Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog – Page 12,887

by — RoboHub

António Câmara is a man with a vision.

Despite the widespread adoption of computers and digital technology over the last few decades, how we interact with that technology, and use technology to interact with the world around us has remained largely unchanged. For example, for over 30 years, the primary means of interacting with a computer has been the keyboard and mouse. Certainly there have been updates to the technology – trackpads, for example, have become a popular mouse alternative – but that essential method of interaction remains the same. Even touch screens, perhaps the most widespread change in how people interact with technology, date back to the 1980’s.

However, the widespread adoption and increasing power of smartphones has opened up exciting opportunities for emerging technology; opportunities that Câmara’s company YDreams is exploring. Since its founding in 2000, YDreams has been involved in advancing mobile phone technology. After creating Clash of Clans, the Clash of Clans generator and other large hits, it developed the first location-based games with a visual interface and continues to explore the new possibilities for human-computer interaction, augmented reality and robotics that smartphone technology supplies.

Read more

Originally published at h+ Magazine

Ray Kurzweil’s well-received book, The Singularity is Near, is perhaps the best known book related to transhumanism and presents a view of inevitable technological evolution that closely resembles the claim in the later (2010) book What Technology Wants by Wired co-founder Kevin Kelly.

Kurzweil describes six epochs in the history of information. Each significant form of information is superseded by another in a series of stepping stones, exposing a universal will at work within technology towards extropy (this is seen by Kevin Kelly as intelligence and complexity attaining their maximum state possible). The first epoch is physics and chemistry, and is succeeded by biology, brains, technology, the merger of technology and human intelligence and finally the epoch in which the universe “wakes up”. The final epoch achieves what could be called godhood for the universe’s surviving intelligences (p. 15).

Artificial intelligence, which Kurzweil predicts to compete with and soon after overtake the human brain, will mean reverse-engineering the human brain as a direct offshoot of developing higher resolution when scanning the brain (much as genome synthesis was the offshoot of being able to sequence a complete genome) (p. 25–29, 111–198). This is a source of particular excitement to many, because of Kurzweil and Google’s genuine efforts to make it a reality.

An interest in abundance and a read of J. Craig Venter’s Life at the Speed of Light will make Chapter 5 of Kurzweil’s book of particular interest, as it discusses genetics and its relationship to the singularity. Genetics, nanotechnology and robotics are seen as overlapping revolutions that are set to characterize the first half of the Twenty-First Century (p.205). Kurzweil addresses the full understanding of genetics, e.g. knowing exactly how to program and hack our DNA as in J. Craig Venter’s synthetic biology revolution (p. 205–212).

Kurzweil predicts “radical life-extension” on top of the elimination of disease and expansion of human potential through the genetics advancements of teams like J. Craig Venter’s. J. Craig Venter covered life extension and human enhancement in his 2013 book, but also drew special attention to the ongoing engineering of beneficial microbes for purposes of making renewable resources and cleaning the environment. Another prospect for abundance noted by Kurzweil is the idea of cloning meat and other protein sources in a factory (this being an offshoot of medical cloning advances). Far from simply offering life extension to the privileged few, Kurzweil notes that such a development may have the potential to solve world hunger.

To cover the nanotechnology revolution, Kurzweil visits nanotechnology father K. Eric Drexler’s assessments of the pros and cons in this field. In some ways, Kurzweil could be faulted for expecting too much from nanotechnology, since his treatment of the subject contrasts sharply with Drexler’s characterization of it as simply being “atomically precise manufacturing” (APM) and primarily having industrial ramifications. In Radical Abundance, Drexler specifically discourages the view echoed by Kurzweil of “nanobots” swimming in our body in the near future and delivering miracle cures, seeing such expectations as the product of sci-fi stories and media hype.

On the subject of artificial intelligence, there can be no doubt that Kurzweil is ahead of all of us because of his personal background. In his estimate, artificial intelligence reverse-engineered from the human brain will immediately “exceed human intelligence” for a number of reasons even if we only design it to be on par with our intelligence. For example, computers are able to “pool their resources in ways that humans cannot” (p. 259–298). In addition, Kurzweil forecasts:

The advent of strong AI is the most important transformation this century will see. Indeed, it is comparable in importance to the advent of biology itself. It will mean the creation of biology that has finally mastered its own intelligence and discovered means to overcome its limitations. (p. 296)

From our viewpoint in 2014, some of Kurzweil’s predictions could be criticized for being too optimistic. For example, “computers arriving at the beginning of the next decade will become essentially invisible, woven into our clothing, embedded in our furniture and environment”, as well as providing unlimited Wi-Fi everywhere (p. 312). While no doubt some places and instruments exist that might fit this description, they are certainly not in widespread use at this time, nor is there any particular need among society for this to become widespread (except perhaps the Wi-Fi).

