A shift in some urban crime will come via three technologies: gunfire locator, ubiquitous video, facial recognition.
Several Latin American cities have already invested in acoustic and other gunfire locator technology, which allows police to instantly identify the location of a gunshot to within a block or less of the shooting. This technology was intended for high crime areas so that police could be dispatched immediately.
However, the increasing presence of video cameras, both government and private run, means that the time of gunshots can be matched up to videos of the location. Add in facial recognition technology, and there should be a movement towards identifying all urban shooters.
Criminals can adapt by using silencers, wearing masks and moving their crimes indoors. However, that requires a level of planning that does not go into the indiscriminate or street violence that is a cause of a significant number of murders in many neighborhoods.
Legal systems will need to adapt to collect evidence and use it in court. Politicians will need some levels of control to avoid the big brother implications that will bother citizens about these technologies being used in combination. In spite of civil liberty concerns, citizens in many countries affected by high violence will likely be happy to have a new deterrent in place.
This technology doesn't solve all the violence nor does it attack the problem at its root causes. Still, most of it is possible today and Latin American countries are going to increasingly invest in these technologies as part of the anti-crime efforts.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
Micro or macro power generation
The trend in Latin America has been towards large power generation projects including giant hyropower projects. Countries are working to improve cross-border energy transfers.
What if that's all wrong and the future of energy is a much smaller scale of power generation? It's possible that instead of generating power for regions and sharing power across borders, countries should be focused on developing the technology and infrastructure to manage power neighborhood by neighborhood. As new technology is more widely available, the smaller power generation projects should prove possible and economically viable.
At the same time, Latin America as a region may be economically locking itself into these larger infrastructure projects now in a way that will cause them to miss out on potential new technology a decade down the road.
Then again, is there another way? It would be difficult and probably even irresponsible for a country to say they will skip over large scale projects now in the hopes future technology will work out.
What if that's all wrong and the future of energy is a much smaller scale of power generation? It's possible that instead of generating power for regions and sharing power across borders, countries should be focused on developing the technology and infrastructure to manage power neighborhood by neighborhood. As new technology is more widely available, the smaller power generation projects should prove possible and economically viable.
At the same time, Latin America as a region may be economically locking itself into these larger infrastructure projects now in a way that will cause them to miss out on potential new technology a decade down the road.
Then again, is there another way? It would be difficult and probably even irresponsible for a country to say they will skip over large scale projects now in the hopes future technology will work out.
Partial legalization leads to privateering
One consequence of a single or small number of legalized drug economies in Latin America while the US remains with prohibition could be the rise of a form of privateering.
Private security organizations or rival criminal groups could organize around the goal of seizing drugs, weapons and money from drug cartels and then delivering them to the legalized state. At that point, they could "launder" the drugs and move them into a semi-legal market. Then find a way to move them in to the US.
This would create a violent criminal and criminal warfare situation outside of the legalized state and potentially within it as well, neutralizing any advantages gained from removing prohibition.
The country that built prisons
The general recommendation by most analysts is that there is no way to build enough prisons and jail enough criminals to end the violent crime problem in Latin America. The issue must be resolved more strategically. That's my opinion too. However, that does not mean no country will attempt precisely that.
Picture a scenario in ten years in which a mano dura leader comes to power who believes that he can build enough prisons. He will not only imprison tens of thousands more people in his own country, every person who has committed a crime, but also take on some of the overrun from neighboring countries who face overcrowding in their prisons. What if that country can actually make a profit though the system by charging neighbors for using the prisons?
There are a lot of ugly human rights issues in doing this and it may be a huge strategic mistake. For me, this falls under the worst case scenarios heading. However, if it could be accomplished logistically and if the region cooperated to create this sort of country with a prison specialty, it certainly might be attempted. Mano dura has a cyclical appeal in parts of Latin America and this prison building would ease one of the major effects of such a policy.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Could a country's land be bought?
Investors including China and Saudi Arabia have made Latin America part of the global land grab. Plots of land have been purchased or leased directly and indirectly for agriculture and other development. In response, Brazil, Argentina and others have passed laws to restrict foreign ownership of land.
What if a country made the opposite policy, making its land easier to buy for foreigners? And what if there was a rich and willing investor? This creates a hypothetical scenario in which well over 50% of a country's land is purchased or leased by foreign investors. At an extreme, a foreign power or corporation could buy an entire state or province and gain almost full control over it.
Does the rest of the region get a say in this? This is a question that goes right to the heart of the sovereignty debate in Latin America. On one hand, a country should have a right to sell, lease or give its own land to whomever it wishes. On the other hand, the idea that a country could literally sell its own sovereign territory and leave its neighbors dealing with a foreign power controlling a border area impacts regional security.
What if a country made the opposite policy, making its land easier to buy for foreigners? And what if there was a rich and willing investor? This creates a hypothetical scenario in which well over 50% of a country's land is purchased or leased by foreign investors. At an extreme, a foreign power or corporation could buy an entire state or province and gain almost full control over it.
Does the rest of the region get a say in this? This is a question that goes right to the heart of the sovereignty debate in Latin America. On one hand, a country should have a right to sell, lease or give its own land to whomever it wishes. On the other hand, the idea that a country could literally sell its own sovereign territory and leave its neighbors dealing with a foreign power controlling a border area impacts regional security.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Shrinking islands
50 years from now rising sea levels will likely start to eat away at a number of coastlines. This will be a problem throughout the hemisphere, but will be a particularly big hit to the islands in the Caribbean. Most are rather small and don't have much space to lose.
Do they accept the lost land? Do they build walls to try to keep out the rising ocean? Do the build platforms over the sea? Do they build floating portions to the island? Do they build skyscrapers upwards, regaining lost ground vertically that they lose horizontally? Do they build underneath the water?
