Social Credit And Western Canadian Radicalism

Opinion: Kenney sowed Albertans' anger; will he reap the whirlwind?

TREVOR W. HARRISON

Updated: May 4, 2019

Alberta United Conservative leader Jason Kenney on election night at Big Four Roadhouse on the Stampede grounds in Calgary on Tuesday, April 16, 2019. DARREN MAKOWICHUK / DARREN MAKOWICHUK/POSTMEDIA

The dominant narrative since Alberta’s election is that the NDP lost because their campaign was based on fear. There is undoubtedly some truth in this.

But the basis of the UCP’s victory should not be left unexamined. Some might think that its central theme was “hope.” And, again, hope was part of it.

But the UCP’s central theme throughout the campaign was not an uplifting Obama-like call to one’s better angels, but rather a Trump-like encouragement to populist anger. Jason Kenney re-emphasized and embellished this anger in his speech on election night.

Far from a victory speech, Kenney’s speech had an Old Testament quality: a stern tone of anger and vengeance to be visited upon Alberta’s enemies. Kenney quickly worked his supporters into a near frenzy with repeated promises to go after such, environmental organizations first among them. Many observers, this scribe included, found Kenney’s comments singling out these organizations for retribution, and the angry response of his followers, frightening, and frankly far too close to extremist parallels elsewhere, both recent and past.

Alberta has a long and sordid history of going after various groups, what former premier Ralph Klein never failed to term “special interests,” among them (besides environmentalists), social activists, unionists, and academics. Defining the enemies without — e.g., Quebec, B.C., or Ottawa — is often matched with efforts to seek out the enemies within. Primed with dollops of conspiracy-laced Kool-Aid, Kenney’s supporters drank even more deeply on election night of the anger served up by Kenney.

Anger is not, in itself, a necessarily bad thing. There are many things we should be angry about: child poverty, pointless wars, and yes, global warming.

The anger and fear felt by thousands of unemployed Albertans or by others whose wages have been constrained is understandable. But one should always be certain — factually accurate — in who or what should be the cause of anger and measured in one’s response so that the problem is not made worse.

Much of Kenney’s campaign deliberately spread falsehoods regarding Alberta’s current financial difficulties and those of the oil sector in particular. Economists and others, from across the political spectrum, pointed out repeatedly these falsehoods. Equalization is not a theft of money from Alberta. The carbon tax is not a left-wing conspiracy. (It is, in fact, a policy endorsed by conservative economists and large oil companies.) And Alberta is not saddled with a crippling debt. (It has a debt-to-GDP level the envy of any other province in Canada and most national states.)

On the issue of pipelines itself, the hold-up on their construction is not due to a cabal of environmental groups, whose funding is greatly dwarfed by that of oil companies. The idea that American environmental groups worked to lock in Canadian oil so that American oil companies would not face competition is loopy on the face of it.

The causes of a delay in getting pipelines built, the issue that motivated the UCP and led to the NDP’s defeat, are many. There are technical, jurisdictional, environmental, and financial issues. There is also the Supreme Court-mandated need for broad consultation, especially with Indigenous peoples.

For many Albertans, the process has seemed slow, too slow. But that’s how modern societies and economies function; indeed, it is how democracies work. Promises to make the trains run on time by merely snapping one’s fingers and cutting all regulations are the life-blood of authoritarians and con men; see Donald Trump. And, in addition to being politically dangerous, such promises also too often miss the complexities of the real problem at hand.

Anger obscures the serious issues underlying Alberta’s recent elections, notably the province’s continued dependence on oil at a time when global forces — overproduction, slumping prices, and the growing prominence of other sources of energy — make that dependence even more problematic.

Both fear and anger, if unchecked, can have unintended and dangerous consequences. Having tied his promises so heavily to the winds of anger will Kenney — and Alberta — now reap the whirlwind?

Trevor Harrison is a professor of sociology at the University of Lethbridge and director of Parkland Institute, an Alberta-wide research network.

AND HERE IS THE OTHER SIDE FROM RIGHT OF CENTRE JOHN IVISON 

John Ivison: Behind Jason Kenney's bluster, there is real rage in Alberta
One poll he cited in Ottawa indicates up to half of his province’s citizens support the concept of secession from the Canadian federation


John Ivison
May 2, 2019

OTTAWA — Alberta’s newly anointed premier, Jason Kenney, returned to Ottawa to start the fight against the federal government he promised during the recent provincial election campaign.

The former federal Conservative cabinet minister was appearing before the Senate energy committee Thursday, as part of its hearings into C-69, the Liberal government’s impact assessment legislation — what critics call the “No More Pipelines” bill.

Kenney put on a bold face and played his hand for a hundred times what it was worth.

He said the bill will do lasting harm to Canada’s reputation as a place to do business and, if passed in its current form, would be subject to an immediate constitutional challenge by his government.

“It is an obvious and flagrant violation of our exclusive constitutional jurisdiction to regulate the production of our natural resources,” he said, citing section 92 of the Constitution Act to intimidate those who might rather stick hot pins in their eyes than read statutes.

