 911 we can only wonder how far a government might be allowed to go after an anonymous mega-death event. My (beginning) thoughts on this fear are posted at www.blogspot.sustainablerights.com. All feedback is appreciated, especially opposing viewpoints.
Posted by: Richard B | June 30, 2009 at 03:54 PM
As with a lot of things in the blogosphere lately, a lot of the original thought about SEIs goes back to Zenpundit's original stuff on the subject.
He shows, for example, some of the troubling implications of the civil liberties consequences of SEIs.
Richard B, have you read anything by Fred Ikle?
Posted by: A.E. | June 30, 2009 at 04:24 PM
As with a lot of things in the blogosphere lately, a lot of the original thought about SEIs goes back to Zenpundit's original stuff on the subject.
He shows, for example, some of the troubling implications of the civil liberties consequences of SEIs.
Richard B, have you read anything by Fred Ikle?
Posted by: A.E. | June 30, 2009 at 04:25 PM
Oops, doublepost. Anyways, I agree with Arherring about capitalism and SEIs. We need to cultivate them actively.
Posted by: A.E. | June 30, 2009 at 04:26 PM
Get pleasure from your weblog really a lot.I've understand your chest on frame article& noticed you make your own forged nails from common nails.I wonder if you might tell how you do this in a future weblog.
Posted by: Retro Jordans | August 03, 2010 at 03:00 AM