Toggle light / dark theme

As the Western media and governments continue poking fun and demonizing a very misunderstood country, there are a group of people who are taking it upon themselves in ignoring the propaganda and instead reaching out with compassion and understanding. These people are visiting and working in North Korea. They’re not North Koreans, but the love and connection they’ve gained with the North Korean people is real and deserve to have their stories told.

DMZ Northern Commander and former American commander, Michael Bassett, hug during the April 2013 Period of Brinksmanship. (Photo credit Joseph Ferris)
DMZ Northern Commander and former American commander, Michael Bassett, hug during the April 2013 Period of Brinksmanship. (Photo credit Joseph Ferris)

I’ve interviewed a few people of importance in gaining greater insight into the country, its people, its military, and its government. It is my goal in providing an open venue for them to speak out and hopefully gain enough attention for others to follow suit.

Here I’ve interviewed Michael Bassett and Felix Abt. Mr. Bassett is a decorated Army Veteran who holds a BA in International Communication from the American University in Washington DC, a graduate certificate in North Korean Affairs from Yonsei University’s Graduate School of International Studies in Seoul, South Korea, and is currently working on his MA in Public Diplomacy from the American University.

He’s served several tours on the DMZ Western Corridor, and has worked in South Korea for unification NGOs. He has been to North Korea several times since 2004 and is a widely published Asian Affairs analyst, a North Korean Affairs specialist, and is known for practicing public diplomacy by facilitating cultural diplomacy projects in the DPRK.

Mr. Abt is a Swiss entrepreneur and expert on doing business in North Korea. He’s the author of A Capitalist in North Korea: My Seven Years in the Hermit Kingdom. From 2002 to 2009, he worked as one of the few Western businessmen in North Korea. He was co-founder and first president of the European Business Association in Pyongyang, a de facto European Chamber of Commerce and the first foreign chamber of commerce. He also co-founded the Pyongyang Business School, imparting market skills in the next generation of leaders.

Previously, Abt worked all over Europe, Africa and Asia as a senior executive for multinationals such as F. Hoffmann-La Roche and the global engineering giant, ABB Group. In 2002, ABB appointed him first as resident country director in North Korea. He went on to become a point man for Western investments in the country, representing several multinational corporations and even founding a business of his own. He is a shareholder in several North Korean joint ventures, and a member of the boards of directors of SMEs of several countries.

Let’s get this out of the way first. Could you tell me your name and what your professional relation is with North Korea and its inhabitants, alongside how many years you’ve been doing so?

Felix Abt: I’m Felix Abt. I have lived and worked for seven years in North Korea and have been doing business with it for the last 11 years. In my e-book book A Capitalist in North Korea, which will also be published as a paperback soon, I’m telling my story. Currently I’m a shareholder in joint venture companies in the DPRK and I’m involved in trade and new projects.

Michael Bassett: I’m Mike Bassett, thanks for having me, BJ. For nearly seven years I’ve been studying North Korea in college through various academic lenses. Because all I knew about North Korea was acquired in my years on the DMZ in the US Army; I realized that I probably didn’t understand North Korea in its proper context. So as an undergrad I began by applying sociological theories to my understanding of them. Namely I began trying to decipher rhetoric from reality, by trying to understand human perceptions based on The Social Construction of Reality Theory. I also started studying US foreign policy around this time. From there my thinking progressed and shifted towards “constructivism,” which is a theoretical approach to understanding international relations; particularly individual state actors and their behavior. From there, I applied my “prism of understanding” to practicing Pyongyangology after I received a graduate certificate in North Korean Affairs. Pyongyangology is a Cold War-era methodology of understanding countries with whom we have little communication with, and who are generally considered to be our enemies.

Pyongyangologists basically look at an actor’s behavior on histograms and uses small bits of information as “indicators” from something such as a photograph, or sentence, in State propaganda or policy, and then compares it to trends and patters over time. Pyongyangology helps analysts to understand who they are based on their behavior. It’s not a complicated science to master, especially if you constantly pay attention to their trends and patterns over a long period of time. There are many Pyongyangologists — whom I call “The Oracles”. When the unprovoked bombing of Yeonpyeong Island happened, I thought it had nothing to do with anything else other than North Korea trying to convince their population of Kim Jung Un’s military “leadership capabilities.” Kim Jung Un was, at the time, a young Four-star General in charge of an Artillery Corps. Kim Jung Il had a stroke and elections appeared inevitable as Kim Jung Il’s health took a rapid decline. They needed “a leader whom they believed could protect their country” (I argue that Kim Jung Un was chosen and groomed for succession since he was a boy). Unprovoked attacks are unacceptable behavior, but I don’t think they meant for anyone to get killed. It’s important to be able to understand that in science, objectivity separates the fact from the fiction. In this case it helped me prove that North Koreans were rational actors and Kim Jung Un was preparing to take power. Pyongyangology isn’t an exact science, so I had to take it another step because it can be inaccurate sometimes and doesn’t really have an impact on anything.

I developed a pedagogical understanding of North Korean behavior and international perceptions/misperceptions of their historical development and worldview (through their eyes). I see them clearly enough to know that there are more effective ways of approaching the conundrum on the peninsula. Within academia and scholarship, “constructivism” and “smart-power” are on the cutting edge of contemporary international relations, and we have only slowly begun understanding and defining them. Training in public diplomacy is the most recent tool that I’ve acquired to my toolkit. I’m about one semester short of earning an Executive Master’s degree focused on Public Diplomacy. My pedagogical understanding and my toolbox have inspired me to facilitate cultural diplomacy projects in North Korea. I now try to take anyone who wants to go, and set up anything I can for them, to create the “space at the end of the bridge for handshakes and hugs.” As cliché as it sounds, my extensive education and experience has mainly taught me the importance of “handshakes and hugs.”

There are other non-State actors who do similar things there and we’re a small crowd that knows of each other. North Korea entered my radar when I was young because my grandfather told me about the orphan he took care of during the Korean War. I have their picture together in my office. My first “interaction” with North Koreans was on the DMZ, where I was stationed for several years and alerted to Imjin River standoffs on a regular basis. My relationship and views of North Koreans has obviously evolved over the years that I’ve made perpetual and relentless, often uncomfortable attempts at trying to understand and interact with them. Living in South Korea for seven years total, and having a half-South Korean daughter has also given me a unique vantage point in the situation. I put politics aside and get together with North Koreans and focus on the things we have in common. That’s essential to understanding their nature in its entirety. I often get a lot of criticism for going to North Korea and doing this. I do it because these are things that bond people together and allow people to grow together and build trust and understanding. If you really want know about anybody, you have to go break bread with them. These endeavors are risky for me – there, and here at home; as well as costly on a financial and personal level. You could call me an activist scholar. I’m only following my heart and being inspired by examples from prestigious role models. I’m doing what I believe in and what I’ve trained to. Nothing more.

Given your extensive visitation and studying of the northern region of Korea, how would you best describe the North Korean people – a collective goal perhaps; their thoughts on their leaders, past media bias on both sides; how they portray foreigners, especially Western ones?

Abt: North Koreans are better informed about the outside world than the outside world about North Korea. Since the U.S. have rejected many times the DPRK’s request to sign a peace treaty and to normalize the relations with the DPRK this country and its people feel stuck in a state of war and under threat to an extent perceived paranoid by Westerners. Westerners and other foreigners are therefore often considered as potential spies and trouble makers.

In a society as strongly Confucian as North Korea, people show respect to the leaders and expect that they take care of their needs, which is often misunderstood by Westerners living in, at least formally, more egalitarian societies.

Bassett: North Korea’s main goal is survival of the Kim regime, the State, and its people – in that order. In this sense, I call them a Machiavellian society. Everyone in North Korea understands the goal of survival and that their leaders sometimes have to make tough choices to protect the security of their state sovereignty. “Survival” is a central part of their collective psyche, like warriors who develop similar instincts in combat. They suffer a collective trauma from war, isolation, and starvation, rolling natural disasters, and perpetual cycles of proxy war “demonization” by the outside world. North Koreans, understandably, have trust issues and are paranoid, but when you can get past those issues with them, you begin to feel how genuine and sincere at heart they really are. They’re a very traditional society and they take great pride in their ability to maintain their traditional purity. When you realize the tremendous efforts they’ve endured to survive against all odds, you can’t help but be touched by their struggle.

North Koreans are people just like anybody else, but they are also products of their historical environment and also of an external environment that doesn’t understand them. Any country on the planet that experienced the same historical circumstances as they did would end up in the same state as them, in my opinion. All the good, all the bad, would be no different. They are misunderstood. They don’t want anything to do with violence, but like a porcupine, they show their “needles” when they feel threatened. Their bellicosity is a deterrence mechanism as well as a mechanism of survival. In reality, they rarely act outwardly aggressive without provocation. Learning to understand North Koreans is not much different to me than learning how to understand an abused child who has grown up with some emotional issues. They are very smart, very rational, and a little “emotionally sensitive.” But once you build some trust with them, they open up to you and become “friends for life” as Rodman said. They’re like the outcast on the playground that behaved badly because they got bullied a lot because nobody understood why they were an outcast in the first place. I’m like the guy at school who invites that kid to sit down for lunch and shoot some hoops afterwards because I want to help them fit in. I want to help them get better and live a normal life again someday. Maybe that’s why Rodman really is the perfect man for the job. He understands them without scholastic rigor because he is like them in many ways.