Section 92 (a) is clear that provinces retain exclusive jurisdiction over the development, conservation and management of non-renewable resources.

But section 91 is equally clear about the federal government’s exclusivity when it comes to oceans, inland fisheries, shipping, federal lands and waters.

As Kenney likely knows, he is 27 years too late to threaten a constitutional challenge. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Old Man River Dam case that the Constitution is not divided into watertight compartments.


The new premier cited a poll that indicated as many as 50 per cent of his province’s citizens support the concept of secession from the Canadian federation

Stewart Elgie, a professor in the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa, said that Kenney is blowing smoke. “As Pierre Trudeau said: ‘Fish swim.’ Air, water and wildlife all move across borders,” he said. “If an oilsands mine affects fisheries or migratory birds or endangered species or greenhouse gases, the federal government always has an interest.”

But if Kenney’s bluster was overstated, the anger he conveyed on behalf of Albertans was not.

The new premier cited a poll that indicated as many as 50 per cent of his province’s citizens support the concept of secession from the Canadian federation.

“If there was 50 per cent support for Quebec secession, can you imagine a federal government bringing forward a bill that was a direct and obvious intrusion into provincial jurisdiction, and which weakened Quebec’s largest industry? I submit that would be unthinkable and no responsible federal government would do it,” he said.

He admitted many people were probably blowing off steam when they said they wanted to leave Canada, but he said there is a growing crisis of national unity that will be exacerbated by C-69 and the related proposed tanker ban, C-48.

There is no doubt that people are angry — post-election focus groups have indicated as much.

But, in part, they are furious because politicians like Kenney have incited and polarized opinion by pointing to enemies at every turn. In his testimony at committee, he lambasted U.S. foundations for funding a campaign to landlock Canadian energy, and at staff in the Liberal government who used to work for environmental organizations that were backed financially by those foundations.

This conspiracy theory suggests the Liberal government has sabotaged efforts to develop the oilsands, as part of a long-term plan to bottleneck the Canadian energy sector by frustrating pipeline development.

Environment Minister Catherine McKenna followed Kenney at the committee and while she might not be everyone’s cup of chai latte, on development she was unequivocal: “I want these projects to go ahead. We’ve got to get our act together and that is the intent of C-69.”

It is a flawed bill — injecting the use of “Indigenous knowledge,” gender-based analysis and other social outcomes into the environmental assessment of large resource projects. It is not popular with industry — Rich Kruger, chief executive of Imperial Oil, said in an interview the bill is likely to increase costs and timelines.

But it was amended more than 100 times as it moved through the House of Commons and there are opportunities for the Senate to alter it further before it receives Royal Assent.

The anti-development conspiracy theory goes too far. Kenney asserted the Liberals “strangled” Energy East, which they did. But it was already on life-support after President Donald Trump approved the Keystone XL pipeline. Justin Trudeau killed Northern Gateway but he approved the Trans Mountain expansion (then bought the pipeline) and also approved the massive Pacific Northwest liquified natural gas project.

As Amarjeet Sohi, the natural resources minister, told the committee, the courts have placed a constitutional obligation on government to engage in a meaningful two-way dialogue with Indigenous groups, listen to their concerns and make serious efforts to accommodate those concerns. In the absence of such engagement, the courts will continue to send resource projects back to the drawing board.

Kenney’s charge is that C-69 completely misses the balance between environmental protection and economic development.

The pendulum certainly seems to have swung too far in favour of obstructing resource development.

But there remains the prospect that the track record before the courts may improve, if Indigenous Canadians are fully engaged in the process.

C-69, for all its many flaws, should not be a casus belli between Alberta and the federal government.

IN REGARD TO ALBERTA'S HISTORIC GRIEVANCES WITH EASTERN CANADA  IT LED TO LEFT WING REFORM MOVEMENTS LIKE THE ONE BIG UNION 

The Edmonton General Strike of 1919 - Eugene Plawiuk - Libcom.org

https://libcom.org/library/edmonton-general-strike-1919-eugene-plawiuk

Sep 21, 2007 - Eugene Plawiuk's account of the Edmonton general strike of 1919 which was sparked off in solidarity with the general strike in Winnipeg,.

Calgary 1919: The Birth of the OBU and the General ... - Libcom.org

https://libcom.org/library/calgary-1919-birth-obu-general-strike-eugene-plawiuk

Sep 21, 2007 - Eugene Plawiuk's history of the Calgary general strike of 1919, which started off as a sympathy strike for the Winnipeg general strike and soon ...

AND THE COOPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH FEDERATION (CCF) IN THE THIRTY YEARS PAST BECOMING A PROVINCE IN 1905 

THE CCF THE ORIGINAL REFORM MOVEMENT - OoCities

www.oocities.org/capitolhill/5202/ccf.htm

In reality both the Klein Conservatives and the Manning Reform party have their ... that gave birth to the original 'reform' party the CCF (Cooperative Commonwealth ... REFORM MOVEMENT is the work and sole property of Eugene W. Plawiuk.