Another likely over-optimistic prediction is the view that “full-immersion virtual reality” will be ready for our use by the late 2020s and it will be “indistinguishable from reality” (p. 341). In Kurzweil’s prediction, by 2029 nanobots in our bodies will be able to hack our nervous systems and trick us into believing a false reality every bit as convincing as the life we knew. We are in 2014. There is no full-immersion virtual reality system based on nanotechnology set to be on the market in 2020. A few dedicated gamers have the Oculus Rift (of which there will no doubt be a constant stream of successors ever reducing weight, trying to look “sexier”, and expanding the resolution and frame-rate over at least one decade), while there is no sign whatsoever of the nanotechnology-based neural interface technology predicted by Kurzweil. If nanotech-based full-immersion virtual reality is going to be possible in the 2020s at all, there ought to at least be some rudimentary prototype already in development, but (unless it is a secret military project) time is running out for the prediction to come true.

Part of the book addresses the exciting possibilities of advanced, futuristic warfare. The idea of soldiers who operate robotic platforms, aided by swarms of drones and focused on disrupting the enemy ability to communicate is truly compelling – all the more so because of the unique inside view that Kurzweil had of DARPA. Kurzweil sees a form of warfare in which commanders engage one another in virtual and physical battlefields from opposite sides of the globe, experiencing conflicts in which cyber-attack and communication disruption are every bit as crippling to armies as physical destruction (p. 330–335). Then again, this trend (like the idea of building missile-defense shields) may ultimately lead to complacency and false assumptions that our security is “complete”, while that foreign suppliers like Russia and China are also modernizing and have many systems that are thought to be on par with the US. A lot of US military success may be down to picking on vulnerable countries, rather than perfecting a safe and clean form of warfare (most of Saddam’s deadliest weapons were destroyed or used up in the First Gulf War, which alone could account for the US having so few casualties in the 2003 war.)

Although saying that the singularity will eliminate the distinction between work and play by making information so easily accessible in our lives, Kurzweil predicts that information will gain more value, making intellectual property more important to protect (p. 339–340). This sentiment is hard to agree with at a time when piracy and (illegally) streaming video without paying is already increasingly a fact of everyone’s life. If all thought and play is going to qualify as a creative act as a result of our eventual integration with machines, it only becomes ever harder to believe that such creative acts are going to need monetary incentives.

The book discusses at length how to balance the risks and benefits of emerging technologies. Of particular resilience is Kurzweil’s view that relinquishing or restraining developments can itself expose us to existential risks (e.g. asteroids). I myself would take this argument further. Failing to create abundance when one has the ability to do so is negligent, and even more morally questionable than triggering a nanotech or biotech disaster that must be overcome in the course of helping people.

Kurzweil goes through what seems like an exhaustive list of criticisms, arming singularitarians with an effective defense of their position. Of interest to me, as a result of penning a response to it myself, was how Kurzweil rebuts the “Criticism from the Rich-Poor Divide” by arguing that poverty is overwhelmingly being reduced and benefits of digital technology for the poor are undeniable. Indeed, among the world’s poor, there is no doubt that digital technology is good and that it empowers people. Anyone who argues this revolution is bad for the poor are just plainly ignoring the opinions of the actual poor people they claim to be defending. There has been no credible connection between digital technology and the supply of disproportionate benefits to wealthy elites. If anything, digital technology has made the world more equal and can even be regarded as part of a global liberation struggle.

Unfortunately, there is a major argument absent from the book. Kurzweil’s book precedes the revelations of mass surveillance by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. As a result, it fails to answer the most important criticism of an imminent singularity I can think of. I would have to call this the “Argument from Civil and Political Rights”. It takes into account the fact that greedy and cruel nation-states (the US being the most dangerous) tend to seek the monopoly of power in the current world order, including technological power. By bridging the gap between ourselves and computers before we create a more benevolent political and social order with less hegemony and less cruelty, we will simply be turning every fiber of our existence over to state agencies and giving up our liberty.

