Sheldon Kreger 1/19

Idaho State Debate 1AC

Modern humans have ceased to live – most are autonomons striving towards goals
that are not their own. This destruction of the self renders life meaningless and creates
the drive for both conformity and control of others; it destroys all possibility for
meaningful relationships with anybody including the self
Fromm 41
Erich Fromm received his Ph.D. in sociology from Heidelberg. He was an internationally renowned social
psychologist, psychoanalyst, and humanistic philosopher. “Escape from Freedom” pg. 251-255
Sheldon Kreger 2/19
Idaho State Debate 1AC
Sheldon Kreger 3/19
Idaho State Debate 1AC
Sheldon Kreger 4/19
Idaho State Debate 1AC
Sheldon Kreger 5/19
Idaho State Debate 1AC

We are now at a crossroads: The technology to create a complete “big brother” style
surveillance structure is available. Every movement, every thought, and every thing can be
tracked, recorded, analyzed, and controlled. The only step remaining for absolute control of
society is the modification of our cultures to allow its implementation
Carley speaking for the National Science Foundation 2002
“ENHANCED KNOWLEDGE-BASED HUMAN ORGANIZATION AND SOCIAL CHANGE ” From
”CONVERGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR IMPROVING HUMAN PERFORMANCE ” June 2002 pg. 270-271.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Commerce (DOC) organized a
workshop on December 3-4, 2001. This report incorporates the views expressed at the workshop of
leading experts from government, academia, and private sector, and detailed in contributions
submitted thereafter by members of the U.S. science and engineering community. Kathleen M.
Carley is a professor in the School of Computer Science in the department at Carnegie Mellon
University.

In the area of bioterrorism, a key issue is early detection or “biosurveillance.” Early detection requires
smart sensors at the biological level in the air, water, and ground, and on humans. Early detection
requires integrating this data with geographic, demographic, and social information. Even were the
sensors to exist, there would still be a problem: Under current legislation and privacy laws, the data
cannot be integrated and made readily accessible to practitioners and researchers. To develop and
test
data mining tools, knowledge management tools, and what-if policy simulators, access is needed to a
wide range of data in real time; but, providing access to such data enables the users of these tools to
“know” details of individual behavior.
In the area of organizations, a key issue is team design and redesign (Samuelson 2000). Team design
and redesign requires accurate data of who knows what, can work with whom, and is currently doing
what. Doing such a skill audit, network analysis, and task audit is a daunting task. Maintaining the
information is even more daunting. Individuals are loathe to provide the information for fear of losing
their basis of power or anonymity, or for fear of reprisal. However, much of the information is
implicit in the locations that people occupy, their stress levels, webpages, curricula vitae, public
conversations, and so on.
In the cases of both acquiring and maintaining individual data, nano-bio-sensors that are embedded in
the body and that report on individual health, stress level, and location; intelligent surfaces that track
who is present while reshaping themselves to meet the needs of and enhance the comfort of the
users;
auto-sensors that create a memory of what is said, when people cough or sneeze; air and water
sensors that sense contaminants; data-mining tools that locate information, simulation tools that
estimate the
change in social outcomes; information assurance tools and secure distributed databases all can be
used to enable better outcomes. Indeed, such tools are critical to the collection, analysis, protection,
and use of information to enhance group performance. The relatively easy problems here will be those
that are dominated by technology, e.g., distributed database tools, data integration procedures,
information assurance technology, and smart sensors. Those problems dealing with the need to
change cultures, legislation, and ways of working will be more difficult. Privacy laws, for example,
could mitigate the effectiveness of these tools or even determine whether they are ever developed.
There are many critical privacy issues, many of which are well identified in the NRC report, The
Digital Dilemma (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9601.html). Views of knowledge as power will limit
and impede data collection. Having such data will revolutionize healthcare, human resources, career
Sheldon Kreger 6/19
Idaho State Debate 1AC