NOT JUST ALBERTA BUT THE WESTERN PROVINCES WERE UNDER MANITOBA BEFORE THEY WERE GRANTED PROVINCEHOOD

GRIEVANCES AGAINST ONTARIO AND OTTAWA WERE BORN AND BRED IN REBELLION OF THE METIS AND LOUIS RIEL IN THE PRAIRIES  SEE MY REBEL YELL 

AS WELL AS MY HISTORY OF THE ALBERTA SOCIAL CREDIT MOVEMENT

Social Credit And Western Canadian Radicalism

The history of Alberta Alienation and the autonomous farmer worker resistance to Ottawa, the seat of political and economic power of the mercantilist state, dates back to the founding of the province one hundred years ago.

 SEE   Canada's First Internment Camps CANADA'S RACIST HISTORY OF EXPLOITATION OF IMMIGRANT WORKERS 

Populism and Producerism

With the recent debate on the Wheat Board there has been a focus in Federal politics on Western Farmers. The farmers movement in Western Canada influenced politics in Canada both left and right for the past ninety years and still is.

It is the politics of producerism. It's populism is deeply political, and its producerism is the source of its critique of the capitalist monopoly marketplace.

When it is used by the right wing such as the Reform party, it is used as an attack on state monopolies. When used by Social Credit it was the monopoly of the banks. When used by the left such as the CCF it was an attack on monopoly capitalism and its state.

FINALLY SEE MY ANALYSIS OF THE ALBERTA NDP AFTER THEY BECAME GOVERNMENT IN 2015 THE ALBERTA NDP THE PARTY OF OIL WORKERS

THE COINCIDENTAL BIRTH OF THE NEW DEMOCRATS AND THE OIL INDUSTRY IN ALBERTA

Climate studies fail to credit Indigenous communities

29 Apr 2019

Most climate science studies based on Indigenous knowledge systems fail to adequately engage local communities, according to a literature review. As a result, researchers are overlooking centuries’ worth of data, and leaving important contributions uncredited.

“Indigenous communities maintain intergenerational longitudinal data, on the scale of hundreds to thousands of years, regarding geophysical and biological processes,” says Dominique David-Chavez of Colorado State University, US.

 “These knowledge systems remain vastly underrepresented and unacknowledged in the sciences despite countless contributions. Among academic scientists this would be considered ethical misconduct, yet it persists between non-Indigenous scientists and Indigenous knowledge holders.”

David-Chavez and Michael Gavin of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Germany, ranked 125 studies published in the last 20 years by how closely the authors collaborated with the community. At the bottom of the scale was work described as “extractive”: all decisions were made by researchers, with community members involved on a merely contractual basis.

A growing number of Indigenous community members – myself included – represent the first generation in their family with access to higher education and leadership roles in the sciences    Dominique David-Chavez

The team found that levels of community participation varied globally, with engagement appearing greatest in North America. But overall 87% of the articles were extractive. What’s more, these extractive studies were far less likely to measure up to six criteria David-Chavez and Gavin adopted from United Nations and other expert working-group guidelines. 

These measured the work’s accessibility and relevance to the community; whether Indigenous community members’ contributions and intellectual property were acknowledged and respected; whether appropriate ethical standards were followed; and whether the outcomes were of benefit to the community.

At the other end of the scale from “extractive” were studies where the community had control of the research process. “These studies were initiated in mutual agreement between Indigenous community members and outside researchers, requiring that the community provide explicit consent for a study to occur,” says David-Chavez.

The methods in the high-ranking studies show how climate-science research can employ Indigenous knowledge systems more collaboratively. Measures include disseminating findings among the community, using Indigenous languages, and training local researchers. For these practices to become commonplace, however, all participants in the process must take the issue seriously.

“We have developed a series of guiding questions for publishers, proposal reviewers and researchers alike to reflect on their own role in addressing ethical integrity in research,” says David-Chavez.

The researcher sees one of the most promising long-term pathways for addressing these challenges as supporting and learning from a new generation of Indigenous research scientists and data stewards.

“A growing number of Indigenous community members – myself included – represent the first generation in their family with access to higher education and leadership roles in the sciences,” she says. “As they engage in their respective fields, they often do so with the added perspective of Indigenous knowledge systems and values, including an unparalleled relational accountability when engaging with their own communities and homelands.”

David-Chavez and Gavin reported the findings in 

Environmental Research Letters (ERL), 

a sister publication of Physics World.

The Jasons: The Secret History of the Science's Postwar Elite PART II

The Jasons: The Secret History of the Science's Postwar Elite , ANN FINKBEINER , Viking, New York, 2006. $27.95 (304 pp.). ISBN 0-670-03489-4 Buy at Amazon
Physics Today 59, 10, 63 (2006); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.238708

Ann Finkbeiner’s The Jasons: The Secret History of Science’s Postwar Elite is an excellent book that not only thoughtfully recites the history of the JASON group but also identifies the conflict of values faced to this day by physicists who become involved in national security affairs while at the same time they try to preserve their independence. The subtitle of the book, however, is misleading: The author relates a great deal of detailed information without breaking any “secrets.” JASON members are generally less than eager to talk about their association and work with the group, and the majority of JASON reports are classified. Finkbeiner recounts some of the critical events without completing the story, which is more in deference to the wishes of those she interviewed during the process of generating her book than it is to maintaining secrecy.


