Boiling Frogs

A popular analogy for the public in many formerly-democratic states is a frog in a pot of boiling water. If the pot is heated too fast, the frog jumps out. But if the temperature is gradually raised, the frog will remain unaware as it is cooked alive. A wise evil overlord, therefore, does not start off with obvious displays of power. They start off maintaining the status quo, and gradually introducing more insidious bills, laws, and extra-legal practices. Ideally, their predecessor(s) may have started these programs, so continuing them is expected of them. 

This is nothing historically novel. One hallmark of such practices, however, is they often occur in states rapidly centralizing power. Such centralization is often a desperate, last-ditch maneuver. The Roman Emperors gradually assumed more and more power, until the Empire collapsed on its own weight. It appears that the US government is hell-bent on repeating this, independently of the legal justifications (or lack therefore of) for each program. The drone assassination program is a perfect example of one, as detailed elsewhere. 

Take, for instance, the contempt of public wishes by politicians. Last year, CISPA was a “cybersecurity” bill that gutted online privacy (amongst other things). An internet outcry caused it to be dropped. Recently, the President has issued an executive order that essentially does the same thing. The icing on the cake is that CISPA has been regurgitated, copied word-for-word from its original incarnation. Worse than that, this comes as the government clamps down on the few rights that are left. 

The metaphor of the boiling frogs is even more appropriate when you consider climate change. The methane clathrates rising from the ocean floor like a Great Old One threaten to deep fry the world and turn the oceans to acidic stew. Whether the world economy, environmental factors, or political structures will collapse first is uncertain. Far more important is to find a way out of the pot.

Waiting for Naglfar

We are watching our world die. The world is sleepwalking into an environmental, financial, and political Ragnarok. Like the Norse apocalypse, our own tribulations include rising seas, savage wars, and the death of the old order. The Arctic Ocean may be ice free in a few summers from now, raising sea levels around the world. More alarmingly, this will increase the moisture in the atmosphere, allowing the effects of climate change to snowball exponentially. There is also the possibility that the methane clathrates in the Arctic will burst forth like Lovecraft's Elder Gods, sending Earth's climate into uncharted territory. The methane released could greatly accelerate the greenhouse effect, a Surtur's flaming sword of runaway climate. 

Don't hold your breath for any sort of political solution. The major nations have no interest in curbing emissions, even at a time it would be prudent to kick their fossil fuel addictions. Fossil fuels themselves are becoming harder to retrieve, with a diminishing rate of returns. Some types of gas and unconventional oil, for instance, have a negative rate of returns on energy invested. The processes to recover them are environmentally disruptive, and require increasingly scarce water resources to retrieve. Wilderness, aquifers, and farmland are turned into septic cesspools as a result of the toxic chemicals blasted into the ground. It is only through massive government subsidies to fossil fuel companies and use of eminent domain to seize private property that such activities are possible. It is not unlike a desperate junkie in need of a fix slicing their skin to find traces of their drug. 

Alternatives to fossil fuels likewise cannot sustain the status quo. Fossil fuel companies wish to inhibit competition as long as possible. Big Government-funded "green jobs" are unlikely to do much, as the individuals responsible for the pollution (public and private) have little interest in fixing it. Technical problems with energy storage, including rare earth supplies for batteries, have yet to be fully addressed. Despite some promising developments, deploying the new infrastructure would require money that no longer exists. Even in a newer, low cost infrastructure was developed, governments tend to prefer cozy relationships with centralized oil companies rather than a competitive market of decentralized firms. 

The money that could have been used to fund and develop alternatives has essentially vanished from the real economy. Kleptocratic central banks and political insiders continue to print money to sustain the pyramid scheme of speculation markets. The majority of trades on most stock exchanges are performed by software rather than humans, often used to rig trades to favor an increasingly fat few. Euros, dollars, pounds, and other currencies are being increasingly devalued with rigged and low interest rates, which penalize savers and reward speculators. Like a rigged casino game, the world economy ensures most people who play lose. Financial emergencies (often declared by the same people who started them) are used to seize the remaining assets in the name of debts that cannot be repaid. 

