Being from a military family (and this is my blog so I will be opinionated) I believe the most significant consequence of the information revolution is the changes in warfare. I think it is a great a power tool to be able to collaborate on informative software to expand knowledge but what good is knowledge if you’re not free?
Max Boot wrote a story indentifying the relevant changes to warfare and draws to the conclusion that our traditional military powerhouse will not be a factor in coming conflicts. Technology and use of technology will drive the conflict and the eventual winner.
Every piece of human delivered military machinery and artillery has a weakness that can exposed and over time will be exposed. Asymmetric threats make our response to innovation critical to the mission and safety of our troops. We must continue to create technology to protect our troops (armor, drones, radar, artillery and stealth developments). If the US does not stay ahead of the curve our current technology will be rendered inferior and the potential for negative consequences and appearance of weakness will grow.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Globalization Impact
One of the most important changes we have experienced through globalization is the reduction of trading barriers (such as tariffs) between countries that limit trade. Whether or not it is a good or bad experience remains to be argued.
Free trade creates jobs, lowers the cost of production and increases demand of products. Without tariffs in place certain geographic locations have advantages to producing goods for consumption in other geographic areas. This creates a profit if the good is produced and therefore creates jobs. Because the certain geographic areas have a lower standard of wage the cost of production is cheaper and the consumer benefits through lower product cost. Lower product cost increases quantity demanded. Free trade also allows the US to trade our goods to other countries and through our various technology innovations the US is generally able to produce most goods more efficiently than other countries.
Free trade has a downside as well. The first aspect is the exploitation of workers. Stiglitz stated that in a perfect free market there would be consistency of wages for unskilled labor. This is not the case in today’s capitalism. Worker in economically poor countries still have lower wages that US employees. In contradiction to an earlier mentioned ‘pro’ of globalization being the creation of jobs this lower wage decreases jobs in the US because increased wages would lead to increased production cost and an increase in market price. A consumer is driven to acquire the best product at the cheapest price. Another negative of free trade is the cause of political complications with the country’s interests. Is it better to produce good that increase GDP and pollution or reduce pollution and promote goods that reduce the dependency on other country imports?
From either side of the argument it is noted that reduced trading barriers increases the influence of technology and culture from other parts of the world that would not be possible with trade barriers in place. The economic benefits can be argued.
Free trade creates jobs, lowers the cost of production and increases demand of products. Without tariffs in place certain geographic locations have advantages to producing goods for consumption in other geographic areas. This creates a profit if the good is produced and therefore creates jobs. Because the certain geographic areas have a lower standard of wage the cost of production is cheaper and the consumer benefits through lower product cost. Lower product cost increases quantity demanded. Free trade also allows the US to trade our goods to other countries and through our various technology innovations the US is generally able to produce most goods more efficiently than other countries.
Free trade has a downside as well. The first aspect is the exploitation of workers. Stiglitz stated that in a perfect free market there would be consistency of wages for unskilled labor. This is not the case in today’s capitalism. Worker in economically poor countries still have lower wages that US employees. In contradiction to an earlier mentioned ‘pro’ of globalization being the creation of jobs this lower wage decreases jobs in the US because increased wages would lead to increased production cost and an increase in market price. A consumer is driven to acquire the best product at the cheapest price. Another negative of free trade is the cause of political complications with the country’s interests. Is it better to produce good that increase GDP and pollution or reduce pollution and promote goods that reduce the dependency on other country imports?
From either side of the argument it is noted that reduced trading barriers increases the influence of technology and culture from other parts of the world that would not be possible with trade barriers in place. The economic benefits can be argued.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Martin Heidegger's Poiesis - Explained to a Child
Poiesis alos called bringing forth is how things are made or come to be. Take for example the LEGO castle that sits in your room. At first this was a pile of pieces but in order to become a castle you had to physically put the pieces together. That is one example of how things come to be when made by a person. Nature also has the ability to make things. When a bee visits a flower the pollen from that flower sticks to the bee. When the bee visits another flower some of that pollen falls off and pollinates the new flower allowing it to make seeds and fruit.
Poiesis is how things are made. Either by a person or nature.
Poiesis is how things are made. Either by a person or nature.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
New Ethics Regarding Technology
“Take, for instance, as the first major change in the inherited picture, the critical vulnerability of nature to man’s technological intervention – unsuspected before it began to show itself in damage already done.” – Hans Jonas Page 125
I picked this passage from the Hans Jonas article because I found it extraordinary that in 1973 (and even prior to that) philosophers already observed and identified the effects of technology on nature, well before the population began to administer rules and laws to address the behavior causing these effects on nature. To have the foresight to detect damages and forecast additional damages in the future is a remarkable skill. The warning to the population not only brought forward attention to the subject matter but also provided ample reaction time to successfully adopt laws regarding the behavior before the behavior caused irreversible damage.
I believe that if not for these types of early warnings and pleas for change the population may not have acknowledge the damages until it was too late. The ideology that stood true in 1973 remains true in 2009.
I picked this passage from the Hans Jonas article because I found it extraordinary that in 1973 (and even prior to that) philosophers already observed and identified the effects of technology on nature, well before the population began to administer rules and laws to address the behavior causing these effects on nature. To have the foresight to detect damages and forecast additional damages in the future is a remarkable skill. The warning to the population not only brought forward attention to the subject matter but also provided ample reaction time to successfully adopt laws regarding the behavior before the behavior caused irreversible damage.
I believe that if not for these types of early warnings and pleas for change the population may not have acknowledge the damages until it was too late. The ideology that stood true in 1973 remains true in 2009.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)