Sometimes, a force comes that simply utterly annihilates and obliterates what came before it. More often, it is a slow and gradual process as a status quo adapts and readapts to a new balance of powers. Other times, however, it can be a single, overwhelming force that truly is the stuff of legend and nightmare alike.
Destruction events can provide a clean slate, and not just in human history. Mass extinctions in Earth history usher in new types of dominant life, from dinosaurs and the age of mammals. Native Americans were nearly annihilated by European diseases, while colonists would swoop in to seize the freed real estate.
The destruction occurs when the ability of a system to adjust is overwhelmed by its ability to respond and reform, when the body fails to the pathogen. From barbarian invasions to plague biology, natural selection tends to favor the adaptive. While more specialized animals (the fastest, the smartest, the strongest, etc.) may die off, the common types endure. Compare machinery that can be built in caves to an over-complicated piece of crap. However, once the initial shock is gone, specialization occurs again. Such is a natural process of biology and economics alike. The lesson, however, is to have backups in case the over-specialized and delicate things fail. Because they will.
Showing posts with label resilience. Show all posts
Showing posts with label resilience. Show all posts
Wednesday, 9 October 2013
Saturday, 17 November 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, 7 November 2012
Open Source Alternatives
Chronicling the supervillainy of the era would not be complete without discussing methods of countering it. Trying to work within the system for positive change nowadays is mostly a the soul-crushing labor and sisyphean task, given the extent of regulatory capture by the corrupt interests. This is by no means limited to Russia, China, and the third world. The US, UK, and EU are rapidly closing the 'corruption gap.' The future of the world seems to be one giant neofeudal oligarchy or kleptocratic banana republic, the pattern of most of human history.
Add in fossil fuel depletion, more crazy climate events, widening inequality, and diminishing resources, and you've got a recipe for disaster. Not merely one or two disasters, but a chain of epic failures that governments and institutions will muddle through without an idea. They are highly centralized, fragile behemoths, but their downfall could drag down much of the infrastructure we depend on for power, food, water, and other essentials. This is what Kunstler called "The Long Emergency," in his book of the same name. He posits many of our technologies may stagnate or be lost, at least under the current consumerist model of technological development.
As resources decay, feudalism returns, and things fall away, is there an alternative? Are we condemned to live as indentured servants, subsisting on the whims of our drone-wielding neo-feudal overlords? There are some in the works now, using an ethos that should be familiar to most hackers and geeks: open source. Open source is for more than just software, and is being applied to everything from hardware development to architecture to small arms design.These designs can be produced at low cost and using mostly local resources. Even if global supply chains break down, there's still plenty of rare materials that could be gained from salvage and old landfills.
I believe the mega-slums of the third world offer a more apt picture of the future than pre-industrial agrarianism (although local food production would definitely be back). Of course, the Internet infrastructure itself is weak in many areas, but local wireless networks are fairly viable. Even with diminished energy resources, the generation of electrical power itself could be changed to a local scale (backyard mini-turbines, rooftop solar cells, even century old designs based on 'water-wheel' style electric turbines in streams could work). Of course, those methods would be unable to power a regular American style McMansion filled suburb in the middle of summer or winter, but you would probably not need that much power for these machine shops (AKA hackerspaces or makerspaces). These machines would be built to last, rather than built to break down after a year. There are more engineers, scientists, technicians, and hackers alive today than any other point in history, so even if there's a mega-disaster, some are statistically likely to survive.
That said, open source hardware and software is one of the best things for a free market. A constantly improving free system provides a baseline from which competition can occur. Many 'less complex' machines I refer to have had their patents expire decades ago. This means more manufacturers can make parts or their own variants on old designs. Take the firearms market, for example. In the USA, the M1911 pistol (that classic century-old .45 ACP design by John Browning) and the AR-15 (based on Eugene Stoner's AR10) are common amongst shooters. This is because the patents have expired, and there is a veritable market of custom parts and specialized models for every conceivable niche. From concealed carry firearms to sporting ones to military and police versions, the possible combinations and permutations on those designs are limitless. And let's not forget the most common "open source" firearm, the AK47, which is still manufactured in Russia as well as in caves with a box of scraps. AKs are built pretty durably, one reason they'll probably outlive many of the people using them. While many an internet forum has had flame wars on the AR15 vs. AK47, there are now enough after-market parts and custom variations to essentially make stereotypes about both obsolete.
