Mind Control 1ac

8/14/2019 Mind Control 1ac

1/19

Sheldon Kreger 1/19Idaho State Debate 1AC

Modern humans have ceased to live most are autonomons striving towards goalsthat are not their own. This destruction of the self renders life meaningless and createsthe drive for both conformity and control of others; it destroys all possibility for

meaningful relationships with anybody including the selfFromm 41Erich Fromm received his Ph.D. in sociology from Heidelberg. He was an internationally renownedsocialpsychologist, psychoanalyst, and humanistic philosopher. Escape from Freedom pg. 251-255
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy


2/19



3/19



4/19



5/19


We are now at a crossroads: The technology to create a complete big brother stylesurveillance structure is available. Every movement, every thought, and every thing can be

tracked, recorded, analyzed, and controlled. The only step remaining for absolute control ofsociety is the modification of our cultures to allow its implementation

Carley speaking for the National Science Foundation 2002

ENHANCED KNOWLEDGE-BASED HUMAN ORGANIZATION AND SOCIAL CHANGE FromCONVERGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR IMPROVING HUMAN PERFORMANCE June 2002 pg. 270-271.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Commerce (DOC) organized aworkshop on December 3-4, 2001. This report incorporates the views expressed at the workshop ofleading experts from government, academia, and private sector, and detailed in contributionssubmitted thereafter by members of the U.S. science and engineering community. Kathleen M.Carley is a professor in the School of Computer Science in the department at Carnegie MellonUniversity.

In the area of bioterrorism, a key issue is early detection or biosurveillance. Early detection requiressmart sensors at the biological level in the air, water, and ground, and on humans. Early detectionrequires integrating this data with geographic, demographic, and social information. Even were thesensors to exist, there would still be a problem: Under current legislation and privacy laws, the datacannot be integrated and made readily accessible to practitioners and researchers. To develop andtestdata mining tools, knowledge management tools, and what-if policy simulators, access is needed to awide range of data in real time; but, providing access to such data enables the users of these tools toknow details of individual behavior.In the area of organizations, a key issue is team design and redesign (Samuelson 2000). Team designand redesign requires accurate data of who knows what, can work with whom, and is currently doingwhat. Doing such a skill audit, network analysis, and task audit is a daunting task. Maintaining theinformation is even more daunting. Individuals are loathe to provide the information for fear of losingtheir basis of power or anonymity, or for fear of reprisal. However, much of the information isimplicit in the locations that people occupy, their stress levels, webpages, curricula vitae, publicconversations, and so on.In the cases of both acquiring and maintaining individual data, nano-bio-sensors that are embedded inthe body and that report on individual health, stress level, and location; intelligent surfaces that trackwho is present while reshaping themselves to meet the needs of and enhance the comfort of theusers;auto-sensors that create a memory of what is said, when people cough or sneeze; air and watersensors that sense contaminants; data-mining tools that locate information, simulation tools thatestimate thechange in social outcomes; information assurance tools and secure distributed databases all can beused to enable better outcomes. Indeed, such tools are critical to the collection, analysis, protection,and use of information to enhance group performance. The relatively easy problems here will be thosethat are dominated by technology, e.g., distributed database tools, data integration procedures,information assurance technology, and smart sensors. Those problems dealing with the need tochange cultures, legislation, and ways of working will be more difficult. Privacy laws, for example,could mitigate the effectiveness of these tools or even determine whether they are ever developed.There are many critical privacy issues, many of which are well identified in the NRC report, TheDigital Dilemma (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9601.html). Views of knowledge as power will limitand impede data collection. Having such data will revolutionize healthcare, human resources, career


6/19


services, intelligence services, and law enforcement. Having such data will enable big-brotherism.Were we able to overcome these two mitigating factors, then a key issue will become, What will thebases for power be when knowledge is no longer a controlled commodity? Since many organizationsare coordinated and managed through the coordination and management of information, as

knowledgeis no longer controlled, new organizational forms should emerge. For example, a possible result mightbe the development of monolith corporations with cells of individuals who can do tasks, and as thosetasks move from corporation to corporation, the cells would move as well. In this case, benefits, payscales, etc., would be set outside the bounds of a traditional corporation. In this case, individualloyalty would be to the area of expertise, the profession, and not the company. Corporations wouldbecome clearinghouses linking agents to problems as new clients come with new problems.


7/19


And, this control will be complete: Thoughts will be placed into the mind of the subject tocontrol their actions.