During World War II, US physicists demonstrated that they could get things done if they were well supported but not directed by the federal government; accomplishments include developments in nuclear energy and weapons, radar, and rockets. Subsequently, most physicists involved in the war effort returned to their academic pursuits after the war ended. In an unorganized way, several of them continued to consult with government or industry on military matters, and some rotated between academia and industry. After Sputnik 1 was launched in 1957, the government promoted science advice to the presidential level and made a commitment to revitalize American science. Physicists themselves, mainly under the leadership of John A. Wheeler, attempted to create a full-time organization for military research, but their endeavors inspired little enthusiasm.


Separately, a small group, principally Marvin “Murph” Goldberger, Ken Watson, and Keith Brueckner, proposed to establish the JASON group to pursue national security work compatible with full-time academic duties. The name JASON, inspired by the Greek mythological hero who led the Argonauts in the search for the Golden Fleece, was suggested by Goldberger’s wife. The group was supported by Charles Townes, who at the time headed the Institute for Defense Analyses. In turn, IDA was supported by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), which was under the leadership of Herbert York and reported to the newly created Directorate of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) at the Pentagon. The entire lineup of JASON and the research agencies was populated by physicists who had been colleagues on the Manhattan Project. The contractor handling the administrative work, such as travel, security, and financial matters, shifted from IDA to SRI International to the MITRE Corporation.


JASON members have had a love–hate relationship with ARPA and its successor, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Incoming heads of the agency generally resented the independence of JASON, but Finkbeiner reports that after some experience, each director recognized that the value generated by the JASONs exceeded their “nuisance.” The matter came to a climax under the administration of President George W. Bush, when in 2001 the incoming head of DARPA, Anthony Tether, demanded that JASON add to its ranks two nonacademics and one academic prescribed by the administration. Traditionally, members had been selected by the JASON steering committee; thus the JASONs objected to the administration’s plans, and DARPA cancelled their contract. However, the contract was later reinstated by DDR&E through a process not recounted by the author in polite deference to the administration.


During its history JASON made many technical contributions to military research, in addition to serving as a reviewer of frequently dubious initiatives from the military establishment. It made the concept of adaptive optics practical by proposing the use of a laser-generated, artificial guide star. JASON showed that ceasing nuclear tests of any nuclear yield would not harm security any more than permitting very small undetectable nuclear explosions. The work of JASON also diversified to include engineering, oceanography, climatology, computerand information sciences, and more recently biological issues with security implications.


The most controversial JASON contribution, which was developed during the Vietnam War, was the electronic barrier, whose origin and final demise is ably described in Finkbeiner’s book. The barrier required US sensors to be airdropped along potential infiltration routes. The goal of the sensors was to detect infiltrators on those routes for the US to bomb, thus discouraging the incursion of North Vietnamese troops along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. A JASON study had shown that the bombing campaigns in Vietnam were ineffective. The barrier was intended to decrease the level of violence, but it was never fully deployed. The instruments were instead diverted by the US Air Force to relieve the siege of Khe Sanh and assist the continued bombing campaign. The role of the JASONs in originating the electronic barrier became public and—notwithstanding their constructive intent—led to extensive protests, some of which were quite ugly, against JASON members on their home campuses.


The episode illustrates the tensions inherent in having academic physicists engage in military research. I believe that most JASON members, in conformance with the views of most fellow academics, are for arms control at heart and basically strive for a de-emphasis of violence as a means for settling international conflicts. At the same time, they make their skills available to the military establishment as independent scientists, maintaining with merit that the objective analyses will lead to more rationality in the military arena. The military is well aware of the basic outlook of most JASONs but appreciates their talents and objectivity.


To demonstrate JASON’s dilemma, Finkbeiner cites the well-known anecdote about three people, one of whom is a physicist, sentenced to death by guillotine. During the first two attempted executions, the blade gets stuck, and the two are freed. But the physicist takes a look at the guillotine and says, “I think I can tell you what’s wrong with it.” The correspondence to JASON’s activities may not be too remote.


Today, independent scientific advice on national security has largely been eliminated in the top levels of government. Thus the independence of outsiders who operate on the inside, like the JASONs, is a unique asset today in the national security arena. This fact is duly noted and documented in Finkbeiner's very readable book.

ROBOTS
|
By Ben Sullivan
|
Jan 19 2017, 10:45am
Elite Scientists Have Told the Pentagon That AI Won't Threaten Humanity

JASON advisory group says Elon Musk’s singularity warnings are unfounded, but a focus on AI for the Dept. of Defense is integral.

A new report authored by a group of independent US scientists advising the US Dept. of Defense (DoD) on artificial intelligence (AI) claims that perceived existential threats to humanity posed by the technology, such as drones seen by the public as killer robots, are at best "uninformed".