Their leadership is quite rational and genuinely cares about their people. I used to criticize them for having it considerably better than the lower classes of the population, but I realized that every country has elite classes who hold power and live lavishly while others live oppressed and in deprivation; so I couldn’t carry on with that criticism and still call myself objective. Ethnocentrism is a root of subjectivity and is a factor that contributes to our misunderstanding of a lot of things beyond our borders. North Korea is the ultimate mirror-state, meaning that we in the “Western world” do everything that we criticize them of doing, but we only hold up their reflection. We can compare anything they do to something that we have done at one point or are currently doing. I can’t demonize them and still call myself objective, and nobody else can either without being hypocritical on a direct or indirect level.

Kim Jung Un is a game changer, in my opinion. I’m sure you’ve read my publication on that. In my experience, westerners are starting to be portrayed differently in North Korea than in the past. Their propaganda art that was created decades ago still exists and portrays Westerners as scary-looking evildoers, but these days their state-run newspaper, Rodong Shinmun, is starting to portray westerners with more humanity, while still demonizing our governments when they’re angry with them. They focus on the positive things of our culture, like Disney and sports. It’s not uncommon to see some Disney backpacks on kids or Disney movies on TV; or to see something about sports diplomacy in their Rodong Shinmun’s.

How would you describe the socio-economic conditions of North Korea as a whole? And what would you propose for foreign countries and their governments in handling and treating North Korea to ensure socio-economic stability?

Abt: North Korea is a developing country which has allocated a very significant portion of its GNP to defense for the reasons mentioned before. A comprehensive security agreement as proposed by Nautilus and others is necessary to reduce tensions and to free resources for economic development. Such an agreement would also support the reform process which would allow more small and medium-sized enterprises to emerge, run by private entrepreneurs which would create numerous jobs and give a substantial boost to the economy as it did in China and Vietnam.

Bassett: Simply put, to me, North Korea is still largely maintaining an agricultural revolution, while barely maintaining an industrial revolution, and trying to skip ahead to the technological revolution. They’ve placed great emphasis on science, business, and education and are constantly finding ways to produce and develop, despite all obstacles. Even during total sanctions their GDP increased by about 1.6%. I went to an International Trade Fair in Pyongyang this Spring and they had everything for sale from ionizer watches to smoking cessation products, to dozens of styles of in-country-produced motorcycles, cars, trucks, and heavy machinery. While in the Rason Special Economic Zone I went to the Triangle Bank, exchanged Chinese Rinminbi for North Korean won, and did some shopping in the Free Market. It was basically a North Korean style Wal-Mart. They had basically anything you could find at a regular Wal-Mart. North Koreans have different classes of people. Their socio-economic class is dependent on loyalty to the regime. Those who have familial connections are trusted more to run restaurants, factories, farms, shops, malls, etc, because the economy can easily lead to the downfall of the regime. They maintain a capitalist type of economy while simultaneously being a Machiavellian socialist “monarchy” because they’ve mastered the art of rent-seeking. The government puts loyalists in charge of business and fills the ranks of the entrepreneurial class with their relatives and part of it goes back to the regime who overseas operations. Because of this delicate balance of survival, sovereignty, and development; the division of classes in a country structured so complexly, became a “necessary evil” that they live with to maintain their existence.

Many North Koreans, contrary to popular belief, are quite satisfied living a traditional and simple life, though their “basic needs” are developing. They want more stuff. Kim Jung Un is trying to appease his people and he’s walking a tightrope between providing security, and enduring sanctions. Thus, their conditions are still very harsh much of the year. People still die from simple injuries or preventable situations, though not as frequently as in the past. Freedom of the press is low, although writing and creative writing are very respectable professions because Reading is one of the most popular activities in North Korea and thus quality writers are in high demand. Every writer still follows some “regime guidelines” but they still have a lot of contextual freedom. North Koreans go without some basic necessities like hot water, electricity, some medicinal care. 5 percent of the population in North Korea is malnourished compared to 17% in the rest of Asia. (http://bit.ly/19nD3aZhttp://bit.ly/16Itrxm) Their justice system is improving, but still sentences people to life imprisonment, hard labor, kin crime persecution, and execution. Any country who does this is violating basic human rights of a citizen, criminal or not.

Still, these are human rights issues because anything related to quality of life can be seen as a human rights problem, and their human rights issues are partially a byproduct of failed policy and political sanctions designed to influence the regime’s behavior – or more bluntly; sanctions are designed to cause State collapse. I’ve never really believed in “regime changing” because it never ends well. Anytime we have collapsed a State, the people have become worse-off and the regions end up in a state of chaos and deprivation for decades. For this reason, it’s my opinion that sanctions, (and State collapsing) violates the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and thus, sanctions should be lifted so States can trade and interact with North Korea more freely if they choose to. North Korea would develop at the pace South Korea did over the past thirty years if the State had the same opportunities and support South Koreans have. People will retort by saying that the South never had nukes or violated human rights, which is why we supported them and not the North. In reality, it was a power-balancing proxy-war. Also ignored are the facts that the USA once pressured South Korea to develop nukes while ignoring their dictatorial human rights abuses.

In many developing countries we’re witnessing technological advancement, from a growing usage of cell phones and laptops, adding in millions of more people into the online collective hemisphere of intellectual exchange. Where do North Korea and its people stand on this? Are they, too, advancing technologically and, if so, in which technological sectors?

Abt: This, too, very much depends on how secure the country feels. As long as any opening is perceived as creating a window of opportunity to those who want regime change and overthrow the DPRK, free access to internet by the general public will be considered as highly risky and undesirable. By allowing mobile telecommunication countrywide, the country has contributed to the development of distant rural regions.

Bassett: North Korea is embarking on a technological revolution. It’s hard for me to say specifically when this shift began, but Kim Jung Il had a state-of-the-art 27” Apple iMac in the train that he died in. He used this for running the regime more efficiently. The leadership used to be the only ones with stuff like this, but now technology is pretty common in schools, businesses, factories, libraries, museums, and cultural centers. I dare say 85% of the families in the country have access to cell phones, computers, TV’s, and DVD players. The intranet on their phones and computers can access North Korean media including news, music, and some video. They can text and I believe they can even transmit intra-mail messages. Nearly all sectors are using new technology in some form. North Koreans get a lot of use out of the satellite that they’re so proud of. Schools are benefitting greatly because now they have broad access to information they can use to strengthen their educational programs, producing smarter students who will grow be more informed leaders in their sectors. Interagency coordination is occurring and they’re becoming more efficient at dealing with crisis, and responding faster to it. Solar panels mitigate power shortages, and advanced irrigation methods are helping their crops survive draughts. I can’t comment with expertise on their light-water reactor but their “official story” is that “because of oil embargoes, they’ve had to shut down two oil refineries, which has resulted in a major portion of the population having to endure without electricity for almost eight years.” This reactor is an answer to that problem, and maybe their “security issues” as well.

I vehemently oppose nuclear weapons or human rights abuses, no matter what State they occur in. We should remember that due to human error, in 1961, a nuclear bomb 261 times the strength of the ones we dropped on Japan, almost detonated in North Carolina. We should remember that America has only 5% of the world’s population, while maintaining 25% of the worlds incarcerated population. In the American prison system, rape is considered “prison justice”, joining gangs and honing criminal skills becomes a means of survival. Statistically, most people are just there because they grew up in a lower class and had few opportunities to get education when growing up, and resorted to criminal activities to survive. We execute people within these systems, but what’s worse, is that some prisoners get locked in solitary confinement for decades, and have been later found to have severe brain disorders such as dementia at the age of thirty. One prisoner did four decades in solitary confinement and was found to be innocent of the crime in the first place and released! The American justice system is atrocious on so many levels. We cannot condemn any State for these two issues when we, here in America, are the world’s largest offender. Even if we just break it down to a per-capita comparative chart we still have a higher percentage of these cases than other countries. Sorry for getting sidetracked, but these things are all related and attention to these “mirrors” should be reflected on.

Speaking of technology, it’s becoming a growing fear among citizenry of developed regions of the world of a technological unemployment – robotic automation taking over human labor. We’re even witnessing signs of it in developing countries like China, i.e. Foxconn’s replacing 1 million workers for automated machinery. Are there any signs of this occurring in North Korea, and, if so, in which regions/provinces?

Abt: North Korea also sets on “high-tech” where it can, but this requires a significant amount of investment capital which it lacks. Therefore, manual labor will not quickly be replaced by machines. On the contrary, manual labor may even be cheaper and more suitable, at least in a number of areas, so that even Chinese companies outsource processes to North Korean producers.

Bassett: From what I can tell, a small portion of the population is in the industrial sector — my guestimation is several million. Most are in the agricultural sector or military. The military does more nation building than anything else, and the farmers do the nation feeding. There are machines that could replace manual labor by humans, but as far as I can tell, they’ve mostly been incorporated in the mines. Machines may make soldiers and farmers lives easier, but I doubt machines will ever put people out of work in North Korea. There’s always something to be doing there that only people can do.

How would you best describe the joint relationship between the common North Korean people, the country’s military, and its government?

Bassett: North Korean leadership travels around to every sector of their country all year long. That’s what their main role is. It’s one way of “showing the people they care”, as one North Korean put it to me. The military is seen as providing their security, but also builds their roads and houses and fixes damage to their “property” when it occurs. Because of this close interaction, both the military and the leadership are probably genuinely beloved by a majority of their people on some level. On the other hand, there is an element of fear of dissent, not strictly because of the judicial system but also because of the potential vulnerability of their State sovereignty. This is another example of why I refer to North Korea as the only true Machiavellian state to have ever existed. I wonder if Machiavelli were still alive right now, how interested he would be in North Korea and if he would refer to Kim Jung Un as a good, bad, or rational/irrational type of “Prince.” I think others would disagree with my assessment. I know what most of the books out there say, but from what I’ve seen, those assessments are often a bit fictionalized and exaggerated. Even some books about defectors, which are about the only kind of books about North Korea out there, are often fictionalized in some regards. There is no way to totally understand the truth about a defector and their story. But we do know that they are hopeless, damaged, and will do anything to survive. I wonder how many authors have whispered “we can’t make money like that” to them…

What are the North Korean peoples’ thoughts on reunification and what do they feel is the best means of achieving it? The military’s viewpoint of the same question? The government’s?

