Pros and Cons of Smart Systems

Source: http://www.briansolis.com/2009/08/breathing-new-life-into-virtual-worlds/

We live in a smart world. In a world where slowly but surely we have all become slaves of technology. We no longer can live without Facebook, Twitter, e-mails, phones, and other smart things technology has endowed us with so generously. In the book “Mirror Worlds,” Yale University professor of computer science David Gelernter wrote the following: “You look into the computer screen and you see reality. Some part of your world – the town you live in, the company you work for, your school system, the city hospital – will hang there in a sharp color image, abstract but recognizable, moving subtly in a thousand places.” This was written in the early 1990’s. Today, this description seems to fit surprisingly well into our lives.

A recent article in “The Economist” magazine argues that mankind is indeed building these “mirror worlds,” Gelernter was referring to, coding them simply as “smart systems.” Thanks to wireless networks, proliferation of connected sensors and cameras the real and digital worlds are now converging. A perfect example of such convergence is Google’s Earth and Street View services - the first replicas of the entire world. Smartphones also fall into the same category of converging the physical and the digital worlds. They are packed with sensors that can do lots of great things from tracking people to controlling appliances at home.

Experts say that smart systems are needed in many countries because of the ageing infrastructure. For example, monitoring patients remotely instead of keeping them in hospitals would cut down many expenses. Smart systems also have the potential to help dealing with environmental problems, such as global warming. IBM calculated that if the power grid in America alone were 5% more efficient, it would save greenhouse emissions equivalent to 53 million cars. According to Texas Transportation Institute, in 2007 Texas’ congested roads cost America 4.2 billion working hours and 10.6 billion liters of wasted petrol. Various economic sectors could also benefit from smart systems. For example, the chemical industry has already installed legions of sensors and actuators to increase its efficiency. One company in the paper industry achieved a 5% increase in its production “by automatically adjusting the shape and intensity of the flames that heat the kilns for lime used to coat paper.”

We can definitely benefit from smart systems . But we also need to think about what we all have to lose when adopting them. The first issue is privacy. We now start to realize that whatever we put online has a digital trace. The same concerns smart systems. According to Sam Palmisano from IBM, in London alone “there are now 32 closed-circuit cameras,” which make its citizens feel like they are living in a surveillance world, and not necessarily a safer one. In some countries smart systems can undeniably be used as an instrument of control. Who knows if in China, for example, the operations centers and dashboards being built for local governments will be used only to make its cities smarter and not for something else?

The other problem with smart systems is their vulnerability. They can easily be hacked and spin out of control. People can also become too reliable on them. Nicholas Carr, an American commentator on the digital revolution, in his book “The Shallows” claims that the Internet has already been lowering our creativity and profound thinking. So, with even more smart systems, we are at higher risk of losing whatever creativity and thinking we have yet left.

But the biggest danger about smart systems is that they may become “black boxes.” Citizens will not be informed about smart systems’ pros and cons, just because they may not have the knowledge or skills necessary to understand. We cannot deny the great potential smart systems have for improving our economy, environment, and overall quality of our lives. But, as world citizens, we need to understand what we are going for when adapting smart systems. Otherwise, instead of helping us, they will simply undermine our basic right – freedom.

Works Cited

“It’s a Smart World.” A special report on smart systems. The Economist. Vol. 397. No 8707. Nov. 6 – 12 2010.

Tibetan Culture and Students

On Tuesday, October 23^rd, His Holiness, the 14^th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, visited the University of Miami to speak on “The Quest for Happiness in Difficult Times.” Students and attendees lined up hours before the event in front of the University of Miami’s Bank United Center in order to secure good seats that were given on a first-come first-serve basis. Although the event was broadcasted live via the web, traffic was backed up that morning around US-1. Thousands of students as well as visitors from out-of-town came to see the Dalai Lama speak in person filled the venue. This is the Dalai Lama’s first visit since 2004, when he spoke on “A Human Approach to World Peace”. [1]

Throughout the week prior to the Dalai Lama’s visit were on-campus programs sponsored by the University of Miami’s Department of Religious Studies to educate the students on the subject of Tibet, Buddhism, and what the Dalai Lama represents. These included a lecture on China, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama relations from Stephen Halsey, assistant professor in the UM Department of History, lectures on aspects of Tibetan Buddhism by Geshe Tenzin Dorje, a speech by Tsering Yanzo on her experiences as a Tibetan Buddhist nun, as well as a showing of “The Little Buddha”.

