June 8, 2016
Posted by on
“We need a new concept of security due to technological change and climate change”
May 10, 2016
Technology is evolving at an unprecedented rate. Even though Moore’s Law, the rule-of-thumb that computer chips double in power every two years, is drawing to a close, computers will continue to rapidly transform our world. These transformations have a profound impact on the security of nations, even though they are not well understood.
As we look towards the future, we risk spending tremendous amounts of our precious resources preparing for wars that will never happen and miss out on the chance to prepare for life and death challenges which are almost a certainty. The technology-fueled changes in the nature of national security mean that we can take our eyes off the past and re-focus our attention on real threats. – even the ones that don’t match up with our assumptions.
There are two major issues that need to be discussed openly and cooperatively between the Republic of Korea, Japan, the People’s Republic of China and the United States.
First we must consider whether technological change will render many weapons systems inappropriate in the years to come and ask ourselves whether a more profound rethinking of military issues is required, perhaps one that moves beyond the traditional nation-state assumptions we have used so far.
Second, we must consider whether we must limit the development of weapons systems, and rather turn increasingly to rigidly enforced weapons limitation treaties for fundamental ethical reasons because of the increasingly destructive potential of the next generation of weapons. We need to ask ourselves whether we will even have the budgets to pay for conventional weapons over the next twenty years in light of the tremendous costs of adaption to, and mitigation of, climate change. Could it be that we must reach binding agreements to limit, or ban, weapons so that we can effectively devote our precious resources to the basic steps required for human survival?
How technology is changing the nature of security
Will the nature of military conflict be so transformed by emerging technologies that most of our weapons systems will cease to play a meaningful role in the near future? We can’t assume that our conflicts will end or that deterrence is unnecessary. As technologies that can kill tens of thousands become cheaper and more accessible to small groups, even to individuals, we should certainly continue to think about how we will respond.
However, it is not clear that the battles of the future will be between nation states per se, which are rapidly fragmenting. Nor is it at all clear that the weapons we employed in previous conflicts will be helpful in such conflicts.
Three of the most important transformations are: 1) the emergence of drones and robots; 2) the sophistication of cyber warfare and 3) the emergence of 3D printing and other means of transmitting objects through non-conventional means.
The conventional military is made up of tanks, fighter planes, missiles and battleships and aircraft carriers, all of which are extremely expensive and vulnerable to these new weapons. Read more of this post
March 11, 2016
Posted by on
“Distinguishing science from technology”
March 7, 2016
I worked very closely with several national research institutes in Daedeok Valley back in 2008-10, and I participated in many heated conversations with the researchers working there about the future of Korea’s science and technology. At the time the researchers lamented the fact that Korea had lost the Ministry of Science and Technology that they associated with Korea’s rapid industrialization and long-term support of research.
But I must admit that I had a very different idea concerning this issue which I did not dare tell anyone. I felt that rather than reestablishing the Ministry of Science and Technology, Korea rather should split the “science” and “technology” apart and create a Ministry of Education and Science and a Ministry of Industry and Technology. Read more of this post
February 9, 2016
Posted by on
February 7, 2016
The Asia Institute
Interview with Kang Sung-mo (Steve Kang) President of KAIST)
“The 4th Industrial Revolution and its implications for Korea”
A discussion of robotics and their potential for Korea and for the world following Steve Kang’s visit to the World Economic Forum in Davos where the them was the 4th Industrial Revolution and what we need to do to prepare.
January 16, 2016
Posted by on
“Why Wikipedia Is in Trouble”
This Time Magazine article “Why Wikipedia Is in Trouble”
(January 14, 2016) suggests that Wikipedia is in trouble because of some obscure cultural inflexibility. Although the problems with Wikipedia, despite its considerable popularity, are quite serious, the article intentionally misdiagnoses the problem so as to distract the reader from the real issues.
The failure of the article is perfect representation of the profound corruption of popular media in the United States. One of the most powerful myths even today is that media is simply dying because of the internet. If the information in the was sufficiently relevant and accurate, people would pay for it on-line. The problem is rather that media is increasingly written to protect special interests, rather than to deliver media. Media content is more often a mixture of propaganda with a bit of truth to make an almost convincing argument that will impact perceptions while avoiding a rational argument.