Bassett: I think everybody in the country wants unification, but not until they achieve mutual recognition, which is based on mutual trust and respect. Trust and respect are very difficult things to attain when there is little communication, and even less understanding, between the North and the South. There are those of narrow mind on each side who are against unification for personal reasons. In North Korea the hardliners seem to favor corrosive engagement to prolong the division. In South Korea the media is particularly slatternly. They value their mammonism – (worship of money – manna from god) more than anything else and believe that reconciling with North Korea will ruin their comfortable quality of life. They’ve programmed their kids in their education systems and through propaganda to be apathetic or anti-North Korean, just like they accuse the North of “brainwashing” their kids. It is more illegal to have North Korean items in South Korea than it is to have South Korean items in North Korea. In North Korea you will pay a fine if you’re caught, in South Korea you will go to jail. South Koreans are apathetic to the funding and schematics that are in place to facilitate a seamless transition during unification. They don’t care because the situation has gone on so long that the generations that this affected are dying off. Despite this, I believe North and South Korea will, in the next five years, attain a peace treaty, which is the first step toward unification. Before peaceful unification starts they’d probably become a confederate republic for about fifteen years until there is enough cultural exchange and economic development to cause a seamless transition and return to a united republic like the Koryo Dynasty.

Given your position in relation with that of North Korea and its people, would you argue that your actions are somehow contributing in the psychological and sociological bonding and understanding between North Korean people and foreigners, and in doing so will it help better pave the way for reunification?

Bassett: Most diplomacy professionals will quote the United States Information Agency moniker “the most important interactions take place at the last three feet of the bridge, where handshakes and hugs are given.” I try to facilitate a lot more than handshakes and hugs over there. I’m not trying to “erode North Koreans’ sovereignty or purity”; I’m trying to get everyone on all sides of the conundrum to stop demonizing each other and develop a peaceful coexistence. I’m “always up to some type of antics while I’m in DC”, as one reporter observed. I have, with assistance of local leaders, worked together to organize a small movement in DC, and we are planning to have a large-scale bike-ride through the district, with as many people as we can get. We want to promote de-demonization of the country and its people and advocate for immediate lifting of all sanctions and an end to Strategic Patience policy. We don’t have to sanction them and topple their regime; but at the minimum we can leave them alone and not obviate their survival. Regime-toppling tactics have infrequently resulted in positive change for anything, anywhere, for anyone, except for in WWII, which was a very unique situation in human history. The United States has been basking in the embellishment and glory of WWII for seventy years now; to the extent that this self-glorification has led us to believe that regime toppling is the solution to everything. We have a hero-complex, which misguides our rationality and prevents us from understanding and humanizing conflicts. Conflicts are all unique and don’t have a one-size-fits-all solutions. Sometimes we have to be the “bigger man” — the gentleman if you will, instead of the tough guy on the block. We haven’t learned to grasp that concept yet. Like ancient Greece, we have an innate desire to satisfy cultural bloodlust. Our government, media, and society will hopefully redirect its trajectory down a more peaceful path. Many things that we fear are threats are only threats because of the actions we take based on that fear. We’ve been programmed to fear everything and question nothing.

Armchair generals will try to convince people that we have to “stand up for morality, stability, and security”, or “maintain certain balances of power to maintain international order.” That’s all bullshit. Life gets better when people get along peacefully. Working together, people can achieve so much more than when there is conflict. Conflict is a natural occurrence but dealing with it smartly is not natural to us. There are no cookie cutter solutions. The costs of “soft power” are substantially cheaper and exponentially more effective than “hard power. I err on the side of “soft power.” Conflicts aren’t Game Theory, profit margins, or eugenics. These are human beings that have a right to exist. Failing to understand them is not an excuse for sanctioning them even if we choose not to engage them. I’ve seen the impact of cultural exchanges. When I give a North Korean school kid or waitress a polaroid pic of me and them doing something fun together like riding a roller coaster or singing karaoke, they hang on to it and show it to me when I come back. They keep videos of me in their phones and show it to me when I come back. They treasure those moments. They share them with their friends. They tell me about how they get together with their friends and family and “laugh at silly Michael.” I’d argue that cultural exchanges are the only thing maintaining stability there and are the only way to achieving peace and unification. I do my part in trying to help the world understand them, and I make happen whatever I can whether I’m in DC, Seoul, or Pyongyang. If that results in their unification then I’ll know my efforts weren’t all “pipe dreams that went up in smoke.” We will never know until it’s tried.

Economic sanctions are a very popular tactic in addressing certain countries’ governments who may not be playing by the rules established by others. North Korea, especially, suffers from economic sanctions due to the government’s wish to remain a nuclear state for deterrence purposes, and this upsets people like those in the U.S. government. Would you say that economic sanctions are a successful means of addressing hostility or, simply put, differences in opinion? If so, how? If not, how are economic sanctions truly affecting the country and subsequently its people?

Abt: Sanctions have an important impact on the economy. Let’s look for example at North Korea’s huge gold deposits which it cannot extract because the sodium cyanide necessary for it is a banned so-called dual-use product. (That is it cannot only be used for civilian purposes like gold extraction, pesticides and plastics production, but also to make the nerve gas sarin).

To name one more example: Switzerland and other countries banned the sale of ski lifts. How could North Korea develop a flourishing tourism industry, which became equally mountainous Switzerland’s most important source of income, if it is prevented from purchasing the necessary equipment? And how many alternatives does North Korea have with, like Switzerland, only about 17% arable land?

Among the numerous prohibited dual-use products, there are for example chemicals required for the processing of food items and of pharmaceuticals, as they can also be used in chemical weapons. Without these banned products the quality and safety of these consumer goods are compromised to the extent that the foreign-imposed sanctions cost lives of ordinary North Koreans.

Other “punitive” measures, such as the financial sanctions cutting North Korean banks off the international banking system, push legitimate businesses “underground” and force them for example to use unconventional payment methods such as cash couriers. Doing business with North Korea has therefore become difficult, more costly and dissuades many foreign enterprises from dealing with this country.

Bassett: I used to believe that sanctions were effective and justified tools to use against North Korea to influence their state behavior. But I’ve seen with my own eyes how blatantly stupid I was. What sanctions do, is give North Koreans less incentive to cooperate, more desire to behave badly, more justification of their governments propaganda, and significantly erode the quality of life of average citizens, while barely impacting those who we want to impact. Even when we do impact those targets, it only results in a minor impact on them and major ripple effects for everyone else. The best way to influence North Korean behavior is to lift all sanctions and give them de facto nuclear recognition. If we did those two things then the regime would change their behavior instantly; and if they didn’t, then we would be able to justify returning to such harsh policies against them. We can’t make policies based on fear. It will not be the end of the world if we take a leap of faith and then they stab us in the back. We could simply return to controlling their fate again. We are, after all, exponentially larger and more powerful than them. We have to be willing to try things that have never been tried before because the benefit of doing so is higher than the cost of miscalculation. In reality, they cannot do all those things we fear them of wanting to do. Those things the media uses to keep us living in fear of them. Those things the military industrial complex published by the researchers on their huge payroll. It’s all bullshit. In reality, they will probably do none of those things and if they do then we can easily deal with it. We are more likely than not, to see a stability and peace bloom in Asia unlike any other, if we were to take a “leap-of-faith” with them. This does not imply that their activities won’t be monitored. If sanctions were lifted everything would have to be monitored, accounted for, and inspected. It would be easy for them to succumb to temptation from illicit activities.

Could you give us examples that you’ve personally witnessed which contradicts many common viewpoints by foreigners and/or foreign media about North Korea – its people, culture, government, power structure, etc.?

A Capitalist in North Korea: My Seven Years in the Hermit Kingdom by Felix Abt
A Capitalist in North Korea: My Seven Years in the Hermit Kingdom by Felix Abt

Abt: I have given plenty of examples in my book.

Bassett: I watched a Mandela documentary before I went to North Korea during the ‘2013 Period of Bellicosity’. I remember when one soccer player tripped another, causing him to fall in pain. Memories of Apartheid South Africa and all the emotions that come along with it erupted within him. When they player helped the other one up and hugged him those feelings were washed away and it had a butterfly effect. I tried to recreate that situation by challenging a member of North Korea’s National Taekwondo team to a one-on-one match. Prior to the match I flexed my bicep at him, which had my US Army Staff Sergeant Rank tattooed on it. He knocked me out, as expected, in a half second, with a swift kick to the face. Next thing I knew, he was helping me up, hugging me, and peeling his foot skin off of my face for me. I expected them to be cheering and handing out medals for “destroying a Yankee imperialist,” but they responded with sympathy and care to my injuries. In another unforgettable moment, as I was mountain climbing in the extreme Northeast part of the country, we followed the trails of an anti-Japanese Revolutionary War battle, and I brought up the United States nuclear bombing of Japan. All morning we’d been hearing about how bad the Japanese were during decades of occupation, but they kept avoiding saying that it ended because America dropped nuclear bombs on them. This made me curious because Japan is perceived as the root cause of all their problems. So I brought it up and was stopped in my tracks and told very sternly that “IT WASN’T GOOD BECAUSE INNOCENT PEOPLE GOT HURT.” I said “yes, but it stopped your innocent people from getting hurt.” They said, “it doesn’t matter, we don’t believe in hurting innocent people.” I’ll never know if this was the “official story” or their genuine belief, but I’m inclined to err with the latter because I could see the sincerity in his eyes. North Korea truly is a country traumatized by their past.