Every country will likely approach the problem differently. For those islands that choose to use structures to maintain their lost land, I would be interested to know some of the international law questions that could be raised by them building on top of or under the waves. This could go to how we define maritime boundaries.
Do they accept the lost land? Do they build walls to try to keep out the rising ocean? Do the build platforms over the sea? Do they build floating portions to the island? Do they build skyscrapers upwards, regaining lost ground vertically that they lose horizontally? Do they build underneath the water?
Every country will likely approach the problem differently. For those islands that choose to use structures to maintain their lost land, I would be interested to know some of the international law questions that could be raised by them building on top of or under the waves. This could go to how we define maritime boundaries.
Fighting drugs with drugs
Reuters says Mexico is nearing a successful "vaccine" to undo heroin addiction. There is also a vaccine to halt cocaine addiction in the works.
If ten years from now there are working vaccines, it could make a major dent in the "war on drugs" that goes beyond the legalize-prohibition debate. Research suggests much of the money, violence, health problems and general negative effects of these drugs come from a small subset of hardcore users. If their addiction can be treated (or there will be a very controversial debate about forcing this sort of treatment), the problem of drug trafficking and related violence may become surprisingly more manageable.
If ten years from now there are working vaccines, it could make a major dent in the "war on drugs" that goes beyond the legalize-prohibition debate. Research suggests much of the money, violence, health problems and general negative effects of these drugs come from a small subset of hardcore users. If their addiction can be treated (or there will be a very controversial debate about forcing this sort of treatment), the problem of drug trafficking and related violence may become surprisingly more manageable.
Reversing urbanization 2
Reader AN comments that the potential for plagues could cause some reverse urbanization trend in the region. There are at least two possibilities here.
The first is that a single pandemic causes one or several cities to clear out as people try to escape the health problem. That would be a variation on the earthquake catastrophe, but very different in that most infrastructure would remain unharmed. These would also be isolated incidents and likely reversed once the health problem was fixed.
The second, which goes to the dengue comment, would be a trend against urbanization as certain persistant diseases hit urban environments hard. Rather than a single crisis causing a panicked fleeing, this would be more of a slow social change as people collectively decided that rural areas are healthier than urban areas. That may be hard to believe today as urban areas are generally healthier and less prone to certain diseases than rural areas, plus they have better medical infrastructure for treatment. However, imagining a scenario with some disease that creates that sort of social change over the next 20 years is possible.
The first is that a single pandemic causes one or several cities to clear out as people try to escape the health problem. That would be a variation on the earthquake catastrophe, but very different in that most infrastructure would remain unharmed. These would also be isolated incidents and likely reversed once the health problem was fixed.
The second, which goes to the dengue comment, would be a trend against urbanization as certain persistant diseases hit urban environments hard. Rather than a single crisis causing a panicked fleeing, this would be more of a slow social change as people collectively decided that rural areas are healthier than urban areas. That may be hard to believe today as urban areas are generally healthier and less prone to certain diseases than rural areas, plus they have better medical infrastructure for treatment. However, imagining a scenario with some disease that creates that sort of social change over the next 20 years is possible.
Parallel networks to stop censorship
In several countries in the hemisphere, the basic internet architecture is mostly owned by a single state telecom or distributed across a small number of private companies. In many cases, there country's connection to the internet moves through one or two chokepoints, making the potential for censorship or a kill switch by the government quite possible.
Internet censorship has been limited so far in Latin America (at least compared to the Middle East or China), but these potential technical restrictions should be a concern to activists who worry that governments or corporations will censor their speech and activity.
It's quite possible that parallel networks will spring up in the coming five to ten years. Civil society groups and technology companies may look to satellite providers or, more controversially, try to bring internet across other borders outside the chokepoints to which governments have access. Being that telecom regulations are often behind the curve in many countries, governments may be caught off guard by the new internet access routes that citizens find and create.
The censorship battle used to be between big media outlets and governments. With citizens now key producers of their own content, the censorship battle is going to look quite different than it did ten years ago. It's nowhere near as simple for a government to block citizen media as it was to seize a television station or block a newspaper from printing.
UPDATE: To follow up on this, read Alison Powell's blog post on darknets and super-encryption. The downside to activists creating the tools to escape government action is that it breaks apart some of the open communications of the internet. It also creates and enhances tools for criminals to operate online.
Internet censorship has been limited so far in Latin America (at least compared to the Middle East or China), but these potential technical restrictions should be a concern to activists who worry that governments or corporations will censor their speech and activity.
It's quite possible that parallel networks will spring up in the coming five to ten years. Civil society groups and technology companies may look to satellite providers or, more controversially, try to bring internet across other borders outside the chokepoints to which governments have access. Being that telecom regulations are often behind the curve in many countries, governments may be caught off guard by the new internet access routes that citizens find and create.
The censorship battle used to be between big media outlets and governments. With citizens now key producers of their own content, the censorship battle is going to look quite different than it did ten years ago. It's nowhere near as simple for a government to block citizen media as it was to seize a television station or block a newspaper from printing.
UPDATE: To follow up on this, read Alison Powell's blog post on darknets and super-encryption. The downside to activists creating the tools to escape government action is that it breaks apart some of the open communications of the internet. It also creates and enhances tools for criminals to operate online.
Today's memories in 20 years
The past decade has seen a surge of cases related to human rights abuses from the 70's, 80's and 90's. In many cases, the evidence is based on old paper documents from archives and witness testimony.