Still, the scientists acknowledge that AI will be integral to most future DoD systems and platforms, but AI that could act like a human "is at most a small part of AI's relevance to the DoD mission". Instead, a key application area of AI for the DoD is in augmenting human performance.

Perspectives on Research in Artificial Intelligence and Artificial General Intelligence Relevant to DoD, first reported by Steven Aftergood at the Federation of American Scientists, has been researched and written by scientists belonging to JASON, thehistorically secretive organization that counsels the US government on scientific matters.

Outlining the potential use cases of AI for the DoD, the JASON scientists make sure to point out that the growing public suspicion of AI is "not always based on fact", especially when it comes to military technologies. Highlighting SpaceX boss Elon Musk's opinion that AI "is our biggest existential threat" as an example of this, the report argues that these purported threats "do not align with the most rapidly advancing current research directions of AI as a field, but rather spring from dire predictions about one small area of research within AI, Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)".



A USAF Global Hawk UAV rests in its hangar on the flightline of this desert base. Image: Tech. Sgt. Mike Hammond/U.S. Air Force/U.S. Air Force

AGI, as the report describes, is the pursuit of developing machines that are capable of long-term decision making and intent, i.e. thinking and acting like a real human. "On account of this specific goal, AGI has high visibility, disproportionate to its size or present level of success," the researchers say.

Motherboard reached out to the MITRE Corporation, the non-profit organisation JASON's reports are run through, as well as Richard Potember, a scientist listed on the report, but neither responded to emails before this article was published. A spokesperson for the Defense Department told Motherboard in an email, "DoD relies on the technical insights provided by the JASONs to complement DoD's internal assessments as we set our strategic direction. All reports and recommendations are read and carefully considered in this context as we make investment decisions for research initiatives and future programs of record."


In an email on Thursday, Aftergood told Motherboard, "JASON reports are purely advisory. They do not set policy or determine DoD choices. On the other hand, they are highly valued, very informative and often influential. The reports are prepared only because DoD asks for them and is prepared to pay for them."

Aftergood said that JASON reports act as a "reality check" for Pentagon officials, helping them decide what's real and what's in the realm of possibility.

In recent years, the purported malicious intent of artificial intelligence is an idea that has flourished in the media, compounded by much more realistic fears of entire employment sectors being replaced by robots. This issue is not helped by the conflation of robotics and AI by some media outlets and even politicians, as illustrated last week by a debate among members of the European Parliament on whether robots should attain legal status as persons.

Highly publicized recent AI victories against humans, such as Google's AlphaGo win, don't illustrate any breakthrough in general machine cognition, the report argues. Instead, these wins rely on Deep Learning processes on Deep Neural Networks (DNNs)—processes that can be trained to generate an appropriate output in response to an input. Think a dog sitting to your command, rather than a dog knowing to sit itself.

"The two main approaches to AI are nothing like how humans must live and learn,"


Andrew Owen Martin, senior technical analyst at the Tungsten Network, a collaborative team consisting of math, AI, and computer science experts, and secretary of The Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour (AISB), agrees with the JASON report, arguing that the public's and other high-profile technologists' fear of existential threats is overblown.

"Any part of human experience that's at all interesting is too poorly defined to be described in either of the two main methods AI researchers have," he tells Motherboard. "The implication here is that the two main approaches to AI are nothing like how humans must live and learn, and hence there's no reason to assume they will ever achieve what human learning can."

Nevertheless, AGI is recognised by the JASON scientists as being somewhat pertinent in the DoD's future, but only if it were to make substantial progress. "That AI and—if it were to advance significantly—AGI are of importance to DoD is so self-evident that it needs little elucidation here," reads the report. "Weapons systems and platforms with varying degrees of autonomy exist today in all domains of modern warfare, including air, sea (surface and underwater), and ground."

Northrop Grumman's X-47B uncrewed bomber is given as one example, and DARPA'sACTUV submarine hunter is given as another. Systems like these could no doubt be improved by enhanced artificial intelligence, but the scientists note that while these systems have some degrees of autonomy, they are in "no sense a step…towards 'autonomy' in the sense of AGI". Instead, AI is used to augment human operators, such as flying to pre-determined locations without the need for a human piloting the systems.



DARPA's ACTUV uncrewed submarine tracker. Image: DARPA

Yet, while not categorically autonomous, AI-augmented weapon systems are obviously are still pain points for opponents of their use in military scenarios. Max Tegmark, cosmologist and co-founder of the Future of Life Institute, a think tank established to support research into safeguarding the future of human life, tells Motherboard that he agrees with JASON's view that existential threats are unlikely in the near term. However, Tegmark believes the imminent issue of autonomous weapons is "crucial".

"All responsible nations will be better off if an international treaty can prevent an arms race in lethal autonomous weapons, which would ultimately proliferate and empower terrorists and other unscrupulous non-state actors," he says.