services, intelligence services, and law enforcement. Having such data will enable “big-brotherism.”
Were we able to overcome these two mitigating factors, then a key issue will become, “What will the
bases for power be when knowledge is no longer a controlled commodity?” Since many organizations
are coordinated and managed through the coordination and management of information, as
knowledge
is no longer controlled, new organizational forms should emerge. For example, a possible result might
be the development of monolith corporations with cells of individuals who can do tasks, and as those
tasks move from corporation to corporation, the cells would move as well. In this case, benefits, pay
scales, etc., would be set outside the bounds of a traditional corporation. In this case, individual
loyalty would be to the area of expertise, the profession, and not the company. Corporations would
become clearinghouses linking agents to problems as new clients come with new problems.
Sheldon Kreger 7/19
Idaho State Debate 1AC

And, this control will be complete: Thoughts will be placed into the mind of the subject to
control their actions.
Asher, Etter, Fainberg, Lau, Goldbatt, Murday, Tolles, and Yonas in a joint statement for the
National Science Foundation 2002

”CONVERGING TECHNOLOGIES FOR IMPROVING HUMAN PERFORMANCE ” June 2002 pg. 287-289
The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Commerce (DOC) organized a
workshop on December 3-4, 2001. This report incorporates the views expressed at the workshop of
leading experts from government, academia, and private sector, and detailed in contributions
submitted thereafter by members of the U.S. science and engineering community.
Robert Asher Sandia National Laboratories , D.M. Etter was nominated on September 6, 2005
by President George W. Bush to serve as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research,
Development and Acquisition. Dr. Etter was then sworn in on November 7, 2005. As the Navy's
Senior Acquisition Executive, Dr. Etter is responsible for research, development, and acquisition
within the Department of the Navy. From August 2001 to November 2005, Dr. Etter was a member
of the Electrical Engineering faculty at the United States Naval Academy. She was also the first
recipient of the Office of Naval Research Distinguished Chair in Science and Technology, T.
Fainberg Former Program Manager of Radiological & Nuclear Countermeasures Office of Research
and Development, Science & Technology Directorate Department of Homeland Security , Michael
Goldblatt joined Functional Genetics, Inc. in 2003 bringing over 20 years of experience in the
areas of biotechnology, product development, and regulatory affairs. From 1999 to 2003, he
served as Director of Defense Sciences at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) where he laid the foundation to make biological research an integral part of the
Department of Defense., Clifford Lau received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in 1966 and 1967 from
the University of
California at Berkeley, and his Ph.D. in 1978 from the University of California at Santa
Barbara, all in electrical engineering and computer science. After working as an engineer in
Navy laboratories, he moved in 1988 to Washington DC to Office of Naval Research (ONR)
headquarters and served as Program Officer, and was responsible for the management of
research programs in electronics systems, VLSI signal processing, communication systems,
fault tolerant computers, and neural networks technology. From 1992 to 1995 he served as
the acting Director of Electronics Division, and was responsible for Navy's research
programs in electronics. Currently while he is the Associate Director for University Program
at ONR, he is detailed full time to the Office of Basic Research within the Office of Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense, and is responsible for the planning, execution, and coordination
of DoD’s programs on nanotechnology, including the Multidisciplinary University Research
Initiative (MURI) and Defense University Research Initiative on NanoTechnology (DURINT)
programs. Dr. Lau has served IEEE in various capacities, including member of TAB, TAB
Finance Committee in 20002001, President of Neural Network Council (now Society) in
19992000, and chair of the New Technology Directions Committee in 20022003. Dr. Lau
is a Fellow of the IEEE, and in 20042005 is going to be the President of the IEEE
Nanotechnology Council. ,James Murday is associate director for physical sciences of the USC
Washington, DC Office of Research Advancement. Prior to USC, Murday's career at the Naval
Research Laboratory (NRL) included leading the Surface Chemistry programs (1975-1987) and the
Chemistry Division (1988-2006, when he retired from Federal service).
Additional responsibilities included tenures as Director of Research for the Department of Defense,
Research and Engineering; Chief Scientist, Office of Naval Research; Director, National
Nanotechnology Coordination Office; and Executive Secretary to the U.S. National Science and
Technology Council's Subcommittee on Nanometer Science Engineering and Technology (NSET).
He holds a PhD in experimental solid state physics from Cornell in 1970 and a B.S. in physics from
Case Institute of Technology in 1964. His research interests have spanned nuclear magnetic
resonance, surface science, and nanoscale science and technology. He has published over 100
Sheldon Kreger 8/19
Idaho State Debate 1AC

papers and reports on those topics. He is a member of the ACS, APS, MRS, and AVS professional
societies. William Tolles consultant, G. Yonas Sandia National Laboratory