Would you say that the North Korean government is willing to openly do business with foreign peoples and their companies? How about NGOs and nonprofit think-tanks for research purposes and better education of the country as a whole?

Abt: North Korea has been open for business for many years. The American think-tank Nautilus has been working with the DPRK for many years, too.

Bassett: North Korea is not only willing, but they are capable. They have been doing business with the external world for quite some time. They currently have a system in place, which allows for them to businesses, although I’m not sure how openly they’re willing to be about it. They desire longevity, independence, and sustainability in whoever they consider doing business with. Trust issues and mutual respect are important facets of that consideration. As far as capability, they have a central bank and the Triangle banks. They have Laws and structures in place to support foreign investment, joint ventures, contractual joint ventures, wholly foreign owned enterprises, foreign invested banks, businesses and enterprises and law offices supporting those structures. These are mainly for the Rason, Kaesong, Hwanggumphyong and Wihwado Economic Zones, but are applicable anywhere in the country. They have establishments in place for external economic contracts, arbitration, civil relations and civil law, compensation for damage, notary publics, inheritance, immigration, commercial banks, and even a claim to have a system in place to prevent money laundering (Laws and Regulations of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Governing External Economic Matters, p. 417 2012). They have laws regarding insurance requirements, land leasing, trade and trade processing, a Chamber of Commerce, product origin tracking, inspections, invention, trademark, and copyright protection, which even apply to hardware and software technology. They are very serious about environmental impact, probably because they value their clean environment and because of the effect land mismanagement had on the regime in the 90’s. As stated in the cited DPRK Economic Law book, the laws are “enacted for the purpose of encouraging foreign investment in the DPRK and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the investors” – p.9.

And finally, what would you propose for foreigners – peoples, companies, governments, etc. – to do in order to better establish a peaceful relationship with that of North Korea? Is the U.S. government’s aggressive approach successful or are better alternatives possible?

Bassett: Educate yourselves and unplug! Expose yourselves to information that doesn’t totally demonize the regime. Listen to what North Korea has to say. They have a small degree of transparency. Their Rodong Shinmun is online and the same in basic content (though slightly edited) as the North Korean version that you can buy there. NK News is run by expert foreign academics and practitioners in conjunction with defectors, and is packed full of useful information. Read something by Andrei Lankov, Felix Abt, B.R. Myers, or even me; though I’m not insinuating that I’m on their level of expertise. Listen to the practitioner’s point of view. Follow them on social media; many of us are on everything from Facebook to Instagram. Take what the government and the media say with a grain of salt. There are two types of actors in this situation. Those who know what’s going on and selflessly try to make matters better, and then there is the government and the media; who have special interests in maintaining the status quo, at least for as long as they feel that’s what the public wants them to do.

Nobody here can deny that there is perspectives emerging from highly educated and accomplished practitioners and experts alike that run in stark contrast to what the media and the government would have us believe. As I have said in many other publications, a lot of our misperception of North Korea is based on the information they get from human rights groups. I am against human rights violations, and I’ve claimed that the US has them on a larger scale. What if every country in the world looked at the United States of America and saw nothing more about it beyond what goes on within its disgusting prisons? That’s what the human rights organizations would lead us to believe and those organizations are largely behind presenting America with that perception. There is so much more to the country than the .08% of their population that is behind bars. It certainly isn’t one giant prison state. North Korean isolation and underdevelopment has more to do with their external problems, historical development, and worldview than it does the leaderships supposed “hateful dictatorial oppression” of their people. It’s just like everything that we do and see here in the West is a byproduct of the same factors. In the end we need to realize that “people are people” and we don’t have the right to hold anyone down just because we don’t like them or understand them.

originally posted @Ntegrationalism

This past week I was at the Canadian Consulate General in New York for their Celebration of Innovation in Financial Technology, which featured 10 start-ups or early stage companies from the most robust nation in financial terms, according the IMF & World Bank stress tests. I’ve been thinking about fintech and the use of technology to better distribute wealth via identifying the value that individuals possess for some time. The meeting hosted by @miriam_leia CanadaNY’s chief innovation officer compelled me to start piecing some of the writing that I’ve done on the topic of value. I’m unsure how to summarize things enough for a quick read, hopefully this isn’t too choppy.

Great Automation

We find ourselves at the beginning of a somewhat great automation. While formidable arguments exist from every political faction on the potential for job creation and depletion, forecasters can confirm that the growth trends of technology show no signs of slowing; continued automation of tasks in business services for enterprise are on the horizon.

·Demand side: Restore public-sector jobs and invest in infrastructure for immediate jobs and long-term growth.

·Supply side: Extend Bush-era tax cuts to spur economy. Cut spending to curb growth-crushing debt and deficit.

·Another way: Invest in community-based, member-owned cooperatives and reduce the workweek.

Even as the world economy reacts to the automation of the its most affluent and technologically advanced nations, we find ourselves unable to distribute vales well for physical laborers.

At McKiney & Company, David Fine quotes: Africa’s workforce, young and growing quickly, will be the world’s largest by 2035. Unemployment stands at just 9 percent, but two-thirds of the labor force are in vulnerable, non-wage-paying jobs.

I wrote to the IEET a few years ago to provoke some discussion on the ethics of automation from an information technology standpoint, as the ethnography behind automation has been a large focus of mine over the past decade with corporations as a consultant. According to ContactHMRC.com, “Even as resistance was futile the protests continue at each firm I visited. It seems that the exponential growth of technology, not only from a hardware standpoint (via Moore’s Law), but also from a methodological and software standpoint, requires a new method of distributing values.” Jobs are difficult to generate in this great automation. Further, if our labor culture is changing for goods and services, I’m not aligned with the idea that we can restore historical methods. We must innovate out of joblessness.

Our inability to quantify the toiling of the individual and even the institution has hampered our ability to sustain gainful employment (jobs) during the accelerating changes. Note: I am not referring to sustainability, as it is illogical to seek, but to state that we are not agile. In the modern world individuals and institutions are participating more than ever in the process of development of goods/services through passive means. They are influencers. Specifically I mean: we are performing the act of development of goods and services without being compensated for it or even realizing our participation. Consider a long being in empty space, worthless. While human-kind can’t have inherent value, community can. We all generate values at the point we can interact with another.

In business CRM (customer relations management) and UX (user experience) are examples of how we leverage a consumer to be their own discoverer, developer, and deploy-er of solutions to problems. Via a conduit (profit seeking institution) as a platform, we interact. Sure there may be a single or group of experts monitoring the feedback, but the fact that feedback exists warrants some nominal indemnification other than the creation of new products for consumers, no? Figure 1. Represents a crude the CRM input process.

crm input

While the system is still new, culturally, functionally, and technologically – we’ve managed to build and identify better sensors for data points on participants in the crowd. Our ability to evaluate systemic risks and opportunities is actually an older statistical science that mathematicians and economists have been tinkering for decades. The fact that entrepreneurs who develop software solely based on customer reviews in the Salesforce.com AppExchange to then distribute as an added service is justification enough to consider how we indemnify a society for its knowledge and experience as a user. Is it valuable to seek more useful or even intuitive experiences? Companies have dedicated efforts to understanding sentiment on news by consumers and reactors to information regarding their enterprise. Firms like, Finmaven: Tool for publicly traded companies to monitor, publish and analyze social media…or, Market IQ: Analysis of unstructured data such as social media to provide real time insights to traders.. Automation is much broader than marketing and customer relations; however, the processes around relations are at the core of automation.

Too Connected To Fail

Our relations in our close and extended networks are what provide the tangible value that other individuals and institutions derive from us. As social beings we are somewhat obligated to interact well. While this sheds no light on egalitarian ideals, it does provide an opportunity for less-introverted individuals and institutions to be indemnified for participation. For example, at HBS participation often accounts for 50% of the total course grade. That method is good enough to start with, no? Lowering our degrees-of-separation from our peers and attracting new connections is what elects the people at the top of the classes at Harvard Business School. People learn how to communicate more effectively through the rigor of participation, and their value sky rockets relative to the rest of the business community.

In the past decade the global “great recession” exposed our systemic vulnerability and ties to each other at the micro and macro scale. Financial innovations have enabled risk transfers that were not fully recognized by financial regulators or by institutions themselves, complicating the assessment of a “too-connected–to-fail” problem. Companies in FinTech are closing the communication gap like Quantify Labs: CRM and Content Platform for Institutional Finance. In plain English they show all communication between bank’s customers and vendors. Scenarios like, who checked which communications and the supply-chain of communication. Anyone who has ever watched a movie about finance and trading of equities knows that traders and brokers mostly talk to each other to buy and sell stakes in equities for mutual benefit. Expanding communications or even knowledge of existing communications on creates more threads to an ever-expanding web of connectivity. As an evolving species, we need our web to continue to grow in order to support our initiative for growth, or creating technologies on a more grand scale.

The mentioned initiative can be found in every facet of our lives. Form the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Figure 2. A diagrammatic depiction of co-risk feedbacks, presents the conditional co-risk estimated between pairs of selected financial institutions. In plain English, the numbers on the diagram are communication linkages between people/assets at these banks.

imf

While there is some debate on exactly what the framework should be to quantify co-dependence or co-risk, the best solution should be a growing group of qualified rating methods and agencies evaluating data differently as it changes and expands, as it does. Similar to this type of co-dependence our civilization’s most important institutions, our most important individuals are also co-dependent on a group of near and distant peers. We are all dependent on other to discover, develop, and deploy solutions to problems of a more personal kind.