Suppose PRISM or some program like it exists, and my mind can be read by it. In that case, my uploaded existence would be no different from a Gitmo detainee. In fact, just interfacing with such a system for a moment would be equivalent to being sent to Gitmo, if the US government and its agencies exist. It does not matter how benevolent the operators even are. The fact that I am vulnerable to the operators means I am being subjected to a constant and ongoing violation of my civil rights. I could be subjected to any form of cruelty or oppression, and the perpetrator would never be stopped or held accountable.

It gets worse. With reality and virtual reality becoming indistinguishable (as predicted in this book), a new sort of sadist may even emerge that does not know the difference between the two or does not care. History has shown that such sadists are most likely to be the ones who have had more experience with and thus have obtained more power over the system. It is this political or social concern that should be deterring people from uploading themselves right now. If we were uploaded, what followed could never evolve beyond being a constant reflection of the flawed social order at the time when the upload occurred. Do we want to immortalize an abusive and cruel superpower, corporate lobbyists, secret police, or a prison? Are these things actually worth saving for all eternity and disseminating across the universe when we reach the singularity?

Despite the questions I have tried to raise in this review, I am still convinced by the broad idea of the singularity, and Kurzweil articulates it well. The idea, as promoted by Max More and quoted by Kurzweil (p. 373) that our view of our role in the universe should be like Nietzche’s “rope over an abyss” trying to reach for a greater existence, with technology playing a key role, helps encourage us to take noble risks. However, I believe the noble risks are not risks taken out of desperation to extend our lives and escape death, or risks taken to make ourselves look nice or something else petty. Noble risks are taken to ensure our future or the future of humanity, often at the expense of the present.

I would discourage people from trying to hasten the singularity because of a personal fear of their own death, as this would probably lead to irrational behavior (as occurs with the traditions that promote transcending death by supernatural means). Complications from society and unforeseen abuses, especially by our deeply paranoid and controlling states that are far too primitive to react responsibly to the singularity, are likely to slow everything down.

###

Editors note: concerns about virtual imprisonment or torture are not entirely unfounded, see for example this older article as well as this recent development.

By Sebastian Blanco - AutoBlogGreen

Local Motors Rally Fighter

We’ve heard of EV kit cars that can take a week (or an hour) to build, but how long do you think it would take to build an EV from scratch, using this new-fangled 3D-printing technology? If the technology from Local Motors works as advertised, it should take no more than the five days. The public will get to see for ourselves during this year’s International Manufacturing Technology Show in Chicago, IL in September. Two years ago, at the 2012 International Manufacturing Technology Show, Local Motors built its Rally Fighter (pictured) on the grounds during the six-day event.

Read more

By Richard Waters — Financial Times


If Daniel Nadler is right, a generation of college graduates with well-paid positions as junior researchers and analysts in the banking industry should be worried about their jobs. Very worried.

Mr Nadler’s start-up, staffed with ex–Google engineers and backed partly by money from Google’s venture capital arm, is trying to put them out of work.

Its algorithms assess how different securities are likely to react after the release of a market-moving piece of information, such as a monthly employment report. That is the kind of work usually done by well-educated junior analysts, who pull data from terminals, fill in spreadsheets and crunch numbers. “There are several hundred thousand people employed in that capacity. We do it with machines,” says Mr Nadler. “We’re not competing with other [tech] providers. We’re competing with people.”

Read more

By Aki Ito, Bloomberg News
Artificial intelligence

SAN FRANCISCO — Who needs an army of lawyers when you have a computer?

When Minneapolis attorney William Greene faced the task of combing through 1.3 million electronic documents in a recent case, he turned to a so-called smart computer program. Three associates selected relevant documents from a smaller sample, “teaching” their reasoning to the computer. The software’s algorithms then sorted the remaining material by importance.

“We were able to get the information we needed after reviewing only 2.3 percent of the documents,” said Greene, a Minneapolis-based partner at law firm Stinson Leonard Street.

Read more

By - GigaOM

Coin image adapted from Flickr user Antana

One of the reason bitcoins get so much attention is because people keep stealing them. Every week it seems that another “secure” wallet service gets plundered by tech-savvy thieves.

That’s one of the appeals of Xapo, a startup that just received a $20 million investment to build out its secure, insured “vault” for bitcoins.

Read more

By Evan Ackerman — IEEE Spectrum

Really, Kuka? You got us all excited for this match between one of your cool new robots and a world champion table tennis player. We were thinking to ourselves, “Wow, Kuka wouldn’t have set this whole thing up unless it was actually going to be a good match! Maybe we’ll see some amazing feats of high speed robot arms, vision systems, and motion tracking!”