So human-like autonomy is still a long way off, if not impossible, and the goalposts keeps moving too, according to JASON. "The boundary between existing AI and hoped-for AGI keeps being shifted by AI successes, and will continue to be," say the scientists. Even military applications for technologies such as self-driving tanks may be at least a decade off. Discussing the progress of self-driving cars by civilian companies such as Google, the JASON scientists conclude, "going down this path will require at least a decade of challenging work. The work on self-driving cars has consumed substantial resources. After millions of hours of on-road experiments and training, performance is only now becoming acceptable in benign environments. Acceptability here refers to civilian standards of safety and trust; for military use the standards might be somewhat laxer, but the performance requirements would likely be tougher."


This article must be concluded, however, with the looming caveat that the entire JASON report is based on upon unclassified research. "The study looks at AI research at the '6.1' level (that is, unclassified basic research)," say the scientists. "We were not briefed on any DoD developmental efforts or programs of record. All briefings to JASON were unclassified, and were largely from the academic community."


Could America's military be working on top-secret artificial general intelligence programs years ahead of those known about in the public sphere? Probably not, ponders Martin. "AGI isn't around the corner, it's not even possible. I don't mean that it's 'too difficult' like 'man will never fly' or 'man will never land on the moon', I'm saying it's hopelessly misguided like 'man will never dig a tunnel to the moon'."


Update 01/23/17: This article has been updated to include a statement from the Department of Defense.




ALSO SEE
JASONS PART I

THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX (MIC)
AND THE PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY TODAY

(May the Fourth be with you

Actor Mark Hamill, known for playing Luke Skywalker, shares stories from Star Wars history.

Mark Hamill, the actor known for playing Luke Skywalker, shares stories from Star Wars history.

About Retropod

Retropod is a show for history lovers, featuring stories about the past, rediscovered. Host Mike Rosenwald introduces you to history’s most colorful characters - forgotten heroes, overlooked villains, dreamers, explorers, world changers.

A DAY IN THE LIFE 

A DAY IN HOLLYWOOD 
A NIGHT IN THE UKRAINE 

Economics
Pig ‘Ebola’ Virus Sends Shock Waves Through Global Food ChainBy Dan Murtaugh and Enda Curran
May 2, 2019

A worker disinfects pigs at a farm in Zhejiang province in August 2018.
Photographer: VCG via Getty Images

African swine fever in China will impact global food supplyVirus will move markets, may influence geopolitics: Rabobank

Pig ‘Ebola’ Virus Sends Shock Waves Through Global Food Chain

What started with a few dozen dead pigs in northeastern China is sending shock waves through the global food chain.

Last August, a farm with fewer than 400 hogs on the outskirts of Shenyang was found to harbor African swine fever, the first ever occurrence of the contagious viral disease in the country with half the world’s pigs. Forty-seven head had died, triggering emergency measures including mass culling and a blockade to stop the transportation of livestock. Within days, a government notice proclaimed the outbreak “effectively controlled.”

Read More: The Deadly African Virus That’s Killing Asia’s Pigs

It was too late. By then, the disease had literally gone viral, dispersed across hundreds of miles in sickened animals, contaminated food, and in dirt and dust on truck tires and clothing. Nine months later, the contagion has spread nationwide, crossed borders to Mongolia, Vietnam and Cambodia, and bolstered meat markets globally.

While official estimates count 1 million culled hogs, slaughter data suggest 100 times more will be removed from China’s 440 million-strong swine herd in 2019, the Chinese zodiac’s “year of the pig.” The U.S. Department of Agriculture forecast in April a decline of 134 million head -- equivalent to the entire annual output of American pigs -- and the worst slump since the department began counting China’s pigs in the mid 1970s.

Pig Out

China's hog output is predicted to slide 20% in 2019 to a 17-year low
Source: USDA

“This is an unprecedented situation,” said Arlan Suderman, chief economist for INTL FCStone Inc., who has been analyzing commodity markets for almost four decades. “This will impact food prices globally.”
Like Ebola

The strain of African swine fever spreading in Asia is undeniably nasty, killing virtually every pig it infects by a hemorrhagic illness reminiscent of Ebola in humans. It’s not known to sicken people, however.

The harm to pigs is especially critical for China, with a $128 billion pork industry and the world’s third-highest per-capita consumption.

Pork Lovers
China's 2017 per-capita pork consumption was almost triple the global average
Source: OECD

China’s hog herd may decline as much as 30 percent, said Juan R. Luciano, chief executive officer of Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., one of the biggest agricultural commodity traders.

“China will clearly need to import substantial amounts of pork and likely other meat and poultry to satisfy demand,” Luciano told analysts on an April 26 conference call. Chinese meat purchases may also boost sales of soybean meal, a source of livestock feed, in North America, Brazil, and Europe, he said.

Wholesale pork prices in China are already 21 percent higher than a year ago, and have risen in the U.S. and EU after processors sent more of their product to China. The price of bacon in Spain jumped about 20 percent during March, while pork shoulders climbed 17 percent in Germany, according to Interporc, a Madrid-based industry group.