Software services like Klout, Kred, Peer Index, and at least a dozen more are making efforts to mine through the data that we communicate to influence, in order to deliver a score with regards to our varied value (depending on their methodology and focus). Similar to the IMF individuals need to evaluate co-dependence and influence on their peers but also on institutions. Applying Klout-like methods to measure our value will enable us to make formidable legal and political arguments for out just due. And perhaps a more manageable transition through structural unemployment and globalization is possible via what’s due. Note: I am using influence and co-dependence to reference social value on entities. We all play a role in the negotiation that is life’s happenings but those of us who aren’t entrepreneurs rarely know that we’re a part of the conversations affecting decisions.

Connectivity is starting to span beyond social connections and socialization in general. It is starting to be quantified in new ways, as there are no shortages in places to install sensors and things to understand. Physical sensors that help us recognize, colors, odors, heat, distance, sounds, etc are all being created as devices that empower an application programming interface (API), which is another way to allow information technology to quantify how we engage sensors. The appification of sensors like Node or Canary or Leap Motion are the next generation of sensors that we’ve used on watches and cameras. Looking forward to days where nanorobotics can monitor mitochondrial stability to forecast and avoid apoptosis to help cells cheat death, of course, we still have a long way to go. Today, the case can be made to spread some of the abundant wealth by validating the abundant value each individual creates through info tech.

Technoprogressivism

From a political standpoint a new debate needs to be had around how we react to the types of joblessness that results from rapidly changing technology, as the rate of changing is seemingly increasing. In regards to technoprogressivism and structural unemployment via automation and other methods; it is ideal to embrace the end of work: meaning that there should be some equitable distribution of the leisure created by automation.

While ideas on the end of work have been around for centuries, the distribution of leisure within or succeeding a capitalistic system is quite new. The innovation in distribution of social values that needs to occur is separate from welfare. It is understandably just to enforce a pervasive welfare state for our inability to distribute value; however, it is not an adequate remedy to the wealth gap and technologies effort to quantify all things. The root of our problem is our inability to distribute values among those who actually participate in creating it, while managing risk (or insurances). A guaranteed basic income and/or a shorter work week are not elaborate enough to compel an agile system of developments in compensation, even while they are necessary.

Information technology and the manipulation of BigData, are enabling us to understand who is influencing which changes, even at a nominal rate. Incentivizing individuals and institutions to interact in a more transparent way is important in evaluating new ways to indemnify them for their participation in society. It helps them learn and others to learn about them. This may read invasive and unethical from a privacy stand-point. While that debate should be had, my stance in short: is that human-kind cannot achieve the interconnectedness it requires for distributing our relatively abundant resources through complete privacy or conservatism. Going forward, the next wave of value to exploit it not material but portable. Figure 3. Shows my Klout rating of 60/100 for influencing my social network. The question should be asked: who have I influenced? What decisions have they made based on my influence? Have they contributed to any gross domestic product (GDP)? Is that value portable?

klout

kred

Portable Value

In a short essay I wrote called “Portable Value”, influenced by Hernando de Soto I channeled his ideas that “adequate participation in an information framework that records ownership”, can spur economic growth. History shows that coinage in the exchange of good in local/international trade made portable wealth possible. The more transparent information-collection of purchase, stake holdings, and ownership of goods from legal-documentation to land to human-slaves made our modern economies grow. While I don’t agree with de Soto’s position on land titling and side with a more communal and democratic systems of collective land tenure because this offers protection to the poorest and prevents ‘downward raiding’ in which richer people displace squatters once their neighborhoods are formalized, I am aligned with the idea of an individual titling.

Neither de Soto nor his opponents wrote about individual titling specifically, and I’m not very fond of the phrase, but it’s fitting nomenclature assuming that they would have called the distributing of ownerships outside of land specifically some version of “individual titling” considering their democratic capitalism alignment. The significance here rest with ownership and the individual. The phenomenon of private ownership has pervaded and propelled the growth of humans and our technological extensions which make life more livable. Capitalism is the term of choice for the private ownership and trade of things. Per my views (@Ntegrationalism), Capitalism is merely an economic manifestation of human-kind’s technological evolution. While I’m aware of the rigid opposition to my last sentence, I’ve written it under the assumptions that

  • All things in existence are physiologically connected.
  • Humans cannot have nature.
  • Technology is deterministic when applied to the human condition.
  • Individualism spawns competition resulting in arbitrage.

Regarding information on ownership, economic growth requires a growth in participation of owners to in-turn expand the amount of wealth or wealth opportunities in the collective (system). Nostalgic and conservative ideas of constricting the potential growth of human-kind and the institutions that we’ve built is futile and unwise, as we live in a dynamic realm (world, galaxy, universe, multiverse) which renders life as we know it, unsustainable by definition. Even the home planet (Earth) warmed by the nearest star (Sun) will be an unsustainable body in due time. We need to be more agile in how we adapt to change.

As a species or parent of species, human-kind should be encouraged to compel as many participating owners of physical-properties (land) and nonphysical-properties (intellectual property, digital, and other) as possible to create a web of interconnected and integrated interest, per our vigilant growth. While land is scarce and in de Soto’s day, it was the end of the titling arguments, our ability to create valuable information and intellectual property has surpassed that of land property. The individual must be able to own the information that they distribute and monetize it. There is a firm called 4pay in Canada that aims to create the beginnings of a “data locker” by creating mobile applications that allow consumers to control transactions without giving personal or financial data to creditors or retailers. Knowing that this will be a heavy blow to the advertising industry and could hinder individuals from accessing valuable information on goods/services that they actually want and need, the delivery model may be flawed. While innovations away from the existing supply chain may prove formidable, I think that some legal and financial incentives to provide individuals with their own information footprint have to be implemented at the local and international scale not to protect the individual, but to empower them. Individuals have to know when they are being used as insights to make decisions about their peers lives.

technop

Grindhouse Wetware is a collective of makers and engineers founded on a basic principle – human augmentation should be accessible and open. All of our devices are built off of open source platforms. This allows our users to peer into the hardware and code of their implanted device and truly control their augmented experience. Grindhouse Wetware’s devices are tailored to Makers and DIY Transhumanists that want to build a specific, unique augmentation. What do you want to be?

After three years of development, our flagship project – Circadia, is in its final stages. Grindhouse Wetware is seeking financial support from individuals or organizations to facilitate the production of this device.

The Circadia implant records bio-medical data and transmits it to the user’s phone via bluetooth. Instead of a snapshot of the user’s state of health, the Circadia records the up-to-date status of the their well being. Grindhouse Wetware firmly believes that once an implant has been installed in an individual, it becomes a part of their person. As such, the data generated by the Circadia belongs to the user.

If you are interested in supporting Grindhouse Wetware and the Circadia implant, please contact me at [email protected] or 631−715−9209

Below are pictures of our prototypes.

HELEDD Printed 2 DSCF1998 DSCF1996

Originally posted as Part I of a four-part introductory series on Bitcoin on May 1, 2013 in the American Daily Herald. See the Bitcoin blog for all four articles.

The last couple of months proved a very exciting time for Bitcoin and its new owners, with values increasing from $30 to $260 within a month only to come crashing down in days. It went from virtual anonymity to virtual ubiquity and back again — the only constant being that it’s virtual. The dust has now settled and the talking heads have changed topic, and Bitcoin is slowly regaining strength. But does this mean we can finally, in a quiet and rational way, contemplate what this Bitcoin really is and where it has room to fit into our lives? The answer to that is no, because the concept of Bitcoin is so strange, unintuitive and foreign, no matter when you discuss it and with whom, it will lead to very divisive arguments. So I say now is as good a time as any to dive in and discuss it.

So what is Bitcoin, anyway?

Bitcoin is a virtual currency. It is a string of 1s and 0s, much like a lot of what we interact with in this day and age. It’s something new. It’s unique. It’s controversial. The detractors say it’s only useful for terrorists or drug lords who want to move money around undetected, which no doubt they do. But much like the Internet is so much more than pornography, so is Bitcoin so much more than drug money. E-mail liberated the letter from the postage stamp, Skype liberated telephone calls from crippling AT&T long-distance rates, Facebook liberated photos from the dusty photo album sitting on your shelf unopened. You can think of Bitcoin as what will liberate financial transactions from the grip of the financial institutions and the state.

Technical/dictionary definitions can be found in many places. This short article cannot give a full account. But it will present analogies to make the concept of Bitcoin easier to grasp. Given that Bitcoin is virtual, the analogies can only go so far, but the first step is to think about bitcoins as though they were actual coins forged out of the shiniest and prettiest gold. This is the cornerstone to understanding that bitcoins are in fact a commodity, like a gold nugget turned into a coin and made to become money. The analogy is that the element from which the gold coin is forged requires to be mined. Sure enough, it exists in nature, but it is hidden from plain view. It has to be explored to be brought into useful existence, and this gets exceedingly hard as time goes by and as the easy pickings have all been found. Much the same is with Bitcoin. It is decisively unlike any other piece of software or any other electronic file to which we are accustomed. You cannot just copy and paste it and you cannot just reinstall it ad infinitum. The sense we should be getting is that Bitcoin is a scarce good.

Don’t let go of that mental image as I endeavor to explain a bit about the technical aspect. Bitcoin belongs to a new kind of asset class, one that is called a crypto-currency. Its very existence is predicated upon a network of computers that resides within the internet. This Bitcoin network consists of thousands of individuals who are online and connected to one another at every given second of the day, constantly communicating with one another through pieces of software designed with this one networking purpose in mind. Through complex cryptographic means, each coin and all of its transaction history is known to the network while keeping the identity of the owner of this coin completely private. Due to the fact that transmission from one owner to another (the financial transaction) is broadcast to the entire network, it is made virtually impossible to then use the coin again since everyone knows you’ve already given it away – thus it overcomes the problem of double-spending (think “copy & paste”) the same coin. The analogy to a gold coin (or any physical good) is that only one person can ever hold and own the coin, thus it is scarce (in the economic sense) and one person owning the coin prevents another person from owning it.

As to the technical aspect of ‘mining’ bitcoins, these again are computers running specialized software on this network. Miners solve complex algorithms to discover which string of characters would be the next Bitcoin to be produced. The computations are so complex, and increasingly so, that the computers required are expensive, state of the art computers using up time, space and energy. Inherent in the Bitcoin network design, there is a capacity to the network (21 million bitcoins) and inherent to the mining process, it becomes exponentially more difficult to solve these algorithms. Therefore, by nature, the rate of creation of new coins is decreasing and an upper limit is in place. Today over half are in existence, within 25 years over 99 percent will have been mined and by the year 2140 no more coins will be added to the supply. The analogy to gold mining is that gold is finite and it takes effort to discover it; ‘real world’ resources, time and money, are expended in the process. While, of itself, this doesn’t give Bitcoins their value, it does make it either profitable or not and it incentivizes entrepreneurs where the profit exists. Bitcoins cannot be created out of thin air by a Federal Reserve-like entity. It is a commodity that will attract miners should it be profitable, and likewise detract miners when loss-making conditions arise. It is a product of the free-market.

The value of money and Bitcoin

A brief mention was made that this is a new type of asset class. Also mentioned repeatedly is that this is a commodity. These definitions cause great discomfort to many who view assets and commodities as necessarily objects in the physical realm. Accountants have long held the view that a balance sheet can also be comprised of intangible assets. Value, it was argued, does not come from an object’s tangibility, but rather from its subjective utility by its owner and from its scarcity. Businesses, after all, pay great premiums to acquire others’ brands or to employ people for their talents or ideas. To be sure, a Bitcoin is a string of 1s and 0s and interacts only with software, but when this string of 1s and 0s is useful and its ownership boundaries are clearly delineated (meaning what I own, you cannot own at the same time), then it can be thought of as an asset and it can acquire value based on the subjective view of market participants.

Most discussions on forms of money invariably include references to ‘stores of value’ and to the money commodity as having ‘intrinsic value’. It is important to realize that any good arising from the free market will appreciate in value as more people want it and will act as a store of value as long as its popularity remains so. But with popularity dwindling or with marginal utility dropping any good is subject to its store of value diminishing, gold notwithstanding. Intrinsic value is itself a misnomer. Goods do not have intrinsic value. Goods may have intrinsic properties or characteristics that are valued by society or enable them to be well utilized for a specific purpose. Money’s properties, for instance, would include being fungible, divisible, recognizable, durable, portable, rare/scarce, etc. If a good or a commodity intrinsically has all of these properties, then it is likely, over time, to evolve to become a medium of exchange (money). This good will then acquire value with its increased recognition as a popular and well accepted form of money. But calling this ‘intrinsic value’ is fallacious, albeit somewhat common.

Historically, precious metals, especially gold and silver, have retained their values due to their intrinsic properties mentioned above. This has given rise to people’s perception of them as being a ‘store of value’ and of having ‘intrinsic value’. Another red herring introduced to the argument is that gold has other uses, say in dentistry, aerospace, or jewelry. True enough, this would imply that should the metals lose all perception as being money (a highly unlikely scenario, but theoretically possible), then at least the owner is able to sell off their existing holdings to goldsmiths and other industry participants. The resultant oversupply relative to demand would probably mean gold owners would salvage a few percent of the value at best. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the fact that gold has value other than money (a characteristic Bitcoin doesn’t share) is of little relevance when discussing it as a medium of exchange.

With Nixon’s closure of the ‘gold window’ in 1971, gold has ceased its official role as money. However it is quite evident that as an asset class, precious metals are still highly regarded and form a part of many prudent investors’ portfolios. Payment for goods and services with a Krugerrand or a Silver Eagle would constitute ‘barter’ if one were to go by today’s strictly legal definitions of money payments. But if (or when) the US Dollar system collapses, there is no doubt to an ever increasing proportion of the population that ‘payment’ with gold and silver would arise as legitimate forms of money. The creation of bitcoins has introduced another alternative, one which would be unwise to ignore.

Bitcoin adoption and its rise in value

As long as its acceptance as money is only to a narrow audience, its value will remain low and the possibility of a price collapse is a real risk. But one shouldn’t make the error in deducing, therefore, that it cannot acquire value as people learn about it and accept it. Every commodity starts its life as having no value until someone finds a use for it and starts exchanging it with others who also see the value in its use or its properties. If a commodity acquires value as a medium of exchange through voluntary free-market interactions, and is not forced upon the populace through legal tender laws (as fiat money is), then it no longer matters that it doesn’t have other uses. It will be acquired and exchanged for the sole purpose of acquisition and exchange. In a free market, after all, if people lose confidence or interest in the product – any product (money or otherwise), its value would decrease and potentially reduce to zero.

So why has its value gone up so greatly? Is it all attributed to an irrational bubble-induced craze? Perhaps. But perhaps ever more people are starting to realize that this invention fits the bill. It is fungible, divisible, recognizable, durable, portable, rare/scarce (an in-depth look at each will have to be the topic of another article). When one considers the design of this ‘product’ in light of these attributes, one begins to realize that the properties that led gold and silver to the fore as ‘natural money’ can exist in other goods. People gawk at miraculous inventions that enable us to perform heretofore unthinkable tasks. Transacting in money is no different. Money is simply the most marketable commodity. It shouldn’t surprise us, in this day and age, that someone was able to invent an alternative form of it – and let the free market decide what is more marketable. What we have witnessed over the last few weeks are volatile price fluctuations, as people rush into this craze wanting to make a quick buck. But with more people owning bitcoins and more businesses willing to accept payment in them, Bitcoin is gaining currency. This is exactly the process that took gold from ornament to payment, only instead of taking centuries, it is happening before our very eyes. For those seeking a return to free market currencies, consider Bitcoin as a successful alternative.

Medical science has changed humanity. It changed what it means to be human, what it means to live a human life. So many of us reading this (and at least one person writing it) owe their lives to medical advances, without which we would have died.

Live expectancy is now well over double what it was for the Medieval Briton, and knocking hard on triple’s door.

What for the future? Extreme life extension is no more inherently ridiculous than human flight or the ability to speak to a person on the other side of the world. Science isn’t magic – and ageing has proven to be a very knotty problem – but science has overcome knotty problems before.

A genuine way to eliminate or severely curtail the influence of ageing on the human body is not in any sense inherently ridiculous. It is, in practice, extremely difficult, but difficult has a tendency to fall before the march of progress. So let us consider what implications a true and seismic advance in this area would have on the nature of human life.

keep-calm-and-be-forever-young-138

One absolutely critical issue that would surround a breakthrough in this area is the cost. Not so much the cost of research, but the cost of application. Once discovered, is it expensive to do this, or is it cheap? Do you just have to do it once? Is it a cure, or a treatment?

If it can be produced cheaply, and if you only need to do it once, then you could foresee a future where humanity itself moves beyond the ageing process.

The first and most obvious problem that would arise from this is overpopulation. A woman has about 30–35 years of life where she is fertile, and can have children. What if that were extended to 70–100 years? 200 years?

Birth control would take on a vastly more important role than it does today. But then, we’re not just dropping this new discovery into a utopian, liberal future. We’re dropping it into the real world, and in the real world there are numerous places where birth control is culturally condemned. I was born in Ireland, a Catholic nation, where families of 10 siblings or more are not in any sense uncommon.

What of Catholic nations – including some staunchly conservative, and extremely large Catholic societies in Latin America – where birth control is seen as a sin?

Of course, the conservatism of these nations might (might) solve this problem before it arises – the idea of a semi-permanent extension of life might be credibly seen as a deeper and more blasphemous defiance of God than wearing a condom.

But here in the West, the idea that we are allowed to choose how many children we have is a liberty so fundamental that many would baulk to question it.

We may have to.

quizzical baby

There is another issue. What about the environmental impact? We’re already having a massive impact on the environment, and it’s not looking pretty. What if there were 10 times more of us? 100 times more? What about the energy consumption needs, in a world running out of petrol? The food needs? The living space? The household waste?

There are already vast flotillas of plastic waste the size of small nations that float across the surface of the Pacific. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have just topped 400 parts per million. We are pushing hard at the envelope of what the world of capable of sustaining, and a massive boost in population would only add to that ever-increasing pressure.

Of course, science might well sort out the answer to those things – but will it sort it out in time? The urgency of environmental science, and cultural change, suddenly takes on a whole new level of importance in the light of a seismic advance in addressing the problem of human ageing.

These are problems that would arise if the advance produced a cheap treatment that could (and would) be consumed by very large numbers of people.

But what if it wasn’t a cure? What if it wasn’t cheap? What if it was a treatment, and a very expensive one?

All of a sudden, we’re looking at a very different set of problems, and the biggest of all centres around something Charlie Chaplin said in the speech he gave at the end of his film, The Great Dictator. It is a speech from the heart, and a speech for the ages, given on the eve of mankind’s greatest cataclysm to date, World War 2.