Nearly eight thousand attended the Dalai Lama’s speech.[2]

While the Dalai Lama and Tibetan culture was warmly received in Miami, news from Tibet were not as pleasant. The Dalai Lama was expelled from Tibet in 1959. The week before the Dalai Lama’s visit, thousands of Tibetan students took to the streets in protest. Some were advocating for a free Tibet, some against the ruling Chinese government, and some simply for the sake of their disappearing culture.[3]

The Chinese government had instituted the “patriotic education” campaign, an educational reform, upon the Tibetan monasteries and students since 1996. It has been a cornerstone of Chinese religious policy against Tibet’s religious leader, the Dalai Lama. The principle and underlying message of the campaign was to “vehemently oppose the Dalai ‘clique” and “to expose the true nature of ‘Dalai clique” and the ‘March 14 riot” through propaganda. [4]

In 2008, China’s Public Security Minister Meng Jianzhu called for a renewed launch for a broader and stepping up of the campaign. [5] Tibetans students claim that “their culture is being wiped out” due to China’s control over classroom curriculum and limiting the use of Tibetan in schools. In fact, secondary education is taught only in Mandarin and the university entrance exams are in Chinese, keeping the Tibetans disadvantaged.

The group Free Tibet claims that “The use of Tibetan is being systematically wiped out as part of China’s strategy to cement its occupation of Tibet.” [3] A major conflict between China-Tibet relations is the argument over China’s rights to the ownership of Tibet. The Beijing government claims that Tibet has historically been part of China, while Tibetans say China invaded their country in 1950.[6] The 49^th anniversary of the exile of the Dalai Lama coincided with the year of the Beijing Olympics and the world media are still remembering the pro-Tibet protests that resulted in the violence against many Tibetans and Tibetan monks and the deaths of hundreds of people.

For more information about Free Tibet, visit http://www.freetibet.org/

[1] “The Dalai Lama to Visit UM This Fall”. 26 August, 2010. UM News Releases. http://www.miami.edu/index.php/news/releases/the_dalai_lama_to_visit_um_this_fall/

[2] “His Holiness the Dalai Lama”. http://www6.miami.edu/dalailama/index.html

[3] Hong, Helena. “Tibetan students protest, say China is wiping out their culture.” 21 October, 2010. CNN World. http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-21/world/tibet.student.protest_1_tibetans-free-tibet-tibet-autonomous-region?_s=PM:WORLD

[4] TCHRD. “China launches renewed “Patriotic Education” Campaign across all sections in Tibet.” 24 April, 2008. Phalyu.com. http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=20881&t=1

[5] Fan, Maureen. “China Moves to Tighten Control Over Religion in Tibet”. 26 March, 2008. Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032501665.html

[6] “2008 Protests in Tibet”. http://www.freetibet.org/newsmedia/2008-protests-summary

Nationalism Past and Present: the future of Sino-Japanese relations

The nationalist outcry to the detention of the Chinese boat captain in Japan after fishing off the Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands and the subsequent ban on exports of rare earth materials demonstrates the willingness of China to defend its interests beyond its national borders and defend territories which it believe it has the right to govern[1]—something Japan and many other countries in Asian Pacific are increasingly concerned. For it has been almost a century and a half since the Middle Kingdom was the great imperial it once was.

For centuries, the Middle Kingdom created a vassal state system in East Asia, with leaders from Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and other nations paying tribute by performing the koutou to the Chinese emperor in exchange for aid and protection. However, by the mid-19^th century the Manchu Qing dynasty was bankrupt both economically and politically. The Opium Wars in 1840-42 opened Chinese markets to British and other Western nations giving them large territories. Japan took a different route when Matthew Perry sailed into Tokyo Harbor in 1853 by emulating and eventually surpassing Western military tactics and strength. Gregory Moore notes that “Japan’s rise as a power coincided with China’s decline. In the first half of the twentieth century China became known as the ‘sick man of Asia”[2] while the militant ultranationalists in Japan became so proficient at war as to defeat China in 1895 and take control of Taiwan, Russia in 1905, Korea in 1910, China again to a devastating extent between 1931 and 1945, and eventually taking control of Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, and other Asian regions, and ultimately performing a daring surprise attack on the United States at Pearl Harbor in 1945.