Asher, Etter, Fainberg, Lau, Goldbatt, Murday, Tolles, and Yonas in a joint statement for the

National Science Foundation 2002

CONVERGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR IMPROVING HUMAN PERFORMANCE June 2002 pg. 287-289The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Commerce (DOC) organized aworkshop on December 3-4, 2001. This report incorporates the views expressed at the workshop ofleading experts from government, academia, and private sector, and detailed in contributionssubmitted thereafter by members of the U.S. science and engineering community.Robert Asher Sandia National Laboratories, D.M. Etter was nominated on September 6, 2005by President George W. Bush to serve as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research,Development and Acquisition. Dr. Etter was then sworn in on November 7, 2005. As the Navy'sSenior Acquisition Executive, Dr. Etter is responsible for research, development, and acquisitionwithin the Department of the Navy. From August 2001 to November 2005, Dr. Etter was a member

of the Electrical Engineering faculty at the United States Naval Academy. She was also the firstrecipient of the Office of Naval Research Distinguished Chair in Science and Technology, T.Fainberg Former Program Manager of Radiological & Nuclear Countermeasures Office of Researchand Development, Science & Technology Directorate Department of Homeland Security , MichaelGoldblatt joined Functional Genetics, Inc. in 2003 bringing over 20 years of experience in theareas of biotechnology, product development, and regulatory affairs. From 1999 to 2003, heserved as Director of Defense Sciences at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency(DARPA) where he laid the foundation to make biological research an integral part of theDepartment of Defense., Clifford Lau received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in 1966 and 1967 fromthe University ofCalifornia at Berkeley, and his Ph.D. in 1978 from the University of California at SantaBarbara, all in electrical engineering and computer science. After working as an engineer inNavy laboratories, he moved in 1988 to Washington DC to Office of Naval Research (ONR)

headquarters and served as Program Officer, and was responsible for the management ofresearch programs in electronics systems, VLSI signal processing, communication systems,fault tolerant computers, and neural networks technology. From 1992 to 1995 he served asthe acting Director of Electronics Division, and was responsible for Navy's researchprograms in electronics. Currently while he is the Associate Director for University Programat ONR, he is detailed full time to the Office of Basic Research within the Office of DeputyUnder Secretary of Defense, and is responsible for the planning, execution, and coordinationof DoDs programs on nanotechnology, including the Multidisciplinary University ResearchInitiative (MURI) and Defense University Research Initiative on NanoTechnology (DURINT)programs. Dr. Lau has served IEEE in various capacities, including member of TAB, TABFinance Committee in 20002001, President of Neural Network Council (now Society) in19992000, and chair of the New Technology Directions Committee in 20022003. Dr. Lauis a Fellow of the IEEE, and in 20042005 is going to be the President of the IEEENanotechnology Council. ,James Murday is associate director for physical sciences of the USCWashington, DC Office of Research Advancement. Prior to USC, Murday's career at the NavalResearch Laboratory (NRL) included leading the Surface Chemistry programs (1975-1987) and theChemistry Division (1988-2006, when he retired from Federal service).Additional responsibilities included tenures as Director of Research for the Department of Defense,Research and Engineering; Chief Scientist, Office of Naval Research; Director, NationalNanotechnology Coordination Office; and Executive Secretary to the U.S. National Science and

Technology Council's Subcommittee on Nanometer Science Engineering and Technology (NSET).He holds a PhD in experimental solid state physics from Cornell in 1970 and a B.S. in physics fromCase Institute of Technology in 1964. His research interests have spanned nuclear magneticresonance, surface science, and nanoscale science and technology. He has published over 100


8/19


papers and reports on those topics. He is a member of the ACS, APS, MRS, and AVS professionalsocieties. William Tolles consultant, G. Yonas Sandia National Laboratory

The fourth NBIC theme examines the ways in which the United States and modern civilization can

meet the intelligence and defense challenges of the new century. In a world where the very nature ofwarfare is changing rapidly, national defense requires innovative technology that (a) projects power soconvincingly that threats to the United States are deterred, (b) eliminates or minimizes the danger toU.S. warfighters from foe or friendly fire, and (c) reduces training costs by more than an order-of-magnitude through augmented reality and virtual reality teaching aids.Investment in convergent nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitivescience is expected to result in innovative technologies that revolutionize many domains of conflictand peacekeeping. We are entering an era of network-centric combat and information warfare.Increasingly, combat vehicles will be uninhabited, and robots or other automated systems will take onsome of the most hazardous missions. Effective training will make extensive use of augmented orvirtual reality. Nanotechnology will offer reliable means for detecting and protecting against chemicaland biological agents. Convergence of many technologies will enhance the performance of human