The fourth NBIC theme examines the ways in which the United States and modern civilization can
meet the intelligence and defense challenges of the new century. In a world where the very nature of
warfare is changing rapidly, national defense requires innovative technology that (a) projects power so
convincingly that threats to the United States are deterred, (b) eliminates or minimizes the danger to
U.S. warfighters from foe or friendly fire, and (c) reduces training costs by more than an order-of-
magnitude through augmented reality and virtual reality teaching aids.
Investment in convergent nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive
science is expected to result in innovative technologies that revolutionize many domains of conflict
and peacekeeping. We are entering an era of network-centric combat and information warfare.
Increasingly, combat vehicles will be uninhabited, and robots or other automated systems will take on
some of the most hazardous missions. Effective training will make extensive use of augmented or
virtual reality. Nanotechnology will offer reliable means for detecting and protecting against chemical
and biological agents. Convergence of many technologies will enhance the performance of human
warfighters and defenders, in part through monitoring health and instituting prophylaxis, and through
magnifying the mental and physical capabilities of personnel.
The Defense Science and Technology Strategy (Department of Defense 2000) seeks to ensure that
the warfighters today and tomorrow have superior and affordable technology to support their missions
and to give them revolutionary war-winning capabilities. There is special focus on information
assurance with emphasis on security; battlespace awareness with emphasis on sensor webs,
miniaturized platforms, netted information and cognitive readiness; force protection with emphasis on
chemical/biological defense; and support for the warfighter.
In the recent past, new technologies have dramatically enhanced American ability to both prepare for
and execute military actions. By implementing advances in information technologies, sensors, and
simulation, we have strengthened our ability to plan and conduct military operations, quickly design
and produce military systems, and train our forces in more realistic settings. These technologies are
central to greater battlefield awareness, enabling our forces to acquire large amounts of information,
analyze it quickly, and communicate it to multiple users simultaneously for coordinated and precise
action. As former Defense Secretary William J. Perry has noted, these are the technological
breakthroughs that are “changing the face of war and how we prepare for war.”
There are numerous special programs, reports and presentations that address these goals. The
Department of Defense has designated nanoscience as a strategic research area in order to
accelerate
the expected benefits (Murday 1999). Various conferences and studies have been devoted to
assessing
nanotechnology status and needs for defense (Murday 2000; National Research Council,
forthcoming).
Attention has also been paid to anticipating more global societal consequences of those efforts in
support of national security (Roco and Bainbridge 2001).
National Security Goals for NBIC
This conference panel identified seven goals for NBIC augmentation of national security, all of which
require the close integration of several of the nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology,
and cognition fields of endeavor. The seven goals, listed below, are sufficiently diverse that there is
no common strategy beyond the need for interdisciplinary integration. The net result of accomplishing
the stated goals would reduce the likelihood of war by providing an overwhelming U.S. technological
advantage, would significantly reduce the cost of training military manpower, and would significantly
reduce the number of lives lost during conflict.
i) Data linkage, threat anticipation, and readiness. Miniaturized, affordable sensor suites will
Sheldon Kreger 9/19
Idaho State Debate 1AC