The human rights cases of 2032 that are filed against abuses of the 2000's and 2010's (assuming that occurs) will look very different. With increasingly ubiquitous cell phone cameras, video cameras and the ability for people to document their experiences through self-publishing, there should be more and better evidence. It will be more difficult (I think) for a government or military to simply lock up an archive and not allow access.
Beyond the evidence at a trial, it changes the nature of memory when it comes to these historical experiences. We're going to have far more photos and videos of events and more witness testimony documented near the time of the event rather than related decades later.
The human rights cases of 2032 that are filed against abuses of the 2000's and 2010's (assuming that occurs) will look very different. With increasingly ubiquitous cell phone cameras, video cameras and the ability for people to document their experiences through self-publishing, there should be more and better evidence. It will be more difficult (I think) for a government or military to simply lock up an archive and not allow access.
Beyond the evidence at a trial, it changes the nature of memory when it comes to these historical experiences. We're going to have far more photos and videos of events and more witness testimony documented near the time of the event rather than related decades later.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
3d printing and copyrights
Combining ideas from two previous posts, one on 3d printing of weapons and the other on intellectual property, Slate has a useful article that says most physical objects would not fall under the same copyright law as IP.
I think this would be a fine line and I imagine several companies will try to change that law.
Specific to my previous post, I imagine many gun manufacturers such as Beretta would be mad if 3d printers were used to create spare parts or completely new replica guns, but perhaps I'm wrong. More broadly, while Slate only addresses US law, this is an interesting spot for Latin American copyright law. Are 3d objects covered? Does it vary country-by-country?
If this does become an issue, will the trade agreements between the US and Latin American countries require modifications to address copyright violations via 3d printers, or would it already be covered under existing agreements?
I think this would be a fine line and I imagine several companies will try to change that law.
Specific to my previous post, I imagine many gun manufacturers such as Beretta would be mad if 3d printers were used to create spare parts or completely new replica guns, but perhaps I'm wrong. More broadly, while Slate only addresses US law, this is an interesting spot for Latin American copyright law. Are 3d objects covered? Does it vary country-by-country?
If this does become an issue, will the trade agreements between the US and Latin American countries require modifications to address copyright violations via 3d printers, or would it already be covered under existing agreements?
Do developing countries have an advantage in a robot uprising?
A few weeks ago I finished Robopocalypse by Daniel Wilson. It's an entertaining and dark book about how humans survive a robot uprising in which machines of all types turn against humanity and attempt to enslave or kill everyone.
One issue not addressed in the book is how developing countries survive or don't. The book focuses heavily on the US and Japan, with only a few international scenes and references to what happened in Russia and China.
I would think that a country like Nicaragua or Colombia or Cuba would have some major advantages in fighting a robot uprising. First, technology is not as advanced, meaning there would be fewer robots or machines that the evil robots could manipulate. Second, underdeveloped and undeveloped infrastructure mean there would be more places initially for humans to hide and wage guerrilla warfare against the robots and fewer resources for the robots to use in building newer models of themselves.
So while the book has its heroes coming mostly from the US, I think it would make more sense for the first significant victories against the robots coming from Latin America and Africa.
One issue not addressed in the book is how developing countries survive or don't. The book focuses heavily on the US and Japan, with only a few international scenes and references to what happened in Russia and China.
I would think that a country like Nicaragua or Colombia or Cuba would have some major advantages in fighting a robot uprising. First, technology is not as advanced, meaning there would be fewer robots or machines that the evil robots could manipulate. Second, underdeveloped and undeveloped infrastructure mean there would be more places initially for humans to hide and wage guerrilla warfare against the robots and fewer resources for the robots to use in building newer models of themselves.
So while the book has its heroes coming mostly from the US, I think it would make more sense for the first significant victories against the robots coming from Latin America and Africa.
Augmented Magical Realism
Several media outlets report that Google will sell augmented reality glasses before the end of the year. The glasses will superimpose visuals and data on what the user sees. Several cell phones already do this, but placing it in the glasses could take the technology mainstream.
Using augmented reality technology in fiction is already a consideration, creating the possibility for augmented magical realism in the region. You could wear the glasses and see what appears to be magical effects from a Garcia Marquez story while experiencing reality. It creates a new potential genre or canvas for authors and artists.
Bill Gates on innovation in agriculture
Bill Gates speech at the FAO:
The digital revolution also provides opportunities to collect better data. In an age when a satellite can determine instantly how much wheat is in a field, it is a shame to ask countries to use limited resources to send enumerators around with pen, paper, and tape measure. What we get is a lot of wasted time and inaccurate or incomplete data. The digital revolution can improve the quality of critical data while freeing up people to do other high-impact work.Gates also spoke about using genome sequencing technology, which has rapidly declined in cost over the last decade, to improve yields and have plants resistance to drought and disease. While his remarks generally focused on sub-Saharan Africa, they certainly apply to the agricultural sector in Latin America.
The problem is that the country programs, agencies, and research centers don’t have expertise in digital agriculture, and they don’t have the time to build it from scratch. The real expertise lies with private sector companies, and with rapidly growing countries like Brazil and China where the agricultural sector is booming.
A South American competitor to GPS
The United States maintains the Global Positioning System (GPS) of 32 satellites for anyone to use. How nice of us.
Still, some countries either don't trust the US or want their own systems for a variety of national and technical reasons. Russia has a system (GLONASS) that provides and alternative. China and Europe are launching their own systems as well, though they remain several years away.
Is there a reason for South America to launch its own system as well? It could be useful to have another alternative and one under the region's control. It would be a huge boost for R&D spending as well as science and engineering expertise in the region. At the same time, it could be seen as a big waste of time and money when there are other freely available platforms.
