There's a word for that ...

We who follow technology and have an interest in both the mechanisms and rate of technologic change, often fall prey to what I've seen referenced as the "gee whiz syndrome"; that is, we become so enamored with some new-seeming aspect of technology that we forget (or dismiss) the preceding capability. Perhaps more importantly, we fail to realistically take into account both the burden of historical expectations a technology carries forward with it (critical to how it will be received by potential users) as well as the dismissal arising from un-met expectations due to the unachieved potentialities seemingly inherent to the technology. If a technology is perceived as being a previous disappointment (hydrogen as a fuel or power source is only one example), then any subsequent technologic advancement from the previous capability has to overcome an additional market bias against it in addition to the actual physical science-based challenges. Nuclear fusion might be a good example of un-met potentialities I suggest.

Now (OK, last week), comes Alvis Brigis (via Phil Bowermaster) with yet another possible example for us to consider. Full disclosure here; I have exchanged numerous e-mails with Alvis in regards to our mutual posts on Future Blogger, and I've been a call-in guest on Phil's Blog Talk Radio program Fast Forward Radio. I am acquainted with both gentlemen and to a large degree share their interest in matters technologic. That all said, I think they both have taken a heapin' helpin' of the kool-aid this time.

Having flung the obligatory monkey feces, let me now proceed to thoroughly mix the metaphors and spread a little oil on the roiled waters (before setting it merrily alight, I expect).

As children we all practice "simulation". Sticking to stereotype (if only for simplistic example's sake), little girls "simulate" human interaction with dress-up dolls and little boys build elaborate "simulations" of transport scenarios with a patch of dirt and a model vehicle of some description. Feel free to replace the described technology with a different historical example and the human behavior remains true; humans learn (at least in part) by playing out imaginative constructs that permit variations of circumstance to determine potential for success deriving from future actions. I would submit that this capability is one of the important factors permitting human evolution beyond that achieved by our nearest physiological brethren.

Alvis makes this point:

My personal take on the matter (original article [link redacted, WB]), in alignment with both Cascio and Kurzweil's views, is that as organisms evolve and life's complexity increases, new species with brains capable of greater quantification and abstraction (simulation!) emerge at a regular clip. Over time, these organisms discover ways to expand their knowledge by communicating (actively or passively) information to one another and letting the network manage their quantifications and decisions. Then, eventually, the higher-level organisms figure out how to extend their knowledge into the environment through technology that allows them to communicate and retrieve it more easily than before. This is accomplished directly through technologies like language, writing, or classical maps, and indirectly through the hard-technologies like spears, paint, and paper that critically support knowledge externalization.

In other words, I believe that simulation plays a critical role in not only the evolution and development of the human species, but also of all forms of life on this planet and probably in our known universe (as suggested by recent findings that physical matter millions of light years distant closely resembles our own).

Consequently, I find it likely that we will soon discover a proof, power law or other theorem for complex systems that correlates increased simulational ability with increased 1) control over environment and 2) survivability. It may look a little bit like the following diagram, with the added explanation that simulation drives the creation of more knowledge as our informational inputs are expanded by technology that steadily increases the data we mine from withion our environment (inner space) and across the universe (outer space) ...

[my bold, WB]

Leaving aside the question of possible examples of these putative alternate intelligences, one particular human developed just such a conceptual mechanism as Alvis pines for about 2,500 years ago as the planet Earth turns. In strategy, all potential points of active contention (commonly individual people or social entities like corporations, armies or countries) are described as position(s). The guiding intellect of each position (traditionally described as "the general") determines which of the potential actions available best advances the position, relative to itself and others. The means chosen to achieve these actions are known as tactics. The mechanism developed to measure the potential effectiveness of possible tactics is called planning, and most people completely overlook how this mechanism pertains to their own capabilities as much as to other's. No matter how lovingly a plan might "come together", the actual implementation always differs from the plan in some (often drastic) respect due to human inability to accurately simulate actual capabilities as well as intentions of possible opposition and/or assistance in carrying out a tactical option.

Phil makes the point:

As a species, and as individuals, we began to create better and better conceptual maps of the world around us and to make better use of those maps. We got better at simulating.It should be obvious that better simulation amounts to better evolutionary success -- just take out the word "evolutionary," and consider some examples ...

A very succinct description of the planning process of strategy.

Here comes the "setting alight" bit.

Because we may have, or more accurately be in the process of making, better tools doesn't necessarily imply that we have some new or even especially different tactic available to us. What is true is that we can make better plans eventually because the simulation technology we are developing permits us more accurate insight into other's capabilities/intentions than before. Add to this the ability to better express our own position and we have increased potential to reduce misconceptions, making less likely an adverse tactical selection being made to our detriment.

However, while important, none of the foregoing really rises to the level of "cosmic" I'm afraid. The inability to consistently communicate clearly within our own species is only one example of the adverse environment within which we seek to live and succeed in our daily lives. Stipulating there is "someone out there" with which to mis-communicate at all, we do ourselves a serious dis-service thinking we can begin to simulate such contact with any reliability. Closer to home, given the potential for non-human species (whether traditional or wholly artificial) to be "upgraded" to near-human intellect - or, pace Michael Anissimov, beyond - within the relatively near future, strategic theory provides a proven mechanism with which to employ our burgeoning simulation technology to our best mutual advantage.

Finally, because we can simulate possible interactions and outcomes more graphically (and thus more persuasively), we need to consciously avoid the dangerous assumption that "the map is the reality"; that our simulation is the outcome rather than a variably informed guess.

We have a word for that, too.

There is no "u" in Lara

Which would have been a screamingly funny line to deliver in the circumstances just passim. Or screaming, at least. I confess I was too chicken (or experienced with the results from previous displays of "humor") to actually express the observation. Perhaps one day the lady herself (for such she has grown to become) will read these pages and appreciate the possibilities my hesitance saved us all from.

Just returned from a two-day trip to the Dallas area. I am proud to announce that the no-longer-Miss Brown is, as I write these words, winging her way in the company of her new husband towards Barcelona, Espania and a week-long seaborne tour of the most touristy venues the western Med currently has on offer. I further have it on reliable authority that I am going to require larger digs in a year or three if I expect to hold up my end of the grand-fatherly responsibilities within the familias. Not sure what the kitties will think of all of that or, come the day, the kinder. Apparently we all are going to find out sometime in the late Spring of 2010 if himself expects to maintain his manly public reputation. I wish to place in the public record that I aver this to be an expression of feminine prescience - guns are for shooting, not jumping, he said.

One final observation; do you know how, when you first see some object of great art, that sensation you experience of "Yes, that's right. This is as it should be." can occur in the viewer? Even though there are numerous other examples also present that do the same thing, for that moment you have trouble accepting that the portrayed circumstance could possibly exist any other way. Seeing my daughter and son-in-law together instills that set of emotions very strongly in me. Indeed, that may have been the most common theme of the day, that at least in this swirl of life, things are finally as they were always meant to be. I like to think that I encouraged her to think for herself as she grew into adulthood; if the non-traditional nature of the proceedings now completed are any example, I succeeded beyond my wildest imaginings.

I feel much greater confidence as I face back towards the future. She has done well, and will do more as the dawns accumulate.

Commerce in Fundamentals

Roberta X recently put up a post regarding the merits of using an air-powered gun as an at-home marksmanship practice device. This strikes me as an excellent idea who's time has come in my own life.

Being less demanding as to the design parameters and similarity to my actual 1911 than is the lady herself (or possibly only substantially cheaper in nature), I have opted to go with this Daisy product rather than the one she appears to have decided upon in comments. My neighborhood Walmart had the Daisy available for $29.63 (plus the usual Governor's Gratuity) which is a marked discount from Daisy's own listed msrp of $50.99. Even with the additional cost of $3.96 for a 5-pack of CO2 bottles, $3.26 for 1500 BB's and the extravagance of a Beeman model 2085 pellet trap for $19.96, at just over $60 for the lot I've still managed to considerably discount the expense Roberta will bear for what is essentially an experiment in alternatives to practicing at a traditional range with an actual 1911 firing conventional ammunition (not a viable option for the Japanesse civilian market the Marui is targetted at).

I note that the Daisy shoots at a greater speed and distance, but question the practical effect this will have at the likely ranges the typical American home or garage will permit. Further, I also question the value of the blowback system her chosen weapon includes given the lack of restriction she experiences regarding opportunity to shoot an actual 1911 in practice. My inclination is that the added detail isn't cost effective outside of the restrictive environment it was designed for, but I look forward to her eventual blog posting on her shooting experience with the gun.

My expectation is that the Daisy will provide sufficient versimillitude to my Colt Commander as to permit reasonably realistic practice from the holster and the like within the confines of my 1-bedroom apartment. A couple old pillows framing the pellet trap ought to suffice as a backstop to keep the misses out of the drywall. The hope, of course, is that combining this with dry-firing and magazine drills with my actual 1911's will result in improvement of my weapon handling and shooting skills at little added financial cost. We'll see.

More getting there from here - baby steps

This past Sunday night, J. Storrs Hall was the guest on Fast Forward Radio (click on the link to listen to the recorded program) with the guys from The Speculist.

Early in the program, there is some discussion of how individual people might be effected by anticipated technologic change like nano-assemblers or AI. Dr. Hall professed not to have a good idea about how to begin that preparedness effort, but I think the strategic principle regarding alliances helpfully applies here.

Entities like the Foresight Institute are uniquely structured within the larger society to promote the framework for just such an alliance to address the individual transition problem - and do so in a fashion to facilitate the transition occurring that bit more quickly with less societal disruption. It seems a reasonable expectation that at least the initial adoption of assembler technology will involve robots operating at the established macro-assembly level that humans are gradually being supplanted from already and gradually incorporate greater refinement and adherence to tighter engineering tolerances as the overall size of the robots decreases. Not much room for human workers there, in fact they would basically be in the way. Dr. Hall could orchestrate a mechanism whereby ordinary people - some of them actual factory assembly workers like myself - could become involved in this development process while simultaneously preparing for their future financial security.

Visualize the 401(k) investment model; government regulates individual retirement initiatives in professionally managed investment schemes via tax policy. Now, imagine a specialized investment account that specifically seeks to invest in assembler technology (buy the current state-of-the-art technology) and rent it to industry with the income from that used to grow the fund further. As the state of the technology advances, the fund alters it's investment practices accordingly so as to remain as close as practical to the cutting edge. At some point the return generated by the rented robots exceeds the rate of individual investment. At some (individually variable) different point, individual investors will seek to draw income from the account as a replacement for their presumably by-then vanished employment income.

Via the national podium provided him by the Foresight Institute, Dr. Hall is in a position to coordinate such an effort among those with the expertise and wherewithal to evaluate and actualise such an expansive concept. Promoting such a transitional mechanism would permit him (and others) to expand the potential audience and resource support of the Institute generally as well as contribute to the Institute's established mission statement.

Needs more work, I admit; may not work at all. As Dr. Hall said on the show though, there will need to be a variety of mechanisms required to achieve the transition without utterly destroying our existing socio-economic structure entire. At the least, scrutiny of this concept seems a positive step towards mitigating the damaging potential inherent to such a fundamentally disruptive event as we are pursuing.

Hey, Michael Anissimov, this one's for you!

[The titular reference to an 80's Tommy Lee Jones movie should serve as fair warning to all regarding the serious nature of the scholastic standard applied to the following content by the author.]

As part of the comment thread to Michael's recent blog post I reiterated an earlier e-mailed offer to engage in discussion/debate with him on this and related topics. The pertinent portion of his specific answer was:

I’m afraid your blog post on the matter only has a paragraph or two of original content. I might be open to discuss/debate the Singularity and AGI, but could you perhaps make a longer blog post on your general position

I will not be at all surprised to discover that we also differ as the precise delineation of "pertinent". :)

Otherwise, one can't ask fairer than that. Forthwith, a summary of my general position on matters Singularity and related.

I suppose I should begin by noting that all of my interrogatives and premises are founded upon my amateur understanding of the tenants and principles that underlie the philosophy and practice of strategy as codified by Sun Tzu (I particularly recommend the translations developed by Gary Gagliardi). I have found this to provide a structure that relies upon neither mysticism nor higher mathematics to attain understanding of any topic I have considered in light of said principles. For the uninitiated, these principles and axioms are actually better applied at the individual level despite their being couched in language intended to intrigue a potential monarchical employer. By way of example, the primary principle upon which all else is predicated is that of protection and advancement of position as I first wrote about here.

I suppose my first examination of Singularity and AGI would be this post titled Strategy for a Singularity Model of Economics which is better understood in light of an earlier post titled Future Ground. The Singularity post garnered additional interesting commentary at the time here and here. I don't believe anyone can engage in a realistic discussion of these two issues (Singularity and AGI) without at least a casual examination of the economic aspects they inherently entail.

This seems a reasonable point to acknowledge that I am indeed one of those heretics who believes that AGI as such isn't particularly necessary to the possibility of a Singularity event. With all due respect to Vernor Vinge and Ray Kurzweil, and stipulating that their basic (Ok, Ray's doorstop hardly merits the acolade "basic", whatever one's opinion of the contents) conjecture regarding AI/AGI, I regard the Singularity phenomenon as being an ever-receding point of speculative human understanding of the physical sciences beyond which no further meaningful extrapolation is possible, pending additional advancement of scientific understanding. While the development of operant AGI certainly meets that qualification, I contend that it is not the only potential development that does so. Perhaps for this reason I would seem to be less susceptible to the potential for threat that AGI of a certainty entails than Michael seems to be (though I further suspect this may be at least as well explained by the differences in our respective ages and personal experience referents).

That all said, I also appear to differ from Michael as to the degree of willingness to advance towards ... what to call it, precursor AGI technology? Limited AI, perhaps? For the moment, at least, I will use the acronym LAI to indicate an artificial intelligence that specifically lacks the ability Stephen Omohundro called a "self-improving system". To bring this initial discussion right on point, the recent DARPA solicitation Michael and I take contrasting points of view over seems to me to be specifically targeted at developing LAI types of intelligences rather than an AGI entity (from the solicitation: "... and create tools to engineer intelligent systems that match the problem/environment in which they will exist.").

I submit that such entities, even should they prove to be developable given the limitations of current bio-science technology (I would argue not ... yet), would not possess the mechanism to "improve" themselves and that a human developer would so organise their construction such that it couldn't be altered without destroying the original construct's cognitive capabilities - essentially forcing a would-be bio-hacker back to developmental square one - if only as a means of copyright/trademark and liability protection.

See what I mean about economic issues being unavoidable to discussion of this topic?

Another aspect of Michael's position I find particularly troublesome is his willingness to argue that certain people are simultaneously capable of designing bio-weapons from their personal nanofactory (the other general topic of contention between Michael and myself) yet are too ignorant to comprehend the existential threat to themselves inherent to their manipulations. This logically questionable assertion seems to be the principal basis for his proposed regulatory scheme I treat so rudely here.

It is only proper that I take note of the fact that Michael and I don't appear to actually differ all that much as to the potential for threat and advancement entailed in both of these technologies. Our principal points of difference seem to revolve around their separate and combined potential for deliberate mis-use, the most-likely-to-be-successful mechanism for inhibiting that as well as the likelihood that LAI technology necessarily leads to AGI (leaving unsaid my own serious doubts that AGI is even practicable at all, at least in the form Michael, Kurzweil and Vinge propose it to take).

Regarding this last point, I contend that AI technology is most likely to achieve practical expression as some "enhancement" technology to existing human biology rather than as a stand-alone entity. Leaving the substance of the argument for another occasion, I submit that should this prove to be the actual course of events that develops, then AGI necessarily becomes "human" and the existential threat source remains unchanged (not to be correlated with unaltered). Simply put, adding capability all around (I did say "simply") doesn't offer much if any practical change to the presently understood threat environment, does it? The pre-existing mechanisms for inhibiting actualisation of threats would still basicly apply given the spectrum of potential each individual would enhance within.

I see I have not yet mentioned the more-than-a-little-questionable ethical aspects these two topics raise. These are so myriad and application-dependant that I content myself by observing that they are an important aspect of this discussion between Michael and myself (not to mention actual development of the technology just by the way) and that we will almost certainly contort ourselves into logical absurdities attempting to confront them. But not today.

It does not go without saying that, like any other technologic advancement recorded in human history, there will be inequities and dangers inherent to the process of development and dispersion of said technology throughout humanity. While there may in fact prove to be some aspect unique to either technology under discussion here that offers a truly existential threat to the human species, I confess I haven't seen anything plausably proposed that doesn't seem to have a near-analog in human history (and thus a practical near-analog to a solution). Such being the case, I associate myself with J. Storrs Hall's position regarding the concerns under discussion herein (hard to go too far wrong there, I think) with the proviso that I remain open to Michael's subsequent persuasions on the matter.

Over to you, Sir, I think.

Making AI

I recently took Michael Anissimov to task over some of his fretful reaction to this topic.

Now, via Brian Wang comes notice of the US Army's DARPA-lead effort to achieve that development:

The program plan is organized around three interrelated task areas: (1) creating a theory (a mathematical formalism) and validating it in natural and engineered systems; (2) building the first human-engineered systems that display physical intelligence in the form of abiotic, self-organizing electronic and chemical systems; and (3) developing analytical tools to support the design and understanding of physically intelligent systems. If successful, the program would launch a revolution of understanding across many fields of human endeavor, demonstrate the first intelligence engineered from first principles, create new classes of electronic, computational, and chemical systems, and create tools to engineer intelligent systems that match the problem/environment in which they will exist.

If I understand this correctly (as ever, not a given), the .mil wants to identify and then engineer a non-human intelligence that could ultimately replace ... well, me. The Me I was low these more-than-one decades passed, the average soldier (sailor actually) who performs some necessary but less-than-glamorous role in accomplishing the Mission.

Leaving aside the potential ethical quandaries this might pose, I suggest that at least one of the issues DARPA wants to tackle as part of this project is that regarding the question of "friendly AI" that has Mr. Anissimov (among numerous others) properly concerned. One possible mechanism to arriving at such an objective must be to simply manufacture an entity that cannot continue to function so far outside the designed tolerance levels that designate "friendly". This would offer future military planners the ability to much more finely calibrate the requirements of any potential mission requirements as well as mute the costs of success.

Swinging the Sword of Damocles* does provide a different set of options than does sitting on it at least.

*I know, classically it hangs above one by a single horse hair. It works either way I suppose, but my version seems more true to the military ethos I think.

Michael Anissimov hydrates his trousers ...

and J. Storrs Hall has him sit in his lap.

Let me preface this by stipulating that both of these men are deservedly admired for their intellect generally and their grasp of the technical challenges inherent to the development of molecular or nano-scale manufacturing specifically. That being said, I cannot fathom why either would waste any of that intellectual horsepower on the silly "concerns" they both go on about in the linked-to piece. Presumably there are simply no pending developments in any of the on-going efforts to create the stated technology that either gentleman might more profitably direct his attention towards.

How depressing.

Mr. Anissimov says:

I consider it likely that a singleton will emerge in the 21st century, whether we want it to or not, as a natural consequence of expanding technological powers on a finite-sized planet, as well as a historical trend of aggregation of powers at higher geopolitical levels. Note that the singleton concept does not specify what degree or scope of decision-making powers the entity (which, as pointed out, could be a worldwide democracy) has. 99% of policy choices could very well be made at the local and national levels, while a singleton intervenes in those 1% of choices with global importance.

Two things come quickly to mind about all of the above; first, pretty much all of the bullet-points of recorded human history have involved disputes over formation of precisely this socio-political arrangement [Master of all I survey]. I can't imagine any circumstance unique to this millennium that will change the basic drive for contention amongst human beings, whatever the technology developed. Secondly (and I'm kind-of embarrassed to have to point out something as obvious as this to these two men), since it apparently does need to be said, any governmental entity having the power to enforce it's decision making even 1% of the time necessarily must have the power to do so the remaining 99% of the time too, should it choose to do so. Only some of the questions this begs are: which 1%, to what extreme, to who's benefit/detriment, at what point of provocation and so forth.

Really fella's, is this sort of fantasy Civ speculation that urgent an issue?

I particularly like Mr. Anissimov's follow-up:

To me, what I’d want most out of a singleton would be a coherent and organized approach to problems that face the entire planet. Instead of a disorganized patchwork, there’d be more decisive action on global risks. No authoritarianism in cultural, political, or economic matters is implied.

Let me just say, Sir, if you truly believe that any such arrangement as you stipulate is remotely possible (never mind likely), I am available for employment as your personal source of common sense. As illustration of what you might expect from such an arrangement between us, consider for as long as necessary just how likely it might be for any entity possessing the means to enforce your compliance with it's directive to feel constrained by your subsequent objection regarding some putative cultural, political or economic aspect of said directive.

Take your time (if you're paying me).

I have no desire to turn this into some variant of Fisking, if only because I do respect both gentlemen despite my current mockery. Dr. Hall would do well to laugh as politely as he is able and gently point out the silliness being put on display. Mr. Anissimov needs to devote his attention toward developing a more credible (not to mention more logically consistent) oogy-boogy strawman with which to void his bladder in decent privacy in future.

The present example is just embarrassing, boys.

Concealed Carry

Gun? What gun!?!

Image NSFW.

Found here. Also mostly NSFW too.

The Singularity, Economics And Getting There From Here

Cross Posted to MemeBox/Future Blogger.

Phil Bowermaster has a post up at The Speculist examining the state of the progression of human society from it's present structure to one more closely tracking the various expectations stemming from the concept of The Singularity:

[The following is an expanded version of an e-mail I sent to Stephen in response to some reflections he had on our most recent FastForward Radio -- that show with guest Joseph Jackson discussing the possibility of a post-scarcity world. I think Stephen was going to post some additional thoughts, too -- to which I would have added comments -- but time's up!]

...

My issue is more practical. By what means could we possibly get to the kind of society he's describing? The assumption seems to be that it would be the federal government (or the Earth government or -- my fav -- the Committee of Robot Overlords) doing the distributing. But we don't have a working model of how a government can guarantee the material welfare of its population without ripping its economy to shreds and putting individual rights on the back burner. That doesn't mean it can't happen, but Joseph doesn't have a model of how we would get there, or at least he didn't articulate one Wednesday night.

I sympathise with Phil's dilemma, unfortunately Mr. Jackson's lack of specific insight isn't unique to him; nobody really knows how we get to "there" because we still haven't really articulated the starting point for the needed change(s) to progress from with any sort of degree of engineering specificity. It's all well and good to simply proclaim the need for a systemic advancement, but what specific mechanism achieves that to actual advantage - and to whom? It seems a bit solipsistic perhaps, but market pressures actually are the least disruptive mechanism to stimulating that process. This doesn't make for speedy adoption of course, but does assure wide-spread acceptance of the process within the production industry(s) generally once the never-ending search for competitive advantage resorts to such comparatively radical technological innovation. Until business profitability (with it's concomitant influence on tax collections) forces executives and governmental legislators to commit to some technology there will remain resistance to doing so. Despite the potential for individual developments altering the current production structure and economy, the likelihood of such a development actually forcing early change is slight for a variety of reasons - only some of them technologic in nature.