There are already promising signs of this relocalization of life, but they're off the radar of the mainstream media and most politicians. They want to preserve the globalized, corporate socialist world they've built for themselves. They still have the power to do great harm, mostly in the form of trying to delay the inevitable and destroying alternatives at birth. This is not due to malice, but rather incompetence. Most politicians are concerned with staying in power (whether they were elected or not), and would rather not shake the boat so much, so to speak. The truth is, we don't need them. True change comes from bottom up, not some corporate or government policy (like there's much difference between them any more).
A decentralized, democratic group of citizens are probably one of the best defenses against such neo-feudal kleptocrats taking over. That was Thomas Jefferson's vision for the US (self sufficient, educated civic-minded citizens), ironically enough. Looks like that has to be relearned the hard way. If you want to get involved in building this new future, I recommend seeing if there's a hackerspace near you. I also recommend John Robb's excellent Resilient Communities site. Learn to code, fix something yourself, maybe grow a garden. You won't be totally self sufficient, but that's not the point. You're diversifying your own skills to better prepare for your future. Don't go gently into the long night.
Add in fossil fuel depletion, more crazy climate events, widening inequality, and diminishing resources, and you've got a recipe for disaster. Not merely one or two disasters, but a chain of epic failures that governments and institutions will muddle through without an idea. They are highly centralized, fragile behemoths, but their downfall could drag down much of the infrastructure we depend on for power, food, water, and other essentials. This is what Kunstler called "The Long Emergency," in his book of the same name. He posits many of our technologies may stagnate or be lost, at least under the current consumerist model of technological development.
As resources decay, feudalism returns, and things fall away, is there an alternative? Are we condemned to live as indentured servants, subsisting on the whims of our drone-wielding neo-feudal overlords? There are some in the works now, using an ethos that should be familiar to most hackers and geeks: open source. Open source is for more than just software, and is being applied to everything from hardware development to architecture to small arms design.These designs can be produced at low cost and using mostly local resources. Even if global supply chains break down, there's still plenty of rare materials that could be gained from salvage and old landfills.
I believe the mega-slums of the third world offer a more apt picture of the future than pre-industrial agrarianism (although local food production would definitely be back). Of course, the Internet infrastructure itself is weak in many areas, but local wireless networks are fairly viable. Even with diminished energy resources, the generation of electrical power itself could be changed to a local scale (backyard mini-turbines, rooftop solar cells, even century old designs based on 'water-wheel' style electric turbines in streams could work). Of course, those methods would be unable to power a regular American style McMansion filled suburb in the middle of summer or winter, but you would probably not need that much power for these machine shops (AKA hackerspaces or makerspaces). These machines would be built to last, rather than built to break down after a year. There are more engineers, scientists, technicians, and hackers alive today than any other point in history, so even if there's a mega-disaster, some are statistically likely to survive.
That said, open source hardware and software is one of the best things for a free market. A constantly improving free system provides a baseline from which competition can occur. Many 'less complex' machines I refer to have had their patents expire decades ago. This means more manufacturers can make parts or their own variants on old designs. Take the firearms market, for example. In the USA, the M1911 pistol (that classic century-old .45 ACP design by John Browning) and the AR-15 (based on Eugene Stoner's AR10) are common amongst shooters. This is because the patents have expired, and there is a veritable market of custom parts and specialized models for every conceivable niche. From concealed carry firearms to sporting ones to military and police versions, the possible combinations and permutations on those designs are limitless. And let's not forget the most common "open source" firearm, the AK47, which is still manufactured in Russia as well as in caves with a box of scraps. AKs are built pretty durably, one reason they'll probably outlive many of the people using them. While many an internet forum has had flame wars on the AR15 vs. AK47, there are now enough after-market parts and custom variations to essentially make stereotypes about both obsolete.
There are already promising signs of this relocalization of life, but they're off the radar of the mainstream media and most politicians. They want to preserve the globalized, corporate socialist world they've built for themselves. They still have the power to do great harm, mostly in the form of trying to delay the inevitable and destroying alternatives at birth. This is not due to malice, but rather incompetence. Most politicians are concerned with staying in power (whether they were elected or not), and would rather not shake the boat so much, so to speak. The truth is, we don't need them. True change comes from bottom up, not some corporate or government policy (like there's much difference between them any more).
A decentralized, democratic group of citizens are probably one of the best defenses against such neo-feudal kleptocrats taking over. That was Thomas Jefferson's vision for the US (self sufficient, educated civic-minded citizens), ironically enough. Looks like that has to be relearned the hard way. If you want to get involved in building this new future, I recommend seeing if there's a hackerspace near you. I also recommend John Robb's excellent Resilient Communities site. Learn to code, fix something yourself, maybe grow a garden. You won't be totally self sufficient, but that's not the point. You're diversifying your own skills to better prepare for your future. Don't go gently into the long night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)