easy and accessible to everybody fair and it was going to create this huge wave of well-being. and remember anticipating this so tangibly that i could just feel, wow, we're going to do a wonderful thing for the world. i still believe that we will, and we have a little bit. but in my view and in my experience something started to go wrong and has gone really pretty bad. so i want to explain what that is and you can understand my motivation in hell i came to the position i have now. wind huge new wave of technological efficiency have appeared in the past they have often been in perfect, often created little power centers are disruptions or all sorts of things, but generally the appearance of the interstate

highways, plumbing, electricity in the wall, nitrogen fixing fertilizers, vaccines, clean water available with the turn of another near home. when all these things appear what is undeniable and really apparent immediately thereafter is a wave of improvement and well-being for people. vast portions of the population start getting better, also -- all kinds of things are opened up. i was certain now was going to happen with digital networking, but it is not exactly the way things went. starting around the turn of the century i started to notice a pattern that was really bothering me which is that my friends who worked in the industries that were most affected by digital networking first, and i'm thinking of musicians and journalists and photographers, were not finding the world of new opportunity that i had for so long anticipated would appear.

instead i ended up almost every week having to be part of a fund-raiser to help somebody get a crucial operation in needed and they did not have insurance or something like that. people who are well known and not the unknown, and famous, but well-known musicians. ashamed to admit that they needed help. that had not been true before. that was new. but then what really hit me was the financial crisis, the whole developed world. of focusing on the developed world exclusively for the moment. i will get to the developing world later. all developed world at approximately the same time got itself tangled up in financial absurdity. you had the most powerful countries is in their credit ratings. you had lots of social mobility, jobless recoveries, hollowed out job markets, insanely tight credit, massive waves of financial socked -- fraud or pseudo fraud. and most of all there was a

phenomenon of intense concentration of wealth and influence and a loss of the broader middle of wealth and influence, a decline of what we could call the middle-class. and this happened in societies all over the world, not just year. all of the developed ones. this just blew my mind. now, when i look at this i noticed something that sent chills down my spine which is that all of the newly powerful elite, all of the people who are really at the center of the game , and i have to mention, i have done pretty well myself. and not talking about other. me and my friend. i know individuals who have done well in the last 15 years i say. not some weird aliens. but every single one of us is somehow close to one of the biggest computers on the net. and when i started to realize, in the new system we create,

power and influence were accumulating around the biggest computers on the network. this happened in finance. it happened in insurance. happened in a lecture politