by Outcast_Searcher » Fri 09 Jun 2017, 18:32:58
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('C8', 'I')f there has been one big trend that has not slowed down one bit in the last 25 years, it is the trend to move everything to computers. It began with military, businesses, then to home communications, etc.
Now people rely in computers to find their way to shops, transfer money, job hunt, etc. With the push to make an "internet of things" there may come a day where you can't buy a refrigerator, stove, blender, kidney machine, etc. that s NOT dependent and controlled by computers or the internet.
...
Can the internet (or our systems) be designed to be more resilient? Are we specializing too much? What are the consequences of moving everything to the internet so we rely on computers for everything and social survival? Are we moving our social system out on an evolutionary limb like the cheetah?
any an all insights are appreciated
First, you're right that things of all types, especially things with any complexity, are getting more computerized. And overall, that certainly does create a heavy dependency on computers overall.
The implications for, for example, the brittleness of our stuff to a massive EMP event, are huge, unless I'm missing something. (i.e. we don't generally live in Faraday cages, and since stuff is made to the cost competitive, I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of IC's for consumers are NOT hardened against things like strong EMP).
Some thoughts:
1). Things don't HAVE to be all on the internet. There is a big difference between one or more IC chips to make a product smarter or more efficent, and having it hooked up to (or worse, dependent upon) the internet. Examples:
a). Modern cars. There are LOTS of chips in cars. For reliability and fixability (diagnostics) this is a very good thing. When was the last time a modern car you owned wouldn't start due to cold or hot weather? This used to happen a LOT back in the 70's and earlier. When was the last time your auto mechanic incorrectly diagnosed a "complex" problem multiple times, costing you a lot of time and stress hoping he got it right next time? This also used to happen a LOT in the 70's and earlier. Today the chips help our cars run and last longer (like for fuel injection, etc), they help diagnose problems (things like a modern transmission may have MANY chips -- a whole tree-network structure of chips). So you might not like the bill, but generally a competent mechanic can get it right without a lot of trial and error, with a modern car. Also, your car isn't actually dependent on the internet (except perhaps to get some software fixes). The chips talk to the local tools your mechanic uses. Your GPS Nav system is talking to the GPS satellite system -- which is NOT the internet. (Notice how much more reliable GPS is than the internet. If your GPS unit is working, you can almost ALWAYS get reliable Nav coordinates).
b). Appliances. You can get them with internet stuff, but at least so far, that's your choice. My year old washing machine has a chip (or several) and I have less control over it (i.e. turning it off doesn't completely reset it in all cases, as I learned the first time I used it. But it saves soap an water and supposedly is smart enough to get the clothes cleaner with less energy by analyzing various things. And it's not talking to the internet (since no one gave it my WI-FI password, I can be pretty sure of that).
2). Lots of things on the internet can make our life better. I'm fine with that as long as I can CHOOSE when I want that to happen. I can choose Netflix or not. To have internet with my computer or not. To buy a smartphone or not. To have a WIFI enabled TV or not. Etc. Given how unreliable the internet can be, and the increasing danger and prevalence of malicious software, I'm kind of concerned about society becoming TOO dependent on the internet. Examples:
a). Recent global Wannacry attack. This damn thing spread without people even doing stupid things like opening unknown email files or downloading unknown stuff to their PC's. That's pretty nasty.
b). Given all the issues, I spend a lot of time and a meaningful amount of money protecting my PC's. And learning how as things evolve. Drive cloners (hardware and software), knowing how to swap various drives in various types of PC's after different unresolvable software problems (including such attacks), backing up key user data seperately and frequently enough, are all needed tasks / skills for safe computing -- even at home -- IF you have lots of data that is important to you on your computer(s). Oh, and keeping all such data offline and the hell AWAY from your computers, lest some future Wannacry thing wipes out everything connected that it can touch, etc. (And I don't think I'd be doing all this if I didn't have a career in computers. So one can imagine how vulnerable the average computer user is who only knows to click on things, etc.
3). Our infrastructure. I get incadescent levels of rage every time I think of the fact that our idiot lawmakers allow things like our electric grid and all sorts of other key utilities be exposed to the internet, so some companies can save a few bucks.
Given that we now KNOW there is cyberterrorism and a certain level or risk from this and do nearly NOTHING -- we're just asking to get smacked right in the face hard at some point. This is one reason I have a standalone whole house generator. I can imagine being without power weeks, or even months, in a worst case scenario. I shudder to consider all the system I can't control or may have no awareness of...
...
So yeah. This needs to be approached with some logic, but it's a huge and complex issue. And like so many other societal issues, our leaders are NOT dealing with it appropriately.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.