Brazil and others are discussing a South American space agency run through UNASUR. Brazil is also planning to launch new earth monitoring satellites, a priority that ranks much higher for the region than an alternative GPS system. Several countries have partnered with China to launch satellites in recent years, mostly for telecommunications.
This isn't something for the near future, but there is no reason to think the region couldn't be running its own limited constellation of satellites for global positioning at some point inside of fifty years.
Or, alternatively and perhaps more realistically, Latin America could partner with the US, China or someone else to own and operate a piece of the system. They could share the costs and the benefits.
Still, some countries either don't trust the US or want their own systems for a variety of national and technical reasons. Russia has a system (GLONASS) that provides and alternative. China and Europe are launching their own systems as well, though they remain several years away.
Is there a reason for South America to launch its own system as well? It could be useful to have another alternative and one under the region's control. It would be a huge boost for R&D spending as well as science and engineering expertise in the region. At the same time, it could be seen as a big waste of time and money when there are other freely available platforms.
Brazil and others are discussing a South American space agency run through UNASUR. Brazil is also planning to launch new earth monitoring satellites, a priority that ranks much higher for the region than an alternative GPS system. Several countries have partnered with China to launch satellites in recent years, mostly for telecommunications.
This isn't something for the near future, but there is no reason to think the region couldn't be running its own limited constellation of satellites for global positioning at some point inside of fifty years.
Or, alternatively and perhaps more realistically, Latin America could partner with the US, China or someone else to own and operate a piece of the system. They could share the costs and the benefits.
Reversing urbanization
Latin America is one of the most urbanized regions on the planet, with over 80% of the population living in cities. Several megacities including Rio, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Buenos Aires and Bogota are well over the five million mark and continue to grow.
Most planners see that trend continuing into the foreseeable future. What would it take for them to be wrong? What sort of crisis, trend or public policy could reverse urbanization in the next 20 or 50 years.
I think the Haiti earthquake shows one very horrific example. Port au Prince was urbanized and overcrowded, but the earthquake created a number of refugees who may never return to the city. That could happen somewhere else, but it's an isolated case that would not create a region-wide trend.
If it economically prospers, Latin America could become suburbanized with people moving just outside of the cities in order to find better housing conditions. A teleworking trend could add to that movement, allowing people freedom to leave urban centers.
On the opposite end, economic decline could cause some cities to decay and could force people to abandon them to find work elsewhere.
In many cases, many of the region's largest cities have old infrastructure that was never intended to support the high populations that exist today. A series of infrastructure failures or government programs to rebuild cities from the underground up could change population patterns.
Continued urbanization isn't a good or a bad thing in itself. It's also not the only possible future for Latin America, even if it's the most likely.
Most planners see that trend continuing into the foreseeable future. What would it take for them to be wrong? What sort of crisis, trend or public policy could reverse urbanization in the next 20 or 50 years.
I think the Haiti earthquake shows one very horrific example. Port au Prince was urbanized and overcrowded, but the earthquake created a number of refugees who may never return to the city. That could happen somewhere else, but it's an isolated case that would not create a region-wide trend.
If it economically prospers, Latin America could become suburbanized with people moving just outside of the cities in order to find better housing conditions. A teleworking trend could add to that movement, allowing people freedom to leave urban centers.
On the opposite end, economic decline could cause some cities to decay and could force people to abandon them to find work elsewhere.
In many cases, many of the region's largest cities have old infrastructure that was never intended to support the high populations that exist today. A series of infrastructure failures or government programs to rebuild cities from the underground up could change population patterns.
Continued urbanization isn't a good or a bad thing in itself. It's also not the only possible future for Latin America, even if it's the most likely.
The next evolution of semi-submersibles
Many US analysts, particularly in the military, point to the evolution of semi-submersibles for cocaine trafficking as one of the important trends in the past decade. At this point, they are starting to see the beginnings of fully submersible and self-contained submarines. It's a statement for how much money the criminals can make if they can build and lose subs.
So what's the next evolution? Asked that, my answer is weapons. I think in the next five years we will see some sort of weapons system on semi-subs and subs that are used by criminals. I don't think these will be highly technical torpedo systems, like exist on military subs. Rather, I think the criminal groups will start with some modification to a gun or grenade that allows the criminals to use them while inside the sub.
Could you imagine a system that allows them to float under a navy boat and release a grenade that rises to the surface and then explodes. Or one that allows them to fire guns at ships when they surface.
Right now, the crew of these vessels generally surrenders or runs as soon as they can, usually while simultaneously sinking the sub to lose the evidence. That's certainly a good problem to have compared to what may be next. If the criminals start innovating to fight back when they face capture, it create a new dynamic for the navies and coast guards of this hemisphere, one for which they are probably quite unprepared.
Throwing ideas against the wall....
To answer or perhaps preempt some early criticism of this blog, I'm not recommending everything I post. I don't know that my recent post on a parallel legislative OAS is a good idea. I don't want 3d printers to be used to make new weapons.
Rather, I'm throwing outside the box ideas against the wall to see what sticks. I'm trying to find upcoming issues, threats and opportunities in the hemisphere that move beyond the conventional wisdom. I want to know what resonates and I want to make people question some of the traditional Latin America analysis that is out there.
This blog is a space for the unconventional.
Rather, I'm throwing outside the box ideas against the wall to see what sticks. I'm trying to find upcoming issues, threats and opportunities in the hemisphere that move beyond the conventional wisdom. I want to know what resonates and I want to make people question some of the traditional Latin America analysis that is out there.
This blog is a space for the unconventional.
A parallel OAS, but no presidents allowed
One of the common complains about the OAS and the democracy charter is that it is an organization of presidents. They'll jump up and down if a president is threatened, but they generally ignore cases in which legislatures, judiciaries or civil society is threatened by the executive branch.