warfighters and defenders, in part through monitoring health and instituting prophylaxis, and throughmagnifying the mental and physical capabilities of personnel.The Defense Science and Technology Strategy (Department of Defense 2000) seeks to ensure thatthe warfighters today and tomorrow have superior and affordable technology to support their missionsand to give them revolutionary war-winning capabilities. There is special focus on informationassurance with emphasis on security; battlespace awareness with emphasis on sensor webs,miniaturized platforms, netted information and cognitive readiness; force protection with emphasis onchemical/biological defense; and support for the warfighter.In the recent past, new technologies have dramatically enhanced American ability to both prepare forand execute military actions. By implementing advances in information technologies, sensors, andsimulation, we have strengthened our ability to plan and conduct military operations, quickly designand produce military systems, and train our forces in more realistic settings. These technologies are

central to greater battlefield awareness, enabling our forces to acquire large amounts of information,analyze it quickly, and communicate it to multiple users simultaneously for coordinated and preciseaction. As former Defense Secretary William J. Perry has noted, these are the technologicalbreakthroughs that are changing the face of war and how we prepare for war.There are numerous special programs, reports and presentations that address these goals. TheDepartment of Defense has designated nanoscience as a strategic research area in order toacceleratethe expected benefits (Murday 1999). Various conferences and studies have been devoted toassessingnanotechnology status and needs for defense (Murday 2000; National Research Council,forthcoming).Attention has also been paid to anticipating more global societal consequences of those efforts in

support of national security (Roco and Bainbridge 2001).National Security Goals for NBICThis conference panel identified seven goals for NBIC augmentation of national security, all of whichrequire the close integration of several of the nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology,and cognition fields of endeavor. The seven goals, listed below, are sufficiently diverse that there isno common strategy beyond the need for interdisciplinary integration. The net result of accomplishingthe stated goals would reduce the likelihood of war by providing an overwhelming U.S. technologicaladvantage, would significantly reduce the cost of training military manpower, and would significantlyreduce the number of lives lost during conflict.i) Data linkage, threat anticipation, and readiness. Miniaturized, affordable sensor suites will


9/19


provide information from previously inaccessible areas; high-speed processing will convert thedata into information; and wide-bandwidth communication pipelines with digital security willdistribute information rather than data to all who need it.

ii) Uninhabited combat vehicles. Automation technology (including miniaturization of sensing,

augmented computation and memory, and augmented software capability) will enable us toreplace pilots, either fully autonomously or with pilot-in-the-loop, in many dangerous warfightingmissions. The uninhabited air vehicle will have an artificial brain that can emulate a skillfulfighter pilot in the performance of its missions. Tasks such as take-off, navigation, situationawareness, target identification, and safe return landing will be done autonomously, with thepossible exception of circumstances requiring strategic or firing decisions. Without the humang-force constraint and the weight of human physical support equipment (oxygen, ejection system,armor, etc.), the planes will be more maneuverable. Tanks, submarines, and other combat vehicleswill experience similar benefits.

iii) Warfighter education and training. A partnership between nanotechnology and informationtechnology holds the promise for relatively inexpensive, high-performance teaching aids. One canenvision a virtual-reality teaching environment that is tailored to the individuals learning modes,

utilizes contexts stimulating to that individual, and reduces any embarrassment over mistakes.The information exchange with the computer can be fully interactive, involving speech, vision,and motion. Nanodevices will be essential to store the variety of necessary information and toprocess that information in the millisecond time frames necessary for realtime interaction.

iv) Chemical/biological/radiological/explosive (CBRE) detection and protection.Microfabricated sensor suites will provide ample, affordable, error-free forewarning of chemical,biological, radiological, or explosive threat. For those who must work in a contaminatedenvironment, individual protection (masks and clothing) will induce heat stresses no greater thanconventional uniforms while providing full protection. Decontamination and neutralizationprocedures will be effective against agents, yet will be relatively benign to people and theenvironment. Monitors will provide information on warfighter physiological status and initiateany necessary prophylaxis.

v) Warfighter systems. The warfighter is subjected to periods of intense stress where life ordeath decisions must be made with incomplete information available, where the physiology offatigue and pain cloud reason, and where supplemental technology must compete with the 120pounds of equipment weight s/he must carry. NBIC technologies can address all of these aspectsof warfighting. Nanotechnology holds the promise to provide much greater information,connectivity, and risk reduction to the warfighter. The continued miniaturization of electronicdevices will provide 100 times more memory with less bulk and weight (a terabit of information ina cm2). Processing speeds will increase to terahertz rates. Displays will be flexible and paper-thin,if not replaced by direct write of information on the retina. High-bandwidth communication willbe netted. Prolific unattended sensors and uninhabited, automated surveillance vehicles underpersonal warfighter control will be providing high data streams on local situations. Weapons willautomatically track targets and select precise firing times for greater accuracy. The marriage of

semiconductors and biology will provide physiological monitors for alertness, chemical orbiological agent threats, and casualty assessment. The small size of the nanodevices will limit thevolume, weight, and power burdens.

vi) Non-drug treatments for enhancement of human performance. Without the use of drugs,the union of nanotechnology and biotechnology may be able to modify human biochemistry tocompensate for sleep deprivation and diminished alertness, to enhance physical and psychologicalperformance, and to enhance survivability rates from physical injury.

vii) Applications of brain-machine interface. The convergence of all four NBIC fields will givewarfighters the ability to control complex entities by sending control actions prior to thoughts(cognition) being fully formed. The intent is to take brain signals (nanotechnology for augmented


10/19


sensitivity and nonintrusive signal detection) and use them in a control strategy (informationtechnology), and then impart back into the brain the sensation of feedback signals (biotechnology).

