Interesting conversation but it needs to fall on the appropriate ears. You need a lobby to at least get this discussion on the computers of legislative aids.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam@redfish.com> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 7:27 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 38, Issue 3 > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > OK, so let's take half the defense budget and spend it on Bucky's > > 'livingry' rather than weaponry. How much you need? It certainly > > couldn't be more of a waste than spending it threaten fanatic community > > groups to obtain nuclear weapons... > > > > Half the U.S. defense budget is $209 billion and half of Homeland > Security is $15 billion. Together $50 billion is being spent on > domestic defense. > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/budget06/budget06Agencies.html > > For starters pull an amount of 1% of the scale of the domestic defense > budget from the larger defense budget. That would be $500 million > dollars. Plenty to buy the best supercomputers and a team of a few > dozen project managers, political scientists, intelligence experts, and > modelers. Take say $100 million to reimburse the CIA and NSA for their > time on data collection. > > I'd still have some major doubts about the adequacy of present modeling > > assumptions. No one seems to have recognized that growth systems are > > locally invented compounding instabilities to themselves yet, or that > > natural system networks are mostly linked opportunistically rather than > > deterministically, or that the variables of our relationship statements > > generally refer to things that keep changing definition with little > > notice. I don't think it's an easy problem. > > > I agree there is a lot that can't be modeled effectively without heavy > data collection and lots of focused attention. And some social > phenomena are probably too fleeting to capture and the precedents too > silent. But consider elections in this country. Usually it is pretty > clear how things will go once some exit polls are taken. I'm thinking > of how to study the demographics of change as a function of military and > civil violence, occupation, propaganda and relief efforts. Situations > where known perturbations have been made to the system, and then an > effort is made to model how those perturbations can be used to predict > rates and intensity of near and medium term disruptive events. > Insurgency, say, must have some common properties and unfold in ways > that are a function of the number of young people prepared to die, > explosives, technology, and money available and so forth. I imagine > such models not so much for precise prediction on the ground, but to be > developed over a long periods to fit abstract scenarios. To help > planners understand social risk as well as direct tactical risk. > > I know some programs like this are already underway, but it's unclear to > me the degree of funding. > > Marcus > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