provide information from previously inaccessible areas; high-speed processing will convert the
data into information; and wide-bandwidth communication pipelines with digital security will
distribute information rather than data to all who need it.
ii) Uninhabited combat vehicles. Automation technology (including miniaturization of sensing,
augmented computation and memory, and augmented software capability) will enable us to
replace pilots, either fully autonomously or with pilot-in-the-loop, in many dangerous warfighting
missions. The uninhabited air vehicle will have an artificial brain that can emulate a skillful
fighter pilot in the performance of its missions. Tasks such as take-off, navigation, situation
awareness, target identification, and safe return landing will be done autonomously, with the
possible exception of circumstances requiring strategic or firing decisions. Without the human
g-force constraint and the weight of human physical support equipment (oxygen, ejection system,
armor, etc.), the planes will be more maneuverable. Tanks, submarines, and other combat vehicles
will experience similar benefits.
iii) Warfighter education and training. A partnership between nanotechnology and information
technology holds the promise for relatively inexpensive, high-performance teaching aids. One can
envision a virtual-reality teaching environment that is tailored to the individual’s learning modes,
utilizes contexts stimulating to that individual, and reduces any embarrassment over mistakes.
The information exchange with the computer can be fully interactive, involving speech, vision,
and motion. Nanodevices will be essential to store the variety of necessary information and to
process that information in the millisecond time frames necessary for realtime interaction.
iv) Chemical/biological/radiological/explosive (CBRE) detection and protection.
Microfabricated sensor suites will provide ample, affordable, error-free forewarning of chemical,
biological, radiological, or explosive threat. For those who must work in a contaminated
environment, individual protection (masks and clothing) will induce heat stresses no greater than
conventional uniforms while providing full protection. Decontamination and neutralization
procedures will be effective against agents, yet will be relatively benign to people and the
environment. Monitors will provide information on warfighter physiological status and initiate
any necessary prophylaxis.
v) Warfighter systems. The warfighter is subjected to periods of intense stress where life or
death decisions must be made with incomplete information available, where the physiology of
fatigue and pain cloud reason, and where supplemental technology must compete with the 120
pounds of equipment weight s/he must carry. NBIC technologies can address all of these aspects
of warfighting. Nanotechnology holds the promise to provide much greater information,
connectivity, and risk reduction to the warfighter. The continued miniaturization of electronic
devices will provide 100 times more memory with less bulk and weight (a terabit of information in
a cm2). Processing speeds will increase to terahertz rates. Displays will be flexible and paper-thin,
if not replaced by direct write of information on the retina. High-bandwidth communication will
be netted. Prolific unattended sensors and uninhabited, automated surveillance vehicles under
personal warfighter control will be providing high data streams on local situations. Weapons will
automatically track targets and select precise firing times for greater accuracy. The marriage of
semiconductors and biology will provide physiological monitors for alertness, chemical or
biological agent threats, and casualty assessment. The small size of the nanodevices will limit the
volume, weight, and power burdens.
vi) Non-drug treatments for enhancement of human performance. Without the use of drugs,
the union of nanotechnology and biotechnology may be able to modify human biochemistry to
compensate for sleep deprivation and diminished alertness, to enhance physical and psychological
performance, and to enhance survivability rates from physical injury.
vii) Applications of brain-machine interface. The convergence of all four NBIC fields will give
warfighters the ability to control complex entities by sending control actions prior to thoughts
(cognition) being fully formed. The intent is to take brain signals (nanotechnology for augmented
Sheldon Kreger 10/19
Idaho State Debate 1AC

sensitivity and nonintrusive signal detection) and use them in a control strategy (information
technology), and then impart back into the brain the sensation of feedback signals (biotechnology).
Statements and Visions
Defense applications are intended for the highly competitive environments of deterrence, intelligence
gathering, and lethal combat, so it is essential to be technologically as far ahead of potential
opponents
as possible. The United States and its closest allies represent only a small fraction of the world
population, and in the asymmetrical conflicts of the early twenty-first century, even a small number of
dedicated enemies can cause tremendous damage. Thus, the overview statements and future visions
written by participants in the national security working group address very high-priority areas where
the United States and its allies can achieve and maintain great superiority. The statements and visions
cover areas from enhancing soldier performance (M. Goldblatt) and combat readiness (D.M. Etter) to
future roles of NBIC for fighting terrorism (J. Murday, T. Fainberg, C. Lau) and equipment of soldiers
(R. Asher, J. Murday, T. Fainberg, C. Lau).
Sheldon Kreger 11/19
Idaho State Debate 1AC