Globalization overcame the feedback mechanisms able to stop it. Crime and black markets have likewise become globalized. One of the fastest growing economies is not a country, but an informal economy known as "System D." While System D includes "conventional" criminal activities (e.g. smuggling and protection rackets), it includes alternative and informal transactions of all sorts. "Technically legal" gray markets, digital currencies (such as BitCoin), and barter agreements all have grown. In areas where the economy has effectively collapsed (such as Greece), barter and informal agreements handle services from protection to waste removal to food production. Revenue-strapped governments eagerly try to reign in such transactions, but to little avail. 

Attempts to ban such transactions will likely raise black market prices and empower criminal syndicates due to the "Prohibition" effect. Militarization of the police force, surveillance technologies, and the loss of rights are the logical side effects of heavy-handed government crackdowns. One need only look at the War on Drugs to see how quasi-military tactics have backfired. Ironically, in areas were state power has weakened, non-state groups from guerrillas to crime syndicates may take the place of states in the role of service providers. Many drug cartels, for instance, maintain logistics networks that could smuggle anything from illegal aliens to weaponry and even their own communications infrastructure. Political disruptions can result in these groups becoming the de-facto government. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Russian Mafia was already the effective power in control of the streets. When Rome fell, many regions had already began to rely on local feudalism. 

Fear and panic are reported on by media firms and echoed by politicians. The realities of the elite and non-elites increasingly differ, despite (or perhaps due to) the attempts of politicians to hold onto the status quo.  This type of instability could easily be exploited or redirected into domestic opponents or foreign enemies. Resources from fuels to water to arable land become increasingly scarce, desperation reignites potential for conflict. From trade sanctions to shooting wars, "zero sum" foreign policy is seen as increasingly acceptable. From massive crop failures in the USA to glacial melt-water disputes between India and China, food and water become increasingly valuable. The parasitic kleptocrats and corporate socialists loot as much as possible before heading for foreign tax havens and private holdouts. When events similar to this happen in historical cultures, it simply means the former elites are the last ones to starve to death. 

 Those who oppose such policies can easily find themselves the targets of well-honed intelligence and dissident monitoring infrastructure. With drones and a lack of political transparency, targets can be executed from around the world. Even if actual assassination is impractical, character assassination and agents provocateur can easily sabotage attempts to form alternatives. With a dystopia worthy of a science fiction novel, the system ironically destroys any chance it has for genuine reform and survival. The resulting crash simply is delayed and made worse by shooting messengers. 

Alternatives to the highly-centralized consumer state are present. Power, food, water, production, and defense are things which would be more ideal as decentralized networks rather than hyper-professional bureaucracies. However, popular culture remains fixated on trivial politics, escapism, and propagation of the status quo for as long as possible. The solution is not the "doomsday bunker" mentality. Even rationed supplies cannot last forever, and a small family group is easy prey for a large group. Instead, form connections that matter. Replace "zero sum" with "positive sum." Strive for self-sufficiency whenever possible: in food, energy, water, production, and other methods. Aquaponics, desktop manufacturing, and home energy have all become cheaper, and will likely continue to do so. Resilience is a golden ideal, and will help as the world becomes unstable. Do not rely on Big Government or Big Business for employment or salvation from the problems they helped create. Find friends, family, and those you can trust. The reward is a genuine community you care about, rather than a hideously complex system built upon fraud and ignorance. 

We may draw some parallels to Norse mythology. A ship of dead men's nails, Naglfar, manned by the treacherous Loki, would start the final battle. With the endemic unethical behavior in once-trusted institutions, one failure could cause others. The venomous death throes of the old order, like mythic serpent Jormungandr, could destroy much of what we are used to. However, Ragnarok brought an end to a doomed world, so that new one could arise. The fever dream will eventually pass, although the transition will be difficult. It is better to strive and fail than to passively wait for Naglfar. Even the fallen warriors ended up in Valhalla.

The Bloody Math of Lone Maniacs

“Moore’s Law of Mad Science: Every eighteen months, the minimum IQ necessary to destroy the world drops by one point.”-Eliezer Yudkowsky

For better or worse, we live in an age of technological empowerment. Social media topples regimes, crowdfunding raises millions, and information (and dis/misinformation) campaigns can travel the world at the speed of light. So what happens when a single depraved individual could produce a weapon of mass destruction in their basement? 