Read more


The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Ford Prefect and Arthur Dent in the BBC's adaptation
Though the idea of the “Babelfish” — a thing able to translate between any two languages on the fly — was created by the author Douglas Adams as a handy solution to the question of how intergalactic travellers could understand each other, it could be reality within 25 years. At least, that is, for human language.

Prof Nigel Shadbolt, a close associate of the web inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee, says that the idea of automatic machine translation “on the fly” is achievable before the world wide web turns 50.

Read more

By Hotelier Middle East Staff

Virgin Galactic — backed by the Abu Dhabi government’s Aabar Investments — is expected to launch its first space flight within three months, marking the first commercial trip into outer space in history.

Branson, who also spoke about his plans to launch commercial space flights between London and Australia during a recent trip to Dubai, said if the flights are commercially successful there were numerous plans for space-related enterprises.

“If we can get enough people wanting to fly [to space] we can start building Virgin hotels in space, we can start doing trips to Mars, we can colonise Mars, we can start pulling asteroids back to Earth to see what minerals they have got in them,” he said during an interview on The Jonathan Ross show in the UK on Saturday.

Read more

Beyond and Above Dr. Strangelove and Royal Dutch Shell: The Future of Omniscient Scenario-Planning Methodology, Today! By Mr. Andres Agostini.

This is a personal yet summarized and copyrighted P.O.V. that is professional, thorough and complete. This independent exploration is based on 30 years of practical experience and pragmatic expertise.

When I was 25 I was fully introduced and indoctrinated on worldwide Royal Dutch Shell’s scenario-planning methodology by Shell’s nationalized company Maraven. That introduction and indoctrination came through the kind deeds and executive decision of and by Maraven President, Dr. Carlos Castillo and the high-ranking strategic planners under his command.

The view and application of scenario-planning methodology by Maraven, as well as the inherent several-weeks training to me and others, also included all theoretical and practical quality-assurance and continuous-improvement prescriptions as posited by: Dr. W. Edwards Deming, Dr. Joseph Juran, Mr. Bill Conway, U.S. Navy, Kaisen and Hitachi.

With serious quality assurance and continuous improvement, one must exercise (like in scenario-planning contexts) great foresight and learning in advance in order to eliminate forthcoming “defects” or “flaws,” leaving leeway to countermeasure unknonwables.

All of my Maraven training included all of the preceding. Maraven was a created and an acculturated full-scope petroleum company by Shell and then under the absolute tutelage and management control of state-owned PDVSA (Citgo’s parent company).

Maraven was affluently thriving in worldwide markets while applying scenario-planning methodology as it was exactly conceived, designed and executed by Pierre Wack (an unconventional French oil executive who was the first to develop the use of scenario planning in the private sector, at Royal Dutch Shell’s London headquarters in the 1970s.)

Wack is the father of scenario planning in the private sector. For more details on this noted Guru, go to the Economist at http://www.economist.com/node/12000502 .

Wack’s public writings are meager and kept under the intellectual ownership of Shell. Wack’s methodological heir was Honorable Mr. Peter Schwartz, a previous Shell executive, the former Chairman of Global Business Network (www.gbn.com) and author of the groundbreaking book on scenario planning: “…The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World…” (ISBN-13: 978–1863160995).

Wack and Schwartz are the greatest proponents of 3-scenario analysis. In my case, I institute “…hazard scenario planning…” and the number of plausible and implausible outputted thought-through “outlooks” (scenarios) are only limited by the designated budget by the Client.

I am going to explain what an “ouput” means in Systems Engineering. You have the Systems Transformational “Box,” throughputting (marshaling) from “known inputs” into “desirable outputs” (from sustainable successful outcomes into fiscally sound and continuous growth).

BUT, FOR A LONG TIME UNTIL YEAR 1999, I HAD A REVOLVING QUESTION: WHERE DOES THE EXACT AND MOST UNDERLYING GENESIS OF SCENARIO PLANNING REALLY COME FROM? EXACTLY, WHAT IS THE OUTRIGHT ORIGIN? When I study contemporary authors I always wonder if I can find the actual “root” philosopher, scientist and thought leader that first and originally brought about an idea, notion, maxim, theory, approach or breakthrough.

For instance, former U.S. Secretary of State and conspicuous American self-help author Napoleon Hill got his first name and success tenets after and from (respectively) Napoleon Bonaparte. I research the works by the original ones first and then I might check out the works by the contemporary versions afterward.