This has long been an area for potential reform, but never moves forward. Why? Presidents are the ones in charge and don't want to restrict their own power.
Instead of continuing to try and fail to reform, what if legislatures simply decided to create a separate and parallel organization to the OAS. The legislatures around the hemisphere that wanted to participate could send representatives to a big Summit that paralleled the Summit of the Americas. They could agree to hold meetings and to pass resolutions as a group.
There are numerous political and constitutional challenges to creating such an organization. The first challenge is that presidents wouldn't allow it. Across the hemisphere, presidents would veto or otherwise block any potential legislative agreements to join such an organization. In some places, the legislatures may have to join over the president's objection, which could create tensions.
If just a few countries' congresses could get together to begin the group, declaring it the co-equal branch of regionalism to the OAS and working to fill in the gaps where the OAS fails, it could gain some momentum. They could pressure the OAS to reform its policies or they could just start working on their own to improve hemispheric relations in areas where presidents can't.
At its strongest, it's a regional push against the presidentialism that dominates much of the Americas. Some particularly powerful presidents might even call it a type of regional coup or revolution. At its weakest, the organization fails. But it's not a particularly resource intensive initiative. Why not try to form it and fail rather than list reasons why it won't succeed and never try.
This has long been an area for potential reform, but never moves forward. Why? Presidents are the ones in charge and don't want to restrict their own power.
Instead of continuing to try and fail to reform, what if legislatures simply decided to create a separate and parallel organization to the OAS. The legislatures around the hemisphere that wanted to participate could send representatives to a big Summit that paralleled the Summit of the Americas. They could agree to hold meetings and to pass resolutions as a group.
There are numerous political and constitutional challenges to creating such an organization. The first challenge is that presidents wouldn't allow it. Across the hemisphere, presidents would veto or otherwise block any potential legislative agreements to join such an organization. In some places, the legislatures may have to join over the president's objection, which could create tensions.
If just a few countries' congresses could get together to begin the group, declaring it the co-equal branch of regionalism to the OAS and working to fill in the gaps where the OAS fails, it could gain some momentum. They could pressure the OAS to reform its policies or they could just start working on their own to improve hemispheric relations in areas where presidents can't.
At its strongest, it's a regional push against the presidentialism that dominates much of the Americas. Some particularly powerful presidents might even call it a type of regional coup or revolution. At its weakest, the organization fails. But it's not a particularly resource intensive initiative. Why not try to form it and fail rather than list reasons why it won't succeed and never try.
Open thread: What should I write about?
I'm very willing to take topic suggestions. The only requirement is that they are about the future of the hemisphere. This is not a blog to discuss current events and politics.
Feel free to comment.
Feel free to comment.
Thinking beyond the university model
One common complaint about education systems in Latin America and the Caribbean is that the universities simply don't compete well against the best universities in the US, Europe or Asia. Some analysts believe that for the hemisphere to thrive in the 21st century, they need to build a better higher education system with universities on par with the best around the world.
That might be wrong. Universities in the US work for a few, but are overall failing to create a workforce for the 21st century. Many universities are starting to question their own models, but are stuck in their current state. Why should Latin America and the Caribbean try to catch up with a system that is itself in need of reform?
Let's turn that logic on its head. The region should not try to catch up to the best universities elsewhere in the world. Instead, it should rethink the whole model.
Let me start with two points, and hopefully add more in future posts:
Few analysts criticize the fact that Latin America's telephone landline infrastructure never matched the US. Instead, the region is praised for leapfrogging technologies and getting cell phones and increasingly smart phones into the hands of many people who never had access to telecommunications 10 to 20 years ago. We should think of universities in a similar way. Rather than hoping Latin America and the Caribbean can catch up with universities in the US, Europe and Asia, we should ask how the region can leapfrog to the next version that is just now being considered in those regions.
That might be wrong. Universities in the US work for a few, but are overall failing to create a workforce for the 21st century. Many universities are starting to question their own models, but are stuck in their current state. Why should Latin America and the Caribbean try to catch up with a system that is itself in need of reform?
Let's turn that logic on its head. The region should not try to catch up to the best universities elsewhere in the world. Instead, it should rethink the whole model.
Let me start with two points, and hopefully add more in future posts:
- The hemisphere's higher education should focus on research, development and actually building things rather than the production of academic papers.
- They should experiment with new structures for learning rather than mirroring what is done within US and European universities.
Few analysts criticize the fact that Latin America's telephone landline infrastructure never matched the US. Instead, the region is praised for leapfrogging technologies and getting cell phones and increasingly smart phones into the hands of many people who never had access to telecommunications 10 to 20 years ago. We should think of universities in a similar way. Rather than hoping Latin America and the Caribbean can catch up with universities in the US, Europe and Asia, we should ask how the region can leapfrog to the next version that is just now being considered in those regions.
This blog will end
This blog is an experiment. Given that I want to approach this with a "fail fast, fail cheap" mentality, I'm setting an end date for this blog right at the beginning.
In 60 days, on April 23, 2012, I will reevaluate the purpose for this blog. I will review the posts I've written. I'll solicit feedback from readers. Then I will decide if it should continue and get another 60 days of life, perhaps with a renewed or altered focus.
This blog will get at most two extensions. At the latest, it will end on August 23, 2012.
In 60 days, on April 23, 2012, I will reevaluate the purpose for this blog. I will review the posts I've written. I'll solicit feedback from readers. Then I will decide if it should continue and get another 60 days of life, perhaps with a renewed or altered focus.
This blog will get at most two extensions. At the latest, it will end on August 23, 2012.