This last move ended up being the Japanese downfall, for the United States would defeat Japan in August 1945, and with the advent of the Cold War, the US realized that it was geo-strategically important to keep Japan under the its security umbrella. Although Japan never remilitarized and sought economic development instead, the tensions between them and the mainland never abated. The war crimes committed against the Chinese people during the occupation included such atrocities as ‘comfort women’ (Chinese and Korean women who were forced into prostitution for the Japanese soldiers on the front line), chemical and biological warfare, and the “Rape of Nanking in which over 300,000 Chinese were murdered and an estimated 20,000-80,000 women were raped in the course of the invasion.”[3] While the Japanese claimed to have atoned for their sins by pursuing the democratic and liberal economic model of development, China does not see this as sufficient apology, especially when former Japanese Prime Minister Koizimi visited the Yasukuni Shrine which is a shinto shrine in Tokyo dedicated to the memories of those lost serving Japan. Normally it should be no issue because it is a place to honor the spirits of people such as Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia; however, the difference of Arlington and Yasukuni is that names of 14 Class-A war criminals including former Prime Minister Hideki Tojo are inscribed at the shrine.[4] Japanese textbooks that whitewash the criminal nature of the occupation are other examples of contentious issues, and China will increasingly assert itself economically and geo-politically in matters that could potentially cause the People’s Republic to lose face.

China’s usurpation of the second most productive economy in the world from Japan signifies much in the way that Sino-Japanese relations will be conducted in the upcoming future. No longer will China have ‘little brother’ status diplomatically or financially. In fact, China proved one of the most stabilizing factors in East Asia during the financial crisis of ’97-’98 and the global financial crisis of ’08. With respect to its recent success, there has been a proposition by Suisheng Zhao of a Beijing Consenus, in evident to contrast to the Washington Consensus, which first coined in 1989 and contained 10 ‘rules’ in a one size fits all package for economic development in Latin America.[5] The apparent failure of the Washington Consensus after the failure of the Argentine and Brazilian economies in the late 1990s made many look to China as a model of liberal economic development with a political party that could retain a firm grip on government, the courts, the army, the internal security apparatus, and the free flow of information.[6] The past few years have indeed been telling about China’s desire to become an important player in the international arena; the real question is how China will integrate and what it will do to change the rules of the global system in its favor.

---

[1] Amako, Satoshi. ‘ The Senkaku Islands Incident and Japan-China Relations.’ East Asia Forum. 25 Oct 2010.

[2] Moore, Gregory. ‘History, Nationalism and Face in Sino-Japanese Relations.’ Journal of Chinese Political Science. 4 June 2010. Page 285

[3] Ibid. 2010:285

[4] ibid 2010:293

[5] Suisheng, Zhao. ‘The China Model: can it replace the Western Model of modernization?’ Journal of Contemporary China. June 2010. Page 420

[6] Rowan, Callick. ‘How long can economic freedom and political repression coexist?’ The American, The Journal of American Enterprise Institute. Nov/Dec 2007.

Germany losing part of its heritage

How many times we have been told by college professors that culture is dynamic and changes all the time? Germany can definitely serve as a great example to that. Who would think a couple of years ago that German appetite for beer would be shrinking so badly today, if at all? Well, it is happening as I write this. The main reason for a decline in beer drinking in Germany is not the economic downturn, as many of us would think. It is the ageing, shrinking population that is drinking less.

According to a recent article in The Economist, in 1991 the average German quaffed 142 litres of beer. By 2009 German beer consumption per head had fallen below 110 litres, less than in Ireland, Austria, and the Czech Republic. Another fall is expected this year. Along with the ageing population, young Germans also seem to be erasing beer from the list of their favorite drinks, prefering more exotic or non-alcoholic drinks. Health concerns are also growing among the middle-aged, creating a greater market for wine consumption and shrinking the one for beer.

Beer drinking decline is not unique to Germany, but it is especially noticeable there because beer is an important part of the country’s culture and heritage. It is also one of its oldest industries, dating back to 1000 A.D., when German monks first began to experiment with brewing. As of 2009, Germany housed 1,300 breweries, employing 30,000 people who produced 5,000 different beers. This is the largest beer market in Europe and the most fragmented in the world!

Oktoberfest is still on the list of Germans’ favorite holidays. They are still one of the biggest world’s beer drinkers. But things are changing. According to The Economist, in 20 years beer consumption in Germany may fall to as little as 80 litres per head. Nobody is sure where this journey will end up and how this will impact the economic development of Germany and the European Union as a whole.