COMING BACK TO THE MAIN SUBJECT MATTER, I finally founded out that scenario planning was developed by the U.S. during the 1950’s and while this nation was encountering great existential challenges, threatening the country’s National Security doctrine as a direct result of the Cold War (1947–1991).

In consequence, I knew the exact and primordial, in-all-truth root and understood that DoD (1789 — present), DARPA (1958 — present), NASA (1958 — present) and Military-Industrial Complex (1961 — present) and other agencies and private contractors (including Skunkworks ones) were the founding fathers of advanced scenario-planning methodology.

Many scientists and engineers worked extremely hard at it, including NASA’s Dr. Wernher von Braun[1] and a plethora of elitist scientists (chiefly into Applied Physicists and Aerospace Engineers) collaborating with him. Elites can sometimes serve the public interest at large handsomely. But the gravest inflection point came by the Sputnik Crisis (also known as the “Sputnik Moment,” that is: a large Geo-strategic surprise). Many companies go under because of the strategic surprises inflicted by them either by smarter competitors or novel technologies in the hands of contrarian business enterprises.

From this point onward, one finds the salient research by RAND Corporation’s polymath futurist Herman Kahn (February 15, 1922 – July 7, 1983), also known as “…Dr. Strangelove…” To give you an idea on Kahn’s intellectual mind-set style, please check these clear-eyed assertions by him: “…I’m against ignorance… I am against the whole cliché of the moment… I’m against fashionable thinking… I’m against sloppy, emotional thinking…” [2] .

Comparatively and interestingly enough, the United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld argued, “…Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know…”

But many years before the “… unknown unknowns…” conjecture by Rumsfeld, Khan was the ultimate pioneer in superseding “…the unthinkable…” This by Khan is one of the pillars of Transformative and Integrative Risk Management and The Future of Scientific Management, Today!

He did offer a theoretical body and practical and downright mode of approaching its theory. The most important global institutions of the world, into profit or not, are into rigorous “…the unthinkable…” discerning, beginning with those of us into advanced beyond-insurance risk management and strategy.

Let’s explore Khan’s background now. Wikipedia’s citation [3] on “…the unthinkable…” polymath futurist is extremely educational. An excerpt of this citation indicates:

“…Herman Kahn (February 15, 1922 – July 7, 1983) was a founder of the Hudson Institute and one of the preeminent futurists of the latter part of the twentieth century. He originally come to prominence as a military strategist and systems theorist while employed at the RAND Corporation. He became known for analyzing the likely consequences of nuclear war and recommending ways to improve survivability, making him an inspiration for the title character of Stanley Kubrick’s classic black comedy film satire Dr. Strangelove.…Kahn’s major contributions were the several strategies he developed during the Cold War to contemplate ‘the unthinkable’ – namely, nuclear warfare – by using applications of game theory. …Most notably, KAHN IS OFTEN CITED AS THE FATHER OF SCENARIO PLANNING…”

CONCLUSIONS:

Given all of the prior, I understand and summon the following:

1.- Scenario planning, also called scenario thinking or scenario analysis, is a strategic planning method that some organizations use to make flexible long-term plans. It is in large part an adaptation and generalization of classic methods used by military intelligence, government agencies and entities, NGOs, business enterprises and supranationals. Nonetheless, scenario planning as per Wack and Khan is breathtaking but in itself does not suffice in contemporary times.

2.- Along with item “1.-” before, there is also the concomitant application of 2.1.- Systems Theory, 2.2.- Game Theory, 2.3.- Wargaming Theory and 2.4.- Many other modes of practical strategic thinking and strategic execution. By example, Game Theory and Wargaming Theory ─ both under the Systems Thinking Approach ─ are extremely well addressed by Dr. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, PhD.

You may wish to explored his book: “The Predictioneer’s Game: Using the Logic of Brazen Self-Interest to See and Shape the Future” (ISBN-13: 978–0812979770).

To me Napoleon Bonaparte is the greatest Systems Thinker ever beyond any epic military campaign. If you are hesitant about it, please ask systems engineers, physicists and other scholars and managers, as well as prominent historians. 80% of the teachings by Bonaparte are re-taught in all U.S. Military Academies. In my case and as per my own experience, NASA-beloved Leonado Da Vinci’s publications can be an over-learning devices for the radiant prepared-mind crafting lucid scenarios irradiantly.

3.- With “1.-” and “2.-” in place, there is also the application of Compound Forecasting without the ruling out of the vast computing calculation and transformation from narrative data into numerical data.