3d printers will change weapons trafficking
The technology behind 3d printing is becoming cheaper and more widely available. Within ten years, Latin American universities, businesses and governments should be able to have at least a basic 3d printer and those with money will get more advanced versions.
These printers will reshape manufacturing and medicine (a printer in Europe was recently used to create a new jaw for a patient; doctors are working on a printer that can print a new kidney). But, from the negative side, it's also going to completely reshape the weapons trafficking debate.
What happens when guns and gun parts can be printed locally rather than trafficked across borders? Certainly criminal groups will be able to afford printers that can manage metal or plastic objects that can serve as guns. While the cost will be quite expensive at first, eventually, it will be cheaper to print than smuggle.
For criminals, this could be a boom era. The parts of narcocultura that like to put designs and bling into their guns will get the opportunity to design their own. More seriously, they'll be able to manufacture parts that can easily convert semi-automatic weapons into automatic weapons, perhaps a economically feasible first step for the use of 3d printing for the bad guys. They can also work to design better (more deadly) weapons once they become proficient with the technology.
Governments will attempt restrictions. They'll try to restrict the flow of information including files with gun designs that can be used by the printers. However, that will be nearly impossible. They'll try to restrict the printers and the specific "ink", materials preferred for gun manufacturing. But those restrictions will inhibit innovation and the criminals will find ways around them. They'll try to block ammunition sales, and in this they will only be as successful as they are today.
Police will need some sort of ballistics or forensics mechanism to not just tell which gun fired a bullet but which printer created the gun. One comparison may be to the fight against counterfeit money given better color printers today. There will be questions on the criminal charges people supplying the printers, materials and designs will face.
Then again, this could significantly reduce the cross-border trade in illegal firearms, which is itself a very profitable industry. That loss of profit could hit some criminal group's bottom lines. Could we see criminals sabotaging each other's printers to keep market share?
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Adopting someone else's currency
El Salvador and Ecuador chose to dollarize their economies about ten years ago (Panama has long used US currency). Going with the dollar gave the two countries a level of currency stability and trust that they did not have previously, but took away monetary policy control from the country and tied them to whatever the US is doing. Essentially, the move got rid of some problems and added some new ones. Debates still continue over whether it was a good move and whether the countries should consider going back to their own currencies.
In the next 10-20 years, could another Latin American or Caribbean country adopt a foreign currency? The Dollar is always possible (in fact, it's used as a de facto alternate currency in several countries), but so would be the Chinese Renminbi, the Brazilian Real, the Mexican Peso or, if they get their act back together, the Euro.
This is a different debate from the question of whether countries should create a unified currency. This is about a country completely surrendering monetary control and giving up managing its own currency supply.
What sort of political leadership would it take? What sort of crisis would drive Guatemala, Peru, Paraguay or Haiti to decide to sack their own currency and jump on with another country? Would the US, Brazil and Europe compete to be the new currency, would they push against it, or would they just ignore it as it happened?
In the next 10-20 years, could another Latin American or Caribbean country adopt a foreign currency? The Dollar is always possible (in fact, it's used as a de facto alternate currency in several countries), but so would be the Chinese Renminbi, the Brazilian Real, the Mexican Peso or, if they get their act back together, the Euro.
This is a different debate from the question of whether countries should create a unified currency. This is about a country completely surrendering monetary control and giving up managing its own currency supply.
What sort of political leadership would it take? What sort of crisis would drive Guatemala, Peru, Paraguay or Haiti to decide to sack their own currency and jump on with another country? Would the US, Brazil and Europe compete to be the new currency, would they push against it, or would they just ignore it as it happened?
Who will be back in 20 years?
A number of current and recent Latin American leaders were also in power in the 1980's: Alan Garcia, Oscar Arias, Daniel Ortega, Desi Bouterse.
So which of today's leaders have a shot of leaving power and being back around 2030 or so? Age plays an important role in this question, but political strength clearly doesn't. If anything, Alan Garcia and Daniel Ortega prove that a leader can leave in disgrace or face serious scandal and make a political comeback anyway.
Just based on age, top picks should be Mauricio Funes, Laura Chinchilla, Rafael Correa, Ollanta Humala, and Michel Martelly.
So which of today's leaders have a shot of leaving power and being back around 2030 or so? Age plays an important role in this question, but political strength clearly doesn't. If anything, Alan Garcia and Daniel Ortega prove that a leader can leave in disgrace or face serious scandal and make a political comeback anyway.
Just based on age, top picks should be Mauricio Funes, Laura Chinchilla, Rafael Correa, Ollanta Humala, and Michel Martelly.
A virtual Summit of the Americas
Sure, there are benefits to in-person meetings. The presidents of the Americas should continue to meet every three years.
But with technology today, they could also hold public or private video chats as often as they want.
So, while maintaining the in-person Summit every three years, why not do a virtual Summit once every year? Get all the presidents in the hemisphere on to a Google Hangout. Have an agenda prepared. Have them talk publicly. Then have them do a few private meetings.
This certainly can apply to other multilateral or even bilateral events. The president of Brazil doesn't need to fly to Colombia to do a bilateral press conference. They could do a virtual one today. The presidents of ALBA don't all need to run to Caracas. They could just set up a multi-person conference.
As I said, I don't think we should replace all in-person meetings. But why aren't there more virtual meetings among high-level officials that include a public component like a press conference? It's completely possible today and should be done.
But with technology today, they could also hold public or private video chats as often as they want.
So, while maintaining the in-person Summit every three years, why not do a virtual Summit once every year? Get all the presidents in the hemisphere on to a Google Hangout. Have an agenda prepared. Have them talk publicly. Then have them do a few private meetings.