“Advancements in Beer.” Oct. 23, 2010 .

“German Beer Drinking. Oktobergloom.” The Economist. Oct. 9-15, 2010. Vol. 397. No 8703. Oct. 20, 2010.

Schneibel, Gerhard. “Brewers not worried by beer consumption drop.” Deutsche Welle. Apr. 23, 2010, Oct. 27, 2010 < http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5489225,00.html>.

Best dining experience in D.C.

You've already learnt about the amazingly beautiful Washington D.C. at night, the explosively funny sake bombing, and even some "paranormal acitivity" I witnessed in the nation's capitol. Now comes time to share with you the best of the best lunch and dinner places we discovered while staying in D.C. First comes first.

The Taste of India (http://tasteofindia.us/)

We couldn't decide where to have lunch at. All we knew is that it had to be a warm place because of the chilly windy weather of D.C. After wandering for about 20 minutes, looking into different places's menus, we decided to go into the Taste of India. We were greated in a very Hindu way - multiple bows. Impressed by such a traditional greeting, we headed to the table. The menu looked great - lots of boneless chicken and curry! All of us, I think, chose chicken but with different sauces. We didn't have to wait long before the waiter brought us our delicious lunch.

What does a British-France Military Cooperation Signal for the US?

At this very moment, the United States has land forces permanently stationed on every continent save for Antarctica. Aircraft carrier groups patrol waters throughout the world. And US nuclear forces are capable of reaching any square mile on the globe. No one has ever enjoyed a military primacy like the US; ever. And because of this the US can project force as it does in any manner it sees fit, with other states being able to do very little to stop it.

Of course, this is no accident. You get what you pay for and if you want a military like no one else, you have to spend like no one else. And the US does just that. You know the statistics. In fiscal year 2010, The US Defense Department will spend 685 billion dollars[i]. Just counting the DoD budget (which doesn’t include things like intelligence or nuclear spending), the US spends more than the next 15 countries combined[ii].

US supremacy however holds a unique place in history. As a unipolar power, since the end of the Cold War, the US has enjoyed unchallenged hegemony. That is to say, countries like those in Western Europe or Japan, have not tried to challenge US supremacy (as usually happened throughout history when there was only one superpower)[iii]. They have instead allied themselves with the US, either formally or informally. The reasons for this are numerous and up for debate but what isn’t up for debate is that the US has hardly treated these allies as equal. And why should it? Can we expect the United Nations Security Council to balance out interests when the gap between one member and all others is beyond anything ever seen in history?

These two factors, the cost of the US’s military supremacy and the US’s neglect of its allies came to a sort of a confluence this past week. Prime Minister David Cameron announced that he would be cutting Great Britain’s military spending by 8% in real terms over the next four years[iv]. To be clear, these are not superficial cuts. 17,000 personnel will be eliminated from the Army, Air Force, and Navy, the sole aircraft carrier will be retired, and troops stationed in Germany will be brought home[v]. It is no secret that Britain’s deficit woes are very similar to those in America. While the US has yet to begin any significant cuts on any government program including defense, Britain’s bold decision has raised questions in the minds of many Americans. Can the US continue to spend close to 5% of its GDP on defense[vi], when there is no other threatening power on the horizon?

Equally significant, Cameron announced along with the cuts that France will now be the major military partner for Great Britain. This also is not superficial. For example, when new British carriers are built in 2015, they will be designed to allow French aircraft to take and that Britain will assist France re-enter the NATO military structure[vii].

At face value, this seems perfectly reasonable. If Britain and France are both broke, and are the only two military superpowers in Europe, why not collaborate? But the real questioned that needs to be asked is, “why is Britain running to France, and not the US”. Remember, Britain and France fought the Hundred Year War. And Britain up until recently still resented (to put it nicely) France’s exit from NATO under Charles de Gaulle. They have never been friends. They certainly don’t have the “special relationship” we claim to have with Britain. It’s time for the US to consider that its treatment of allies has finally come to fruition. As mentioned above, the US has enjoyed a distinct lack of other great powers balancing against it. With Britain and France engaging in such an intimate military relationship it is reasonable to ask if that grace period is over. No one of course in the US should not expect hostility from an Anglo-Franco relationship however the US should probably not expect blind allegiance and obedience in the future from these two countries either.