Needing Meat
China will boost its imports to plug a domestic pork shortage
Source: USDA

“The potential quantum of this is huge,” said Angus Gidley-Baird, a commodities analyst with Rabobank in Sydney. “It’s the biggest thing to affect the animal-protein market this year, and will probably have a lasting effect for a number of years. It will move markets and possibly influence geopolitical situations.”

The rally has spread to other meats. Australia’s beef exports to China surged 67 percent in the first quarter. In Brazil, shares in meatpackers such as JBS SA and Minerva SAhave soared amid optimism of stronger sales to China.
Contagion Effect

Increased Chinese meat imports will result in higher food costs that impact on economies across the globe. The extent of those ripple effects depends on how quickly the epidemic can be stopped. Official data show a slowdown in the number of pigs affected since late 2018, supporting the government’s assessment that the disease is “under effective control.”

Analysts from Morgan Stanley to Citigroup Inc. to the U.S. Department of Agriculture aren’t convinced that the disease isn’t still spreading.

Pork is the largest component of China’s consumer price basket, and its influence on other meat prices means that a doubling of pork prices in China would boost the country’s inflation by 5.4 percent, all other things being equal, according to Citigroup, which is forecasting a 2.6 percent inflation rate for the country in 2019.

The Chinese government will likely treat any pork-related inflation as an extraordinary event separate from general cost increases, said Liu Ligang, chief China economist at Citigroup. in Hong Kong. Still, if rising pork prices elevate inflation beyond a ceiling rate of 3 percent, it could constrain the People’s Bank of China from taking aggressive measures to boost the economy.
Supply Shock

“The more field studies people tend to do, the more fear they tend to have,” Liu said. “This is a supply shock, not a demand shock, and as a result this could be transitory. But this could be a prolonged supply shock given the severity of the disease.”

The epidemic could have political repercussions as well. Xi Jinping may want to finalize trade negotiations with U.S. President Donald Trump to both ease the importation of much-needed pork, poultry and beef supplies, and to enable Chinese lawmakers to focus solely on quelling outbreaks, said INTL FCStone’s Suderman.



Officers inspect pork products intercepted from high risk areas of African swine fever.
Photographer: Costfoto/Barcroft Images via Getty Images

The contagion is also highlighting the urgent need for government investment in outbreak preparedness, said Amanda Glassman, chief operating officer at the Center for Global Development.

African swine fever in China shows that “animal and human disease surveillance systems are not working as well as they should,” she said. “This should concern everyone given that the potential economic impact of large-scale outbreaks is huge.”

— With assistance by Jason Gale, Irene Garcia Perez, and Hannah Dormido
(Updates market value in 10th paragraph.)

SEPARATED AT BIRTH ABRAMS & GARGAMEL

GLOBAL GENERAL STRIKE AGAINST CAPITALIST CLIMATE CRISIS

WW3.0
Nuclear Weapons: What Are They Good For?

China and Russia are reviving one of the most heated debates of the Cold War. That’s not a bad thing.

By Tobin Harshaw
April 8, 2019, 6:00 AM MDT

Who’s building hypersonic missiles? 

Photographer: Tyrone Siu/AFP/Getty Images

With both China and Russia now threatening U.S. global primacy, the world has entered a new era of great-power competition. The struggle is playing out in diplomacy, trade, and politics, of course. But some of its gravest implications are military.

Ukraine and the South China Sea are only the most obvious hot spots. The three countries are vying for influence from East Africa to Latin America to the ever-melting Arctic. And as President Donald Trump made clear with his recent decision to withdraw from America’s 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Weapons Treaty with Russia, the threat of nuclear conflict may be rising again to Cold War levels.

The challenge for today’s military planners is to prevent nuclear war as thoroughly as their Cold War predecessors did. For it’s true that, since 1945, no atomic weapons have been dropped in anger. With the potential exception of the Cuban missile crisis, the possibility never came very close. And over the past three decades, the major powers’ nuclear arsenals have steadily been reduced.




The removal of the ex-Soviet arsenal from the newly independent states in the 1990s was a military and diplomatic success story. And although a handful of countries have joined the nuclear club with small arsenals, only one of them — North Korea — is a rogue state, and no terrorist group has obtained even a dirty bomb.

In 1986, nearly 65,000 warheads existed around the globe; today, there are roughly 10,000. And except, again, for North Korea, nuclear-weapons testing has ceased.

Now, all that progress is in danger of being rolled back. With the demise of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, new efforts toward nuclear deterrence are needed, with all three major powers involved.

Related: Updating America’s Nuclear Arsenal for a New Age

As it did during the Cold War, the U.S. will want to simultaneously blunt the nuclear threats posed by Russia and China and bolster its own nuclear arsenal for the purpose of deterrence. But today its choices of weaponry will need to be different.


Back when the U.S. stood off against the Soviet Union, deterrence was based largely on the concept of mutually assured destruction. The likelihood of annihilation presumably kept either side from doing something thoughtless. Now, the nuclear powers are increasingly considering a different strategy that involves the use of nuclear weapons with yields low enough to limit their destruction to a discrete battlefield.