This certainly can apply to other multilateral or even bilateral events. The president of Brazil doesn't need to fly to Colombia to do a bilateral press conference. They could do a virtual one today. The presidents of ALBA don't all need to run to Caracas. They could just set up a multi-person conference.
As I said, I don't think we should replace all in-person meetings. But why aren't there more virtual meetings among high-level officials that include a public component like a press conference? It's completely possible today and should be done.
The country that legalized piracy
Legalize, regulate, create economic activity, tax the profits, reduce the black market and associated violent crime.
What if some country in Latin America or the Caribbean decided to legalize, not drugs, but the piracy of intellectual property. The government would allow for the legal stealing and creation of copies of music, movies, books, art, software, pharmaceuticals and patented inventions. It would create an entire industry on selling the IP online and manufacturing and shipping counterfeit items abroad.
Some may argue that this already exists in some countries (ahem, China). But that's a case of the government refusing to enforce regulations or lying about the issue. I'm talking about a country deciding that its official policy is that intellectual property rights don't exist there. They make the economic decision that they will earn more economic gains from the legalized piracy than they will lose in facing international sanctions from the rest of the world.
In fact, the government goes so far as to promote the industry, providing R&D funding to companies that set up shop and serving as a sort of pirate tourism or haven for foreigners. They could refuse to extradite criminals of intellectual property law and grant them all asylum.
It would almost certainly lead to a massive global trade battle. The country would face unprecedented trade sanctions. Its ships would be blocked from ports. Borders would get extra protection. New internet laws would be created to block that country's websites (and the country would find new ways to get around those blocks). Private companies would need to double down to separate real from counterfeit goods.
This could be a huge economic boom for some country that currently ranks low on the economic development scale. Would any country actually take the risk and consider the policy?
What if some country in Latin America or the Caribbean decided to legalize, not drugs, but the piracy of intellectual property. The government would allow for the legal stealing and creation of copies of music, movies, books, art, software, pharmaceuticals and patented inventions. It would create an entire industry on selling the IP online and manufacturing and shipping counterfeit items abroad.
Some may argue that this already exists in some countries (ahem, China). But that's a case of the government refusing to enforce regulations or lying about the issue. I'm talking about a country deciding that its official policy is that intellectual property rights don't exist there. They make the economic decision that they will earn more economic gains from the legalized piracy than they will lose in facing international sanctions from the rest of the world.
In fact, the government goes so far as to promote the industry, providing R&D funding to companies that set up shop and serving as a sort of pirate tourism or haven for foreigners. They could refuse to extradite criminals of intellectual property law and grant them all asylum.
It would almost certainly lead to a massive global trade battle. The country would face unprecedented trade sanctions. Its ships would be blocked from ports. Borders would get extra protection. New internet laws would be created to block that country's websites (and the country would find new ways to get around those blocks). Private companies would need to double down to separate real from counterfeit goods.
This could be a huge economic boom for some country that currently ranks low on the economic development scale. Would any country actually take the risk and consider the policy?
Latin America's self-driving cars
As a recent Wired article indicates, self-driving cars are a reality. Google has already logged 140,000 miles of driving by computer. Go read the article.
I was thinking about this article as I drove down the street here in Managua. Taxi drivers swerve and stop without signaling. At least twice I've seen drivers with bottles of rum in their hand. People blow through red lights when they can, in fact, there is a whole social norm as to when it is or isn't acceptable. Horse-drawn or ox-drawn carts are a regular feature. So are police checkpoints. Vendors stand in the middle of the road selling phone cases and trying to clean your windshield. The road conditions are terrible with potholes, unmarked speed bumps and, during rainy season, lots of standing water and mud.
Technologically, the software, hardware and computer systems to get self-driving cars in Latin America is at most two decades away and could be here as soon as the next ten years. From a social engineering standpoint, I'm not sure. Sure, Google's cars can drive the highways of California and the local streets of Nevada. But could they really handle Managua, Mexico City or rural Brazil?
Do self-driving cars adapt to the developing world or does the developing world adapt to self-driving cars?
Technologically, there will certainly be questions that passengers will want answered before the cars can drive down here. How does the car manage so many potholes, mud and obstacles on the ground? Can the car drive itself off the paved road and across 10 kilometers of bumps and rocks to get to a beach resort? How can the car differentiate between a windshield washer and a potential carjacker with a gun. Or, more extreme, between a military checkpoint and a criminal ambush?
I'm certain most Latin American policymakers have not thought through the sorts of regulations that will be necessary. Most importantly, does someone always have to be at the wheel to override the car, or can the car drive completely autonomously?
Then again, think optimistically about this. The number of deaths in vehicles in Latin America is very, very high, much worse than the US. Perhaps self-driving cars finally make a dent in the traffic deaths here by making better choices than humans. And perhaps some innovative Latin American country can serve as a test ground and get investments from car companies, improving the software for the cars by providing obstacles that most engineers in the US would never see or even imagine.
I was thinking about this article as I drove down the street here in Managua. Taxi drivers swerve and stop without signaling. At least twice I've seen drivers with bottles of rum in their hand. People blow through red lights when they can, in fact, there is a whole social norm as to when it is or isn't acceptable. Horse-drawn or ox-drawn carts are a regular feature. So are police checkpoints. Vendors stand in the middle of the road selling phone cases and trying to clean your windshield. The road conditions are terrible with potholes, unmarked speed bumps and, during rainy season, lots of standing water and mud.
Technologically, the software, hardware and computer systems to get self-driving cars in Latin America is at most two decades away and could be here as soon as the next ten years. From a social engineering standpoint, I'm not sure. Sure, Google's cars can drive the highways of California and the local streets of Nevada. But could they really handle Managua, Mexico City or rural Brazil?