The 'lone nutcase' is often a feared figure in certain law enforcement or intelligence circles. Unlike gangs, terrorist groups, or rival spies, solitary individuals can slip through the cracks far more easily than a terror cell. A spree killer might need only a few incidents to set them on their bloody rampage. Laws on the tools they use (such as firearms, explosive chemicals, etc.) can offer little defense in many circumstances. An automatic firearm might be legally (or illegally) acquired. A bomb could be made of legal, common chemicals. And even if firearms and explosives are unavailable, there's always knives and stabbing weapons. While melee weapons offer less "efficiency" in mass murder than a machine gun or bomb, the sad reality is regardless of the grim numbers, there are likely several innocents dead.

History offers some examples of noteworthy lone maniacs, but I do not want to name those idiots or give them any more attention than I have to. However, I will discuss a few categories of lone morons. I will not cover small groups or political figures in detail, as they had staff and others with them. The 9/11 hijackers, for instance, were a small group with substantial resources behind them (in the form of their terrorist handlers and leaders, etc.). Obama's due process free hit list for US citizens and others needs people to actually compile the lists and deploy the Predator drones, as well.

The spree killings of the past few decades have included a number of high profile shooting sprees. While these have been conducted with firearms of varying legality, the general trend is so pathetic moron decides to mow down innocents. In the late 90s, a shooting in Scotland was believed to have triggered copycat attacks in Australia and New Zealand. The US suffered a spate of school shootings in the same period. These, however, were not the first attacks of their kind.

A previous mass shooting in the USA in 1966 actually spurred the development of SWAT teams, and disproved the idea that individuals were safe in public. This, however, was neither the first public massacre nor school attack that occurred in the 20th century. There was the Bath School Disaster, where a madman used explosives to murder dozens of schoolchildren and teachers.

Firearms and explosives are fairly old technologies, having been known to humankind for almost 1000 years. Laws against guns and explosives may increase the difficulty of acquiring or building one, but it's unlikely to totally defend against every possible permutation of explosive device or firearm out there. We've built such weapons for centuries, and the main limit on casualties is how many people can be gathered into range before such a weapon is deployed. This is why blowing up a plane or sinking a ship may cause more death than a single bomb or shooting spree. Some systems are innately "better" at such a task than others, which is why identifying them may be key. A concealed submachinegun or hand grenade may hit more people in a crowd than a flintlock musket, after all.

Likewise, early forms of chemical and biological warfare have been known for centuries, yet it was the 20th century that brought these technologies to horrid maturity. At first, they required a major government and industrial investment. Many of WW1's chemical weapons required factories to churn them out, so the 'lunatic in a basement' scenario would be mostly nonviable with period technology. World War II, however, saw a technology grow to maturity that could self replicate, spreading itself to a target population,. That technology was biological warfare, pioneered by the likes of Imperial Japan's brutal Unit 731 and later, the postwar governments of the US and Soviet Union. 

Of course, the atom bomb became the most feared weapon after the war (and rightly so), but production of nuclear weapons was capital-intensive. They became the Atomic 'A' of the ABCs of WMD (with Biological and Chemical following afterwards). Even maintaining stockpiles of nukes for deterrence is an expensive, complex endeavor. Materials, infrastructure, and production require a significant government investment, even with modern technology. Even though the technology dates from 70 years ago, production of viable nukes by lone individuals is still impossible and will be, given how uranium and plutonium can be tracked, to say nothing of radiation detectors and Geiger counters being used to easily sniff one out. I'm sure the War on Terror inspired the design of new generations of nuke-sniffers and similar devices, as no self respecting part of the American military industrial complex would want to miss a market like that.

With atomic weapons removed, how about biological and chemical weapons? Chemical weapons still require major investments in producing any significant amounts of it. The Japanese doomsday cult, Aum Shinrikyo, tried releasing sarin gas in Tokyo subways, but dispersion of a gas-based chemical weapon and ventilation hindered them. If it was a lone maniac (as opposed to a doomsday cult with ample funding), they would not have been able to produce even the relatively small amount they did for the 1995 attack.