In fact, you’d be doing yourself a favour if you watched the whole thing, it is an astounding speech.

chaplin great dictator

The quote is this:

“To those who can hear me, I say — do not despair.

The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed, the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish.”

And so long as men die, liberty will never perish.

What if Stalin were immortal? And not just immortal, but immortally young?

Immortally vigourous, able to amplify the power of his cult of personality with his literal immortality.

This to me seems a threat of a very different kind, but of no less importance, than the dangers of overpopulation. That so long as men die, liberty will never perish. But what if men no longer die?

And of course, you could very easily say that those of us lucky enough to live in reasonably well-functioning democracies wouldn’t have to worry too much about this. It doesn’t matter if you live to be 1000, you’re still not getting more than 8 years of them in the White House.

But there is something in the West that would be radically changed in nature. Commercial empires.

What if Rupert Murdoch were immortal?

It doesn’t matter how expensive that treatment for ageing is. If it exists, he’d be able to afford it, and if he were able to buy it, he’d almost certainly do so.

If Fox News was run by an immortal business magnate, with several lifetimes worth of business experience and skill to know how to hold it all together, keep it going, keep it growing? What then?

Charles-Montgomery-Burns--007

Not perhaps the sunny utopia of a playground of immortals that we might hope for.

This is a different kind of issue. It’s not an external issue – the external impact of population on the environment, or the external need of a growing population to be fed. These problems might well sink us, but science has shown itself extremely adept at finding solutions to external problems.

What this is, is an internal problem. A problem of humanity. More specifically, the fact that extreme longevity would allow tyranny to achieve a level of entrenchment that it has so far never been capable of.

But then a law might be passed. Something similar to the USA’s 8 year term limit on Presidents. You can’t be a CEO for longer than 30 years, or 40 years, or 50. Something like that might help, might even become urgently necessary over time. Forced retirement for the eternally young.

Not an unproblematic idea, I’m sure you’ll agree. Quite the culture shock for Western societies loathe to accept government intervention in private affairs.

But it is a new category of problem. A classic problem of humanity, amplified by immortality. The centralisation of control, power and influence in a world where the people it centres upon cannot naturally die.

This, I would say, is the most obvious knotty problem that would arise, for humanity, in the event of an expensive, but effective, treatment for ageing.

But then, let’s just take a quick look back at the other side of the coin. Is there a problem inherent in humanity that would be amplified were ageing to be overcome, cheaply, worldwide?

Let me ask you a question.

Do people, generally speaking, become more open to new things, or less open to new things, as they age?

Do older people – just in general terms – embrace change or embrace stasis?

Well, it’s very obvious that some older people do remain young at heart. They remain passionate, humble in their beliefs, they are open to new things, and even embrace them. Some throw the influence and resources they have accrued throughout their lifetimes into this, and are instrumental to the march of progress.

More than this, they add a lifetime of skill, experience and finesse to their passion, a melding of realism and hope that is one of the most precious and potent cocktails that humanity is capable of mixing.

But we’re not talking about the few. We’re talking about the many.

Is it fair to say that most older people take this attitude to change? Or is it fairer to say that older people who retain that passion and spark, who not only have retained it, but have spent a lifetime fuelling it into a great blaze of ability and success – is it fair to say that these people are a minority?

I would say yes. They are incredibly precious, but part of that preciousness is the fact that they are not common.

Perhaps one day we will make our bodies forever young. But what of our spirit? What of our creativity?

I’m not talking about age-related illnesses like Parkinson’s, or Alzheimer’s disease. I’m talking about the creativity, passion and fire of youth.

The temptation of the ‘comfort zone’ for all human beings is a palpable one, and one that every person who lives well, who breaks the mold, who changes the future, must personally overcome.

Do the majority of people overcome it? I would argue no. And more than this, I would argue that living inside a static understanding of the world – even working to protect that understanding in the face of naked and extreme challenges from reality itself – is now, and has historically been, through all human history, the norm.

Those who break the mold, brave the approbation of the crowd, and look to the future with wonder and hope, have always been a minority.

mind closed till further notice

Now add in the factor of time. The retreat into the comforting, the static and the known has a very powerful pull on human beings. It is also not a binary process, but an analogue process – it’s not just a case of you do or you don’t. There are degrees of retreat, extremes of intellectual conservatism, just as there are extremes of intellectual curiosity, and progress.

But which extremes are the more common? This matters, because if all people could live to 200 years old or more, what would that mean for a demographic shift in cultural desire away from change and toward stasis?

A worrying thought. And it might seem that in the light of all this, we should not seek to open the Pandora’s box of eternal life, but should instead stand against such progress, because of the dangers it holds.

But, frankly, this is not an option.

The question is not whether or not human beings should seek to conquer death.

The question is whether or not conquering death is possible.

If it is possible, it will be done. If it is not, it will not be.

But the obvious problem of longevity – massive population expansion – is something that is, at least in principle, amenable to other solutions arising from science as it now practiced. Cultural change is often agonising, but it does happen, and scientific progress may indeed solve the issues of food supply and environmental impact. Perhaps not, but perhaps.

At the very least, these sciences take on a massively greater importance to the cohesion of the human future than they already have, and they are already very important indeed.

But there is another, deeper problem of a very different kind. The issue of the human spirit. If, over time, people (on average) become more calcified in their thinking, more conservative, less likely to take risks, or admit to new possibilities that endanger their understanding, then longevity, distributed across the world, can only lead to a culture where stasis is far more valued than change.

Pandora’s box is already open, and its name is science. Whether it is now, or a hundred years from now, if it is possible for human beings to be rendered immortal through science, someone is going to crack it.

We cannot flinch the future. It would be churlish and naive to assume that such a seemingly impossible vision will forever remain impossible. Not after the last century we just had, where technological change ushered in a new era, a new kind of era, where the impossibilities of the past fell like wheat beneath a scythe.

Scientific progress amplifies the horizon of possible scientific progress. And we stand now at a time when what it means to be a human – something which already undergone enormous change – may change further still, and in ways more profound than any of us can imagine.

If it can be done, it will be done. And so the only sane approach is to look with clarity at what we can see of what that might mean.

The external problems are known problems, and we may yet overcome them. Maybe. If there’s a lot of work, and a lot of people take a lot of issues a lot more seriously than they are already doing.

climate-change-silence-630

But there is a different kind of issue. An issue extending from human nature itself. Can we overcome, as a people, as a species, our fear, and the things that send us scurrying back from curiosity and hope into the comforting arms of wilful ignorance, and static belief?

This, in my opinion, is the deepest problem of longevity. Who wants to live forever in a world where young bodies are filled with withered souls, beaten and embittered with the frustrations of age, but empowered to set the world in stone to justify them?

But perhaps it was always going to come to this. That at some point technological advancement would bring us to a kind of reckoning. A reckoning between the forces of human fear, and the value of human courage.

To solve the external problems of an eternal humanity, science must do what science has done so well for so long – to delve into the external, to open up new possibilities to feed the world, and balance human presence with the needs of the Earth.

But to solve the internal problems of an eternal humanity, science needs to go somewhere else. The stunning advances in the understanding of the external world must begin to be matched with new ways of charting the deeps of human nature. The path of courage, of open-mindedness, of humility, and a willingness to embrace change and leave behind the comforting arms of old static belief systems – this is not a path that many choose.

But many more must choose it in a world of immortal people, to counterbalance the conservatism of those who fail the test, and retreat, and live forever.

Einstein lived to a ripe old age, and never lost his wonder. Never lost his humility, or his courage to brave the approbation and ridicule of his peers in that task he set himself. To chart the deep simplicities of the real, and know the mind of God. The failure of the human spirit is not written in the stars, and never will be.

einstein laughing

We are none of us doomed to fail in matters of courage, curiosity, wonder or hope. But we are none of us guaranteed to succeed.

And as long as courage, hope and the ability to break new ground remain vague, hidden properties that we squeamishly refuse to interrogate, each new generation will have to start from scratch, and make their own choices.

And in a world of eternal humans, if any individual generation fails, the world will be counting that price for a very long time.

It is a common fear that if we begin to make serious headway into issues normally the domain of the spiritual, we will destroy the mystique of them, and therefore their preciousness.

Similar criticisms were, and sometimes still are, laid at the feet of Darwin’s work, and Galileo’s. But the fact is that an astronomer does not look to the sky with less wonder because of their deeper understanding, but more wonder.

Reality is both stunningly elegant, and infinitely beautiful, and in these things it is massively more amazing than the little tales of mystery humans have used to make sense of it since we came down from the trees.

In the face of a new future, where the consequences of human courage and human failure are amplified, the scientific conquest of death must be fused with another line of inquiry. The scientific pioneering of the fundamental dynamics of courage in living, and humility to the truth, over what we want to believe.

It will never be a common path, and no matter how clear it is made, or how wide it is opened, there will always be many who will never walk it.

But the wider it can be made, the clearer it can be made, the more credible it can be made as an option.

And we will need that option. We need it now.

And our need will only grow greater with time.

The University of Colorado Boulder holds its annual Gamow Memorial Lecture around this time of the year. This year, Feb 26, 2013, Brian Greene gave the lecture, on multiverses.

His talk was very good. He explained why there are 10500 possible variations to possible universes, and ours was just one of many possible universes, thus the term multiverse.

How interesting. This is an extension of the idea that the Earth or the Sun not being at the center of our Universe.

Brian Green graciously allowed me to have my picture taken with him at the reception held in honor of him after his lecture. In the middle picture I am getting ready my new Nokia Lumia 920 Windows 8 phone.