Do self-driving cars adapt to the developing world or does the developing world adapt to self-driving cars?
Technologically, there will certainly be questions that passengers will want answered before the cars can drive down here. How does the car manage so many potholes, mud and obstacles on the ground? Can the car drive itself off the paved road and across 10 kilometers of bumps and rocks to get to a beach resort? How can the car differentiate between a windshield washer and a potential carjacker with a gun. Or, more extreme, between a military checkpoint and a criminal ambush?
I'm certain most Latin American policymakers have not thought through the sorts of regulations that will be necessary. Most importantly, does someone always have to be at the wheel to override the car, or can the car drive completely autonomously?
Then again, think optimistically about this. The number of deaths in vehicles in Latin America is very, very high, much worse than the US. Perhaps self-driving cars finally make a dent in the traffic deaths here by making better choices than humans. And perhaps some innovative Latin American country can serve as a test ground and get investments from car companies, improving the software for the cars by providing obstacles that most engineers in the US would never see or even imagine.
What will Latin America's borders look like in 100 years?
Though some borders are obvious due to natural formations (Chile-Argentina), most are simply lines on a map. They started with the Spanish and then were greatly reshaped in the 19th century after independence.
The 20th century was odd in that Latin America's borders barely moved. Sure, there were a few small shifts. There remain several border disputes over relatively small plots of territory. But nothing big.
To think that the borders will remain nearly the same in the coming hundred years is to embrace the 20th century and miss the rest of human history. We're more likely to see big and completely unexpected shifts than to see absolute stagnation for another century.
Here's a few possibilities. These are NOT meant as predictions, but rather to begin thinking about potential ways that borders could move, even if it seems very unlikely today:
The 20th century was odd in that Latin America's borders barely moved. Sure, there were a few small shifts. There remain several border disputes over relatively small plots of territory. But nothing big.
To think that the borders will remain nearly the same in the coming hundred years is to embrace the 20th century and miss the rest of human history. We're more likely to see big and completely unexpected shifts than to see absolute stagnation for another century.
Here's a few possibilities. These are NOT meant as predictions, but rather to begin thinking about potential ways that borders could move, even if it seems very unlikely today:
- A larger regional structure will form as countries merge under a single federal government. Various countries in Central America may merge into a single unit. Hispañola seems like a likely candidate. Or Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador could combine back into a Bolivarian unit. Or perhaps UNASUR pulls off the big integration effort and we end up with a president of a United South America.
- Countries break apart and new countries or city-states emerge. Rio and Sao Paulo could become one or even two separate countries, completely split off from Brasilia. Bolivia and Peru could both break into two or three parts. Chile could divide itself into multiple long and skinny countries. Mexico could break up.
- Countries could forcibly take territory. Mexico could take over Guatemala. Venezuela could take over Guyana. Argentina could take over Uruguay and Paraguay. Or perhaps the US takes a new state. While violent armed conflict is off the table today, a worst case scenario in 50 years could have countries fighting each other again and taking territory from each other.
- Countries could cede territory, leaving lawless and (officially) ungoverned spaces or new countries. Brazil could decide it doesn't want all of the Amazon. Colombia could give up some of the states where violent actors remain present. A Central American country could decide a portion of the Caribbean coast is simply owned by the indigenous communities there and give up all claims on it.
As I said, I don't expect any of those predictions to happen, but I do expect some larger movement of borders in the coming hundred years. The map in 2112 will not look like the map in 2012. It's all a matter of how and when.
Introduction
Welcome to Western Hemisphere Futures. This blog is intended to think outside the box and do something different than the typical analysis of the region.
It's about future scenarios 5, 10, 25, 50 or even 100 years into the future. What's the worst case? What's the best case? And perhaps most importantly, how do we as a hemisphere build that better future.
I want to talk about moonshot style projects, not small gains. How do we get crime below 5 homicides per 100,000 in every country in the hemisphere? How can we get malnutrition rates down to zero? How can we create effective regional institutions? How can the hemisphere create an abundance of cheap and clean energy? And the ultimate moonshot project, how will Latin America reach the moon?
I want to talk about debates that are barely present, but could soon matter to the region. How does Latin America deal with the infrastructure for self-driving cars and private sector drones? How should the region manage its own parallel internet? How will criminals profit from technologies not yet created? What sorts of regulations should governments pass for the ethical treatment of robots or to manage nanotechnology safely?
This blog is a risk. I'm going to try to put some difficult and challenging ideas out there. I'll be wrong a lot. I may decide to shut it down in a few weeks or months if I run out of energy. I make no promises.
This should be fun.
It's about future scenarios 5, 10, 25, 50 or even 100 years into the future. What's the worst case? What's the best case? And perhaps most importantly, how do we as a hemisphere build that better future.
I want to talk about moonshot style projects, not small gains. How do we get crime below 5 homicides per 100,000 in every country in the hemisphere? How can we get malnutrition rates down to zero? How can we create effective regional institutions? How can the hemisphere create an abundance of cheap and clean energy? And the ultimate moonshot project, how will Latin America reach the moon?
I want to talk about debates that are barely present, but could soon matter to the region. How does Latin America deal with the infrastructure for self-driving cars and private sector drones? How should the region manage its own parallel internet? How will criminals profit from technologies not yet created? What sorts of regulations should governments pass for the ethical treatment of robots or to manage nanotechnology safely?
This blog is a risk. I'm going to try to put some difficult and challenging ideas out there. I'll be wrong a lot. I may decide to shut it down in a few weeks or months if I run out of energy. I make no promises.
This should be fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)