This technology will be used against the population generally, including debaters
Jensen and Draffan 04
Sheldon Kreger 12/19
Idaho State Debate 1AC

Through the constant amplification of the risks facing society, the culture of fear is created. In
debate specifically, alleged vulnerability and impotence of the individual stands in sharp
contrast to the power that we actually posses. We must examine how the culture of fear is
cultivated within our own practices to overcome the paralysis it creates
Furedi 07
Wednesday 4 April 2007 The only thing we have to fear is the ‘culture of fear’ itself
NEW ESSAY: How human thought and action are being stifled by a regime of uncertainty. pg 7-8
Frank Furedi is Professor of Sociology at University of Kent

Through ideas about vulnerability, a sense of fear starts to be seen as a normal state of being.
The flipside of this deflation of the status of human subjectivity is the inflation of the threat that
external forces pose to the individual self. In public debate today, the alleged vulnerability and
impotence of the individual stands in sharp contrast to the formidable powers attributed to the
everyday challenges we face. Through the constant amplification of the risks facing humanity –
pollution, global warming, catastrophic flu epidemics, weapons of mass destruction, and various
health scares – even the limited exercise of individual choice appears to be restricted by today’s
harsh regime of uncertainty.
The identity of vulnerability is the flipside of the autonomisation of fear.
Conclusion
A proper sociological understanding of fear requires further research into the way in which this
emotion is mediated through today’s cultural outlook. We must address not simply the emotion of
fear and the threats to which it is a response, but also the crisis of causality that shapes the
fearful subject. As indicated previously, twenty-first century fear culture is increasingly being
normalised as a force in its own right. In such circumstances, fear is a means through which
people respond to and make sense of the world.
This stands in sharp contrast to the approach taken by US President Franklin D Roosevelt in his
inaugural address in 1933, when he stated that the ‘only thing we have to fear is fear itself’.
Roosevelt was trying to assure the public that it is both possible and necessary to minimise the
impact of fear. His was a positive vision of a future where fear would be put in its place by a
society that believed in itself. Today, politicians are far more likely to advise the public to fear
everything, including fear itself.
Sheldon Kreger 13/19
Idaho State Debate 1AC

The ability to express our thoughts is only meaningful if it is utilized. Only through investigation of how
our cultures create the need to export our individual power to external authorities can we overcome
the forces that are making our lives meaningless
Fromm 41
Erich Fromm received his Ph.D. in sociology from Heidelberg. He was an internationally renowned social
psychologist, psychoanalyst, and humanistic philosopher. “Escape from Freedom” pg.240-243
Sheldon Kreger 14/19
Idaho State Debate 1AC
Sheldon Kreger 15/19
Idaho State Debate 1AC
Sheldon Kreger 16/19
Idaho State Debate 1AC

Overlooking the ways our cultural practices breed fascism is the greatest mistake we can make
– it guarantees the exportation of our power that destroys the meaning of our lives and is the
greatest danger to humanity
Fromm 41
Erich Fromm received his Ph.D. in sociology from Heidelberg. He was an internationally renowned social
psychologist, psychoanalyst, and humanistic philosopher. “Escape from Freedom” pg.240
Sheldon Kreger 17/19
Idaho State Debate 1AC

As debaters, we have the ability to modify not only our own culture but teach others how to
modify theirs. Our activity is the most critical component of revolution – when we exercise our
freedom, we are training ourselves how to teach others to reclaim their power.
Lakey 68
George Lakey is the Eugene M. Lang Visiting Professor for Issues in Social Change at Swarthmore College
“Strategy for a Living Revolution pg. 62 – 64 1968 printed in 1972
Sheldon Kreger 18/19
Idaho State Debate 1AC
Sheldon Kreger 19/19
Idaho State Debate 1AC