One aspect of the problem Phil notes - quoting fellow Speculist contributor Michael Darling - in particular is one I've examined several times in recent years, as Phil himself might recall:

The vocabulary we use to talk about economics and scarcity has to change. Economists and those who take their classes and read their books are not equipped to discuss abundance. It just makes no sense.

On the one hand, Mr. Darling is correct that economics - as a science/intellectual discipline - doesn't seem to offer many objectively testable assertions that claim any real universal application. The degree of sociology and psychology that permeates this supposed theoretic codification of conflicting accounting methodology is truly astonishing to those who haven't examined the topic closely. What I have discovered is that economics has less to do with financial considerations then it does with the societal manipulations that are occasionally accomplished via that mechanism. Not to mention the to-be-expected "who's is bigger" competition between economists themselves - I'm not aware of any studies of the question, but I do have to wonder how many economic theories result from the pursuit of professional advantage rather than actual theoretical insight. :)

On the other hand, Mr. Darling seems to be making a common mistake among non-economists; to wit, that the concept of "scarcity" has very much of a tangible nature to do with the actual quantity of something.

Scarcity is a little understood aspect of the cost/price determination and is always at least in part the result of deliberate human manipulation of transactional processes, so will always exist to some measurable extent in human societal interactions - whatever the technologic capabilities might otherwise allow. If Eric Drexler's much-abused Nano-Fabricator should ever finally be achieved, there will still be local examples of "scarcity" due to the efforts of humans to achieve advantage for themselves in some fashion.

Which illustrates some of the difficulty of these types of speculative discussion; there is simply no way to objectively measure the impact of these types of societal and technologic change absent some practical example to observe.

One final issue raised by Phil's post:

I don't see any straightforward way to convert our current very powerful, entrenched, and bureaucratic government into something open and abundance-friendly. Certainly, they will be slow to adopt those kinds of models on their own.

I believe even a cursory examination of human history will lead one to accept that no previously ascendant entity, whether governmental or corporate, will ever accept change - particularly of such disruptive nature - until such time as doing so works to the pre-existing structure's perceived advantage to do so. The trick, then, becomes arranging circumstance such that this occurs more quickly than not, I suggest. Sorry Phil, but the "next logical step" mostly isn't; you generally can't get there from here, you've got to go to some other there first. :)

I look forward to Stephen's response as well, and still hope he and I can arrange a luncheon on one of his future peregrinations through this part of Texas.

You think you fear change?

For an extraordinary look at the professional military culture extant in the US today, read this Abu Muqawama post and comment thread in its entirety. Pack a lunch (or a substantial snack and a drink), the comment thread covers six days of well-considered point and rebuttal by a broad collection of (mostly) very experienced (and also mostly) currently - or very recently - serving officer and senior enlisted Soldiers and Marines from both the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns.

For my own part, I would council avoidance of using the Merchant Marine as an ancillary force model, better I think to adapt the US Coast Guards dual civil authority arrangement to an infantry soldier's environment.

As to the training quandary I seriously suggest that this might be better dealt with by revamping the basic terms of military enlistment. By making the basic period of enlistment a full 6 years of active duty with the award of a university AA/AS degree as a result of the training and professional education a service member receives (and the realistic possibility of a bachelors degree being achievable on his/her own time) as well as a bachelors degree being the result of a re-enlistment for an additional 6 years. The US military gains the added time in service to achieve the expanded education and training modern military mission variety and equipment mix demands while enlistees recieve the advanced education and experience they hope to attain from military service. At the end of the 12 years the option to continue career military, transfer to the ancillary force or pursue civilian opportunities will have to be chosen between - by both parties (there being no guarantee that the service will require quite as many relatively age'd infantry in the strategic mix).

There are undoubtedly numerous good reasons for not doing anything like this - but let me be the first to point out that how much more difficult it is to lead men and women who are at least as well educated and experienced as yourself will most pointedly not be acknowledged in the decision-making process. The US military services have historically been a professional organisation for the officers after all. For all the undoubted changes in the various branch's in recent decades, that hasn't been one of them I'm certain.

And yes, I was junior enlisted once upon a time; does it show? :)