Unlike a Russian intercontinental ballistic missile capable of devastating all of New York City, for example, a tactical nuke could be small and precise enough to take out lower Manhattan but leave much of the suburbs unscathed. Such a weapon could be deployed to buy time in fighting a conventional war — say, if Chinese troops were to overrun Taiwan or Russians were to move into the Baltics.


This strategy is one Russia appears to already envision. According to the Trump administration’s recent Nuclear Posture Review, Moscow’s “escalate to de-escalate” scenario for conventional battles involves using tactical nuclear strikes weak enough to make a full-blown atomic response seem disproportionate. The review recommended expanding the U.S. arsenal of battlefield weapons as a “flexible” nuclear option.

This potential change in posture is leading some U.S. military planners to reconsider its age-old nuclear triad, which relies on weapons positioned on land, at sea and in the air. The land-based weapons, in particular, may no longer be worth the expense. These are the massive intercontinental ballistic missiles held in underground silos in the Great Plains.

The Minuteman III carries up to three thermonuclear warheads, with a total destructive power nearly 100 times that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. It is devastatingly accurate, able to strike within 200 yards of its target after an 8,000-mile journey in and out of the atmosphere. But once it is launched, it cannot be turned back. What role is there for such a doomsday machine in a limited nuclear war?

The Air Force has asked Northrop Grumman and Boeing for a new ICBM to replace the Minuteman III, one that could be in place by 2030 and remain viable until at least 2075. Initial cost estimates range from $63 to $85 billion. That’s real money even by Pentagon standards. It would be smarter to spend far less by simply modernizing the current missiles, and to use the savings for increased spending on more flexible weapons.

As far back as 2011, Admiral Michael Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “Certainly I think a decision will have to be made in terms of whether we keep the triad or drop it down to a dyad.”

The air- and especially sea-based legs have become the backbone of the nuclear deterrent: Submarines are virtually invisible to even the most modern detection technology, and the Navy’s newest Trident ballistic missiles are as nearly as accurate as ICBMs. The Air Force is getting a new long-range stealth bomber, the B-21 Raider, which may be able to operate with no human aboard, to replace its decades-old B-1s and B-2s and perhaps its ancient B-52s.

What’s worrisome is that both services are also considering new nuclear-armed cruise missiles that would make it difficult for a target state to tell whether an attack was conventional or nuclear. That would, as former Secretary of Defense William Perry has warned, carry serious risks of miscalculation and escalation. As threats rise and air defenses improve, it may become necessary to build such risky weapons, but we’re not there yet.

Another fraught issue is weaponizing space, which is banned under a 1967 United Nations treaty. Last fall, Vice President Mike Pence said the U.S. is prepared to consider nuclear weapons in orbit on “the principle that peace comes through strength.” Such thinking is premature, but research is needed now on satellite-based lasers and conventional missiles for offensive and defensive purposes.

Alongside efforts to bolster its aggressive nuclear capabilities, the U.S. military continues to work on missile defense — spending more than $40 billion since Ronald Reagan’s so-called Star Wars dream failed to become a reality. The results have been less than impressive. The U.S. has roughly 50 “kill vehicles” intended to defend against a small-scale intercontinental attack of the sort North Korea might attempt, but the success rate in testing is only about 50 percent. A second system based in Eastern Europe since 2016 uses an on-shore version of the Navy’s excellent Aegis combat system and is intended to protect Europe from an Iranian nuclear attack. But it can’t stop longer-range ballistic missiles.

The Pentagon hopes to develop defensive weapons capable of destroying enemy missiles at the launch pad. Theoretically, that should be easier than knocking them out of the sky, but the technical difficulties have yet to be overcome.

The debate over how best to compile a strong nuclear arsenal will continue with every advance in weaponry, as will arguments over how best to achieve deterrence. It’s obvious that nuclear weapons cannot make all war unthinkable. They have failed to prevent any number of 20th-century fights, including the Arab states’ 1973 invasion of Israel, which even then had a clandestine nuclear program. The U.S. arsenal failed to dissuade North Korea from invading South Korea in 1950, or Saddam Hussein from trying to annex Kuwait. Neither Osama bin Laden nor his Islamic State successors seem to have given nuclear weapons a moment’s worry.

Yet one brutal fact remains as true today as it was in caveman days: If your enemy picks up a rock, you’d better try to find a bigger one of your own. Russia has 4,000-odd nuclear rocks. China has only a few hundred, but it’s racing to build a true nuclear triad and missile-defense systems. Beijing and Moscow are thought to be ahead of the West in developing certain new technologies, including hypersonic missiles that could travel at some two miles per second and can steer themselves after re-entering the earth’s atmosphere.

The Pentagon wants to stay ahead of this escalation, and has the budget to do so — as much as $1 trillion over 30 years to modernize the nuclear arsenal. Nobody wants tensions among the world’s great powers to ever go nuclear. But being prepared for the worst is among the best ways to ensure it will never happen.

ALSO SEE 

THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX (MIC)

AND THE PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY TODAY