I may not agree with string theories, but I think it is vitally important to allow all forms of physical theories to take root, and let the community of physicists & engineers determine which theories have a better chance of explaining some aspect of the universal laws of physics, through discussions and experimentations. I would add, and drive new commercially viable technologies.

——————————————

Benjamin T Solomon is the author of the 12-year study An Introduction to Gravity Modification

I continue to survey the available technology applicable to spaceflight and there is little change.

The remarkable near impact and NEO on the same day seems to fly in the face of the experts quoting a probability of such coincidence being low on the scale of millenium. A recent exchange on a blog has given me the idea that perhaps crude is better. A much faster approach to a nuclear propelled spaceship might be more appropriate.

Unknown to the public there is such a thing as unobtanium. It carries the country name of my birth; Americium.

A certain form of Americium is ideal for a type of nuclear solid fuel rocket. Called a Fission Fragment Rocket, it is straight out of a 1950’s movie with massive thrust at the limit of human G-tolerance. Such a rocket produces large amounts of irradiated material and cannot be fired inside, near, or at the Earth’s magnetic field. The Moon is the place to assemble, test, and launch any nuclear mission.

Such Fission Fragment propelled spacecraft would resemble the original Tsolkovsky space train with a several hundred foot long slender skeleton mounting these one shot Americium boosters. The turn of the century deaf school master continues to predict.

Each lamp-shade-spherical thruster has a programmed design balancing the length and thrust of the burn. After being expended the boosters use a small secondary system to send them into an appropriate direction and probably equipped with small sensor packages, using the hot irradiated shell for an RTG. The Frame that served as a car of the space train transforms into a pair of satellite panels. Being more an artist than an *engineer, I find the monoplane configuration pleasing to the eye as well as being functional. These dozens and eventually thousands of dual purpose boosters would help form a space warning net.

The front of the space train is a large plastic sphere partially filled filled with water sent up from the surface of a a Robotic Lunar Polar Base. The Spaceship would split apart on a tether to generate artificial gravity with the lessening booster mass balanced by varying lengths of tether with an intermediate reactor mass.

These piloted impact threat interceptors would be manned by the United Nations Space Defense Force. All the Nuclear Powers would be represented.…..well, most of them. They would be capable of “fast missions” lasting only a month or at the most two months. They would be launched from underground silos on the Moon to deliver a nuclear weapon package towards an impact threat at the highest possible velocity and so the fastest intercept time. These ships would come back on a ballistic course with all their boosters expended to be rescued by recovery craft from the Moon upon return to the vicinity of Earth.

The key to this scenario is Americium 242. It is extremely expensive stuff. The only alternative is Nuclear Pulse Propulsion (NPP). The problem with bomb propulsion is the need to have a humungous mass for the most efficient size of bomb to react with.

The Logic Tree then splits again with two designs of bomb propelled ship; the “Orion” and the “Medusa.” The Orion is the original design using a metal plate and shock absorbing system. The Medusa is essentially a giant woven alloy parachute and tether system that replaces the plate with a much lighter “mega-sail.” In one of the few cases where compromise might bear fruit- the huge spinning ufo type disc, thousands of feet across, would serve quite well to explore, colonize, and intercept impact threats. Such a ship would require a couple decades to begin manufacture on the Moon.

Americium boosters could be built on earth and inserted into lunar orbit with Human Rated Heavy Lift Vehicles (SLS) and a mission launched well within a ten-year apollo type plan. But the Americium Infrastructure has to be available as a first step.

Would any of my hundreds of faithful followers be willing to assist me in circulating a petition?

*Actually I am neither an artist or an engineer- just a wannabe pulp writer in the mold of Edgar Rice Burroughs.

For those in Colorado who are interested in attending a talk by John Troeltzsch, Sentinel Ball Program Manager, Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp. please R.S.V.P Chris Zeller ([email protected]) by Tuesday, 26 February 2013 for badge access. US citizenship required.

6:00 pm Thursday, February 28th 2013
6:00 pm Social, 6:30 pm Program
Ball Aerospace Boulder Campus RA7 Conference Room
1600 Commerce St
Boulder, CO 80301

It will be good to see you there.

About the Talk:
The inner solar system is populated with a half million asteroids larger than the one that struck Tunguska and yet we’ve identified and mapped only about one percent of these asteroids to date.

This month’s program will introduce the B612 Foundation and the first privately funded deep space mission–a space telescope designed to discover and track Near Earth Objects (NEO). This dynamic map of NEOs will provide the blueprint for future exploration of our Solar System, enabling potential astronaut missions and protection of the future of life on Earth.

The B612 Foundation is a California 501©(3) non-profit, private foundation dedicated to protecting the Earth from asteroid strikes. Its founding members Rusty Schweickart, Clark Chapman, Piet Hut, and Ed Lu established the foundation in 2002 with the goal of significantly altering the orbit of an asteroid in a controlled manner.

The B612 Foundation is working with Ball Aerospace, Boulder, CO, which is designing and building the Sentinel Infrared (IR) Space Telescope with the same expert team that developed the Spitzer and Kepler Space Telescopes. It will take approximately five years to complete development and testing to be ready for launch in 2017–2018.

About John Troeltzsch:
John Troeltzsch is the Sentinel mission program manager for Ball Aerospace. Troeltzsch received his Bachelor of Science in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Colorado in 1983 and was immediately hired by Ball Aerospace. While working at Ball, Troeltzsch continued his studies at C.U. and received his Masters of Science in Aerospace Engineering in 1989. He has been a member of AIAA for over 30 years. During his 29 years at Ball Aerospace, Troeltzsch has worked on three of Hubble’s science instruments and in program management for the Spitzer Space Telescope. Following Spitzer’s launch in 2003, Troeltzsch joined Ball’s Kepler team and was named program manager in 2007. For the Kepler mission, Troeltzsch has managed the Ball team, including responsibility for cost, schedule, and performance requirements.

Link to pdf copy of invitation, http://www.iseti.us/pdf/AIAA-Sentinel-Feb.pdf

I was recently accused on another blog of repeating a defeatist mantra.

My “mantra” has always been WE CAN GO NOW. The solutions are crystal clear to anyone who takes a survey of the available technology. What blinds people is their unwillingness to accept the cost of making it happen.
There is no cheap.

Paul Gilster comments on his blog Centauri Dreams, concerning Radiation, Alzheimer’s Disease and Fermi;

“Neurological damage from human missions to deep space — and the study goes no further than the relatively close Mars — would obviously affect our planning and create serious payload constraints given the need for what might have to be massive shielding.”

Massive shielding.
This is the game changer. The showstopper. The sea change. The paradigm shift.
The cosmic ray gorilla. Whatever you want to call it, it is the reality that most of what we are familiar with concerning human space flight is not going to work in deep space.
Massive Shielding=Nuclear Propulsion=Bombs
M=N=B
We have to transport nuclear materials to the Moon where we can light off a nuclear propulsion system. The Moon is where the ice-derived Water to fill up a Massive radiation shield is to be found.
Massive Shield=Water=Lunar Base
M=W=L
Sequentially: L=W=M=N=B
So, first and last, we need an HLV to get to this Lunar Base (where the Water for the shield is) and we need to safely transport Nuclear material there (and safely assemble and light off the Bombs to push the shield around).

Radiation shielding is the first determining factor in spaceship design and this largely determines the entire development of space travel.

http://voices.yahoo.com/water-bombs-8121778.html?cat=15

If, we as a community, are intending to accelerate the development of interstellar travel we have to glower at the record and ask ourselves some tough questions. First, what is the current record of the primary players? Second, why is everyone afraid to try something outside the status quo theories?

At the present time the primary players are associated with the DARPA funded 100-Year Starship Study, as Icarus Interstellar who is cross linked with The Tau Zero Foundation and Centauri Dreams is a team member of the 100YSS. I was surprised to find Jean-Luc Cambier on Tau Zero.

Gary Church recently put the final nail in the Icarus Interstellar‘s dreams to build a rocket ship for interstellar travel. In his post on Lifeboat, Cosmic Ray Gorilla Gary Church says “it is likely such a shield will massive over a thousand tons”. Was he suggesting that the new cost of an interstellar rocket ship is not 3.4x World GDP but 34x or 340x World GDP? Oops!

Let us look at the record. Richard Obousy of Icarus Interstellar and Eric Davis of Institute for Advanced Studies claimed that it was possible, using string theories to travel at not just c, the velocity of light but at 1E32c, or c multiplied by a 1 followed by 32 zeros. However, Lorentz-FitzGerald transformations show that anything with mass cannot travel faster than the velocity of light. Note that Lorentz-FitzGerald is an empirical observation which was incorporated into Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity.

It is quite clear that you can use string theories to say anything you want. I used the term ‘mathematical conjecture’.

In April 2008 the esteemed Michio Kaku said in his Space Show interview, that it would take several hundred years to do gravity modification. But Michio Kaku is a string theorist himself. And I might add down to Earth one at that, since his opinion contradicts Richard Obousy and Eric Davis.

Then there is George Hathaway also with the Tau Zero Foundation who could not reproduce Podkletnov’s experiments, even when he was in communication with Podkletnov.

And this is the one group our astronaut Mae Jemison, leader of the 100YSS effort, has teamed up with? My sincerest condolences to you Mae Jemison. Sincerest condolences.

For the answer to the second question, you have to look within yourselves.

—————————————————————————————————

Benjamin T Solomon is the author & principal investigator of the 12-year study into the theoretical & technological feasibility of gravitation modification, titled An Introduction to Gravity Modification, to achieve interstellar travel in our lifetimes. For more information visit iSETI LLC, Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative.

Solomon is inviting all serious participants to his LinkedIn Group Interstellar Travel & Gravity Modification.