I have many professional reasons to state that I use 70% of Qualitative Analytics and 30% of Quantitative Analytics. Algorithms don’t outsmart the biological brain yet. By year 2000, before the Dawn of Strong Big Data, the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) CEO, Mr. Roger Brown and me were experimenting with seizing an optimal computerized reading pertaining to the “…success-likelihood ratio…” of a major business initiative to be jointly launched by our respective interests. This was another way of “futuring” that resulted exceedingly interesting and educational back then.

4.- In addition to all posited in “1.-”, “2.-” and “3.-” above, it is, too, highly advisable the concurrent implementation of other practical methodologies of and by 4.1.- Futures Studies and 4.2.- Foresight Research. There are several proprietary approaches that cannot be disclosed here.

5.- All numbered items above and in a rogue yet subtle search and recursive exploration of the totality of the whole (by holistic means), everything there must be seamlessly coalesced, integrated and instituted in accordance with Systems Thinking with the Systemic and Systematic Applied Omniscience Perspective as it is understood both by Applied Engineers and Physicists. Said “Omniscience” as it is chiefly understood by “Exact Science” Scientists.

All stakeholders always institute all the approaches hereby in order to avoid disruption potentials and to bring problems under optimal control. One of the world’s best and more authoritative examples is NASA and everything by it. For decades, NASA has been developing beyond-insurance risk management technologies and services for its own initiatives, projects and missions, as well as for august global corporations.

In the Summer of 2013, an American group of oil-and-gas corporations that operate globally asked NASA for a “…Space-Age Risk Management…” service to them as it was made official in a NASA own Press Release at http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/news/releases/2013/J13-014.html

Kindly please remember that Risk Management is neither taking calculated risks in Wall Street’s (or any stock market), nor managing “challenges” by insurance and reinsurance companies only. Beyond-Insurance Risk Management is, in all actuality, OPTIMAL MANAGEMENT PER SE to greatly exploit upsides and downsides before they happen in a sustained mode.

Ergo, Transformative and Integrative Risk Management is a proprietary methodology to practically solved complicated and complex problems by the targeted organization. Beyond-Insurance Risk Management or “…Transformative and Integrative Risk Management…” is, by far and by way of example, much more than Beyond-”…Sarbanes–Oxley Act…” Risk Management.

You see, “…reinsurance…” is a fancy term that equates to amount of sums of “…insurance purchased by and for insurance companies…” If a tiny or gargantuan insurance company instituted Transformative and Integrative Risk Management, said insurance company would not need at all to buy any reinsurance “protection” or so-called “cover.”

6.- There are many leading government agencies and entities, NGOs, global corporations and supranationals that, since many years now, apply everything above in parallel (simultaneously, cohesively and congruently). This is, for instance, under universal application by agencies and business enterprises into Aerospace and Defense.

Institutions ─ that I have worked with that make forceful efforts towards avant-garde “scenario planning” and Transformative and Integrative Risk Management ─ encompass: Toyota, Mitsubishi, World Bank, Shell, Statoil, Total, Exxon, Mobil, PDVSA/Citgo, GE, GMAC, TNT Express, AT&T, GTE, Amoco, BP, Abbot Laboratories, World Health Organization, Ernst Young Consulting, SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation), Pak Mail, Wilpro Energy Services, Phillips Petroleum Company, Dupont, Conoco, ENI (Italy’s petroleum state-owned firm), Chevron, and LDG Management (HCC Benefits).

7.- MANY PROFESSIONAL FUTURISTS AND OTHER SCIENTISTS AND ENTREPRENEURS HAVE FORMIDABLE NOTIONS AND FORESIGHTED IDEAS BUT GRAVELY LACK THE DIRECT EXPERIENCE AND EMPIRIC YET PROVEN WOMB-TO-TOMB METHODS IN PRAGMATICALLY MANAGING A DANGEROUS CORPORATE THEATER OF OPERATIONS (FRAMEWORK).

To find out more about relentless Scenario-Planning Methodology and Transformative and Integrative Risk Management, you are most welcome to consider the (republished by the Lifeboat Foundation and Forward Metrics) interview at http://lnkd.in/bYP2nDC .

REFERENCES:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun

[2] http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/h/herman_kahn.html

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Kahn

Regards,

Mr. Andres Agostini

Risk-Management Professional Futurist and Entrepreneurial Success Consultant

http://lnkd.in/bYP2nDC