The events in Britain and France of the last week raise serious questions about the future about America’s military might. If Britain needs to make the very serious cuts that it did, can it be very long before the US needs the same? And for how long will the US continue to enjoy a world where its military hegemony goes unchallenged by other powers?

---

[i] Karon, Tony. “Britain's Defense Cuts: Grim Portent for U.S. Military?”. Time Magazine. October 21^st, 2010. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2026961

,00.html?xid=thepage_newsletter

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Kennedy, Paul. The Rise and Fall of Great Powers. Random House. 1987

[iv] Fidler, Stephen. “UK, France Boost Military Ties”. The Wall Street Journal. October 20^th, 2010.

[v] Burnett, Alistair. “Goodbye to Britain’s Defense Budget”. National Public Radio. October 21^st, 2010. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130718117

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] See Fidler, Stephen

The Next Frontier of Warfare: Implications for Cyber Security and Cyberwarfare from the Stuxnet Virus Attack on Iran

Globalization has fueled the expanding influence of technological developments—so much so that states’ battles have moved into high-tech trenches. The Stuxnet virus that recently infected over 30,000 computers in Iran—and most notably, systems in Iran’s civilian nuclear power plant in Bushehr—raises numerous questions concerning the standing global policies on cyberwarfare and the future of cyber security. [1]

Although the source of the virus and its motives still remain veiled in mystery, experts have deemed the Stuxnet virus a “cyber-weapon,” due to its ability to penetrate and reprogram the sensitive processes of industrial machines by impersonating valid software. [2] The circumstances of the virus’s attack on Iran provide further evidence of an intentional cyber-attack on Iran: with its growing nuclear ambitions, Iran has been declared as a threat to global security predominantly by western countries. [3] Israel is currently the primary suspect for the source of the virus due to its investment in Unit 8200, its secret cyberwarfare operation, and because of Israel’s perceived threat of Iran’s nuclear program, which Israel believes has potential for the construction of nuclear bombs. [4]

This attack on Iran may prove influential as to whether states begin to approach cyber security with a defensive versus offensive approach, as states become aware of the implications of a massive cyber-attack and the potentially violent retaliations in response to provocation in the cyber arena. Western analysts, such as Richard Clarke, who managed the counter-terrorism operations of the White House and warned of al-Qaeda pre-9/11, have been stressing the urgency of forming international regulations regarding cyber security in lieu of the looming threat of an outbreak of cyberwarfare. [5]

A future approach to addressing the issue of cyber security might include the creation of an international regime governing the issues associated with this evolving field. However, the impact of such a regime on state sovereignty may be seen as unfavorable by technologically advanced states that favor an offensive approach to cyber security, such as the United States. The European Union and the United States have recently encountered disagreements about NATO’s “strategic concept” strategy document over the concept of “active cyberdefense”, which maintains that an offensive approach to cyber security is necessary to have an adequate defensive system; the EU favors a defensive approach against cyber-attack and is hesitant to accept the United States’ support of “pre-emptive strikes” against countries or organizations considered to be hostile. [6]

Thus, the future of regulating this dynamic field remains uncertain as states continue to assess the various means of approaching cyber security. One thing, however, is for certain: having in mind the increasingly technologically-dependent state of global affairs, inadequate defense against a large-scale cyber-attack evokes devastating implications for the international community.

[1] Blake Hounshell, "6 Mysteries About Stuxnet," Foreign Policy (Washington, D.C.), Sep. 27, 2010,
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/27/6_mysteries_about_stuxnet.
[2] Farhad Manjoo, “Don’t Stick It In: The Dangers of USBs,” Slate (Washington, D.C.), Oct. 5, 2010, http://www.slate.com/id/2270003/.
[3] Gideon Rachman, “An Undeclared War in Cyberspace,” Financial Times, Oct. 4, 2010, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/539534a0-cfeb-11df-bb9e-00144feab49a.html.
[4] James Blitz, “Security: A Code Explodes,” Financial Times, Oct. 1, 2010, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fcce9b76-cd8c-11df-9c82-00144feab49a.html.
[5] James Blitz, “Security: A Code Explodes,” Financial Times, Oct. 1, 2010, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fcce9b76-cd8c-11df-9c82-00144feab49a.html.
[6] Joshua Keating, “U.S. and Europe at Odds Over Cyberdefense Policy?” Foreign Policy (Washington, D.C.), Oct. 5, 2010, http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/10/05/us_and_europe_at_odds_over_cyberdefense_policy.