What I am personally the most concerned with are biological weapons. The cost of doing genetic engineering in one's basement continues to drop. Basement biohackers might today focus on things like glow in the dark algae, but as the technology becomes more user friendly and widespread, then things get interesting. I doubt, however, total bans or requiring registration to be a basement biologist would be very effective. Totally banning anything means legitimate users (DIY biologists who could be collaborating on say, a cure to a bad guy's designer disease), will have to jump through more hoops while the maniac has none. Modern firearms have technical bottlenecks in ammunition supply and all the laws concerning ammo sales, but I imagine bio-gear to have even less of such bottlenecks. Like unregistered guns and makeshift meth labs, unregistered bio-labs could be started with even less capital and staffed with an ever-smaller number of staff. I believe basement bio-weapons offer the greatest potential for "single maniac abuse," save if someone develops some kind of even worse nanobots or something of the sort.

Also, I'd like to cover cyber-weapons. I know cyber-attacks have gotten press lately, but a 'cyberattack' is a fancy way of saying computer-enabled, remote sabotage. The key threat there is infrastructure disruption. Power grids could be knocked offline, key systems could have backdoors installed or passwords stolen, and so on. Recent cyber-attacks have targeted Iran's nuclear program and the Gulf oil industry. Any deaths from there would be an effect of infrastructure disruption rather than a primary goal. Interestingly, the US designed Flame and Stuxnet, having been deployed into the "wild," could now have their own code modified and deployed back at them by anyone with computer programming knowledge. There's also the related issue of hijacking platforms. Imagine a bad guy hacking a Predator drone (or a bunch of them) and raising hell with them, for instance.

On a related note, an electromagnetic weapon, such as an EMP bomb or HERF (High Energy Radio Frequency) device could disrupt power grids or supply to some major area, but smart and proper grounding of hardware could hinder attempts at replication. So, it's really a one trick pony, since it will be hard to repeat the trick after someone pulls it off successfully.

That brings me to my final point: disruption. I believe the most dangerous attacks in the future will integrate multiple vectors of attack. A bomb or IED might spread shrapnel loaded with a designer disease. A cyber-attack could knock out power and strand people somewhere while a terrorist group (or lone maniac) goes on a shooting spree. If the individual is suicidal, they may simply care on taking as many people as possible down with them. If they wish to fight another day, they could aim to cause as much chaos as possible. This means they drive up operational costs through economic damage and spending on safeguards. A terrorist seeking to cause disruption might not try to raise a body count, but prices of essentials. Imagine they spread a disease that kills off crops for stable foods (the monoculture and lack of genetic diversity in today's factory farms would mean they'd have an easier job of this). The result is essential foods go up in price, perhaps out of the affordability range of poor people (who are the majority in much of the developing world). Rising food prices, after all, helped start the French Revolution, Russian Revolution, and Arab Spring.

So, how to counter all of this potential for abuse and chaos? Government officials could insist they need to observe all your communications and institute total surveillance. However, this is unlikely to work, as catching every laptop full of cyber-weapon malware or basement bioweapons lab is statistically improbable. Another idea is to improve people. People with more freedom, full bellies, stable income, and social involvement are less likely to become radicalized. If one feels nothing left to lose, then desperation could easily lead towards violence. The feelings of powerlessness, lack of social meaningful connections like friends/family/etc. (a social safety net unto itself), and no conventional social safety net could easily give rise to violence. The last approach is a systems design, resilient infrastructure and systems. A decentralized system that can take many small disruptions can survive and thrive when the centralized big ones fail.

There is also a final realization: Most people have a survival instinct and desire to help each other. A partnership between political institutions and various communities (DIY biologists and open source programmers, for instance) can muster more resources than most governments can. I believe that a decentralized network of citizens with resilient infrastructure is a far better safeguard than over-relying on a professional protector caste. The professionals have their place, but they may not be sufficient for everything. This is why I believe a multi-layered net is the best counter to solitary maniacs. If everyone is empowered, then a single maniac cannot stand against the many.