Statements and VisionsDefense applications are intended for the highly competitive environments of deterrence, intelligence

gathering, and lethal combat, so it is essential to be technologically as far ahead of potentialopponentsas possible. The United States and its closest allies represent only a small fraction of the worldpopulation, and in the asymmetrical conflicts of the early twenty-first century, even a small number ofdedicated enemies can cause tremendous damage. Thus, the overview statements and future visionswritten by participants in the national security working group address very high-priority areas wherethe United States and its allies can achieve and maintain great superiority. The statements and visionscover areas from enhancing soldier performance (M. Goldblatt) and combat readiness (D.M. Etter) tofuture roles of NBIC for fighting terrorism (J. Murday, T. Fainberg, C. Lau) and equipment of soldiers(R. Asher, J. Murday, T. Fainberg, C. Lau).


11/19


This technology will be used against the population generally, including debatersJensen and Draffan 04


12/19


Through the constant amplification of the risks facing society, the culture of fear is created. Indebate specifically, alleged vulnerability and impotence of the individual stands in sharpcontrast to the power that we actually posses. We must examine how the culture of fear iscultivated within our own practices to overcome the paralysis it creates

Furedi 07

Wednesday 4 April 2007 The only thing we have to fear is the culture of fear itselfNEW ESSAY: How human thought and action are being stifled by a regime of uncertainty. pg 7-8Frank Furedi is Professor of Sociology at University of Kent

Through ideas about vulnerability, a sense of fear starts to be seen as a normal state of being.The flipside of this deflation of the status of human subjectivity is the inflation of the threat thatexternal forces pose to the individual self. In public debate today, the alleged vulnerability andimpotence of the individual stands in sharp contrast to the formidable powers attributed to theeveryday challenges we face. Through the constant amplification of the risks facing humanity pollution, global warming, catastrophic flu epidemics, weapons of mass destruction, and various

health scares even the limited exercise of individual choice appears to be restricted by todaysharsh regime of uncertainty.The identity of vulnerability is the flipside of the autonomisation of fear.ConclusionA proper sociological understanding of fear requires further research into the way in which thisemotion is mediated through todays cultural outlook. We must address not simply the emotion offear and the threats to which it is a response, but also the crisis of causality that shapes thefearful subject. As indicated previously, twenty-first century fear culture is increasingly beingnormalised as a force in its own right. In such circumstances, fear is a means through whichpeople respond to and make sense of the world.This stands in sharp contrast to the approach taken by US President Franklin D Roosevelt in hisinaugural address in 1933, when he stated that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

Roosevelt was trying to assure the public that it is both possible and necessary to minimise theimpact of fear. His was a positive vision of a future where fear would be put in its place by asociety that believed in itself. Today, politicians are far more likely to advise the public to feareverything, including fear itself.


13/19


The ability to express our thoughts is only meaningful if it is utilized. Only through investigation of howour cultures create the need to export our individual power to external authorities can we overcomethe forces that are making our lives meaninglessFromm 41Erich Fromm received his Ph.D. in sociology from Heidelberg. He was an internationally renownedsocialpsychologist, psychoanalyst, and humanistic philosopher. Escape from Freedom pg.240-243
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychology


14/19



15/19



16/19


Overlooking the ways our cultural practices breed fascism is the greatest mistake we can make it guarantees the exportation of our power that destroys the meaning of our lives and is thegreatest danger to humanity

Fromm 41

Erich Fromm received his Ph.D. in sociology from Heidelberg. He was an internationally renownedsocialpsychologist, psychoanalyst, and humanistic philosopher. Escape from Freedom pg.240
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychology


17/19


As debaters, we have the ability to modify not only our own culture but teach others how tomodify theirs. Our activity is the most critical component of revolution when we exercise ourfreedom, we are training ourselves how to teach others to reclaim their power.

Lakey 68

George Lakey is the Eugene M. Lang Visiting Professor for Issues in Social Change at Swarthmore CollegeStrategy for a Living Revolution pg. 62 64 1968 printed in 1972


18/19



19/19


Documents

Mind Control 1ac