Let us look at what the article states:
“The problem, most researchers and Wikipedia stewards seem to agree, is that the core community of Wikipedians are too hostile to newcomers, scaring them off with intractable guidelines and a general defensiveness. One detailed study from 2012 found that new editors often find that their first contributions to the site are quickly rejected by more experienced users, which directly correlates with a drop in the likelihood that they will continue to contribute to the site.”
I have had a variety of battles with Wikipedians and I do not believe that they are simply hostile to new comers because of some form of cultural conservatism. They are hostile to people who have a different conception of Wikipedia which they consider to be a threat to their economic and political interests. The problem not more, or less, complex than that. Read more of this post
December 30, 2015
Posted by on
I have been pondering possible improvements to the format of Facebook that would have universal appeal among users. Please do look at my suggestions and let me know what you think.
Headings for the Facebook options:
Vote on new Facebook CEO
Vote on pending Facebook policy
Propose legislation for Facebook privacy
Suggestions for Facebook functions and policy (pending votes by Facebook citizens on policy)
Election of Facebook congress to represent your interest groups
Full disclosure of all Facebook financial transactions
Your Facebook stock value (amount acquired in return for the content you produced)
Your royalties today for the content you have produced for Facebook
Archive of Facebook postings
Review and correct news posted on major media
Find people with similar concerns globally
Organize a political party
Launch a class action lawsuit against a multinational corporation
Design your own emoticon
Write your literary work
Sell your design or work
Buy designs and texts
Develop business relations with other small businesses around the world
Find out rates for cancer and other diseases in your region
Update on air and water pollution in your region
Compare malpractice cases for doctors in your region
Where produce sold in local stores is produced and amounts of contaminant found
Post to Media:
Personal Post (privacy setting):
Whistleblowing (corporate or government):
Facebook Search (select browser or create browser with your community):
December 4, 2015
Posted by on
월간 과학과 기술
“IT 시대, ‘필담’ 전통으로의 회귀가 필요하다”
아시아 전역의 전문가들이 국제회의 참석 차 모여 있을 때가 있다. 아마도 정부 장관, 교수나 사업가일 텐데 서로 어색하게 악수하고, 서투른 영어로 가볍게 인사를 나누다가 성급하게 대화를 끊고 서로에게서 떨어진다. 필자는 이런 모습을 목격할 때마다 민망해진다.
심도 있는 정보교환 이끄는 국제회의 환경 필요
이런 전문가들을 집결하는데 필요한 비행기 티켓 값과 호텔 숙박비는 값비싸다. 그런데도 전문가들 사이에 진지한 대화는 거의 오가지 않는다. 공유할 수 있는 엄청난 양의 지식과 경험이 있는데도 말이다. 정부나 산업체에 의해 마련된 비용이 많이 드는 큰 행사임에도 불구하고, 안타깝지만 대부분의 경우, 전문가들은 도착했을 때와 마찬가지로 돌아갈 때도 여전히 서로 전혀 알지 못 한다. 비싼 식사 모임을 갖는다고 해서 추후 협력에 대한 약속으로 이어지거나, 같은 행사에 참석한 다른 전문가의 지혜와 지식을 알게 되는 것도 아니다.
국제 정상회담과 회의에 참석하는 아시아 전역의 대표들에게 시간제한 없이 진지하게 대화할 기회가 생긴다면, 서로에게서 엄청난 양의 지식을 얻을 수 있을 것이다. 예를 들면, 다른 나라의 동료 전문가들이 자국에서 어떤 방식으로 새로운 혁신적 행정 전략을 사용하는지 배우고, 그 방식을 채택해 사용할 수도 있다. 또는 제조업에서 사용되는 새 기술이 어떻게 생산성을 크게 향상시킬 수 있는지 배울 수도 있다. Read more of this post
August 9, 2015
Posted by on
The United States has not embraced any such treaty limiting the development of robots and drone for military use. But the United States would be serving its own strategic interests if it did. The odds that the United States will win such a race, considering the rate at which the cost of creating drones is dropping, is low. Better to buy into a global treaty now, while you still can.
Recently, an open letter entitled “Autonomous Weapons: an Open Letter from AI & Robotics Researchers” was released at the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Buenos Aries on July 28, 2015. The letter spells out the basic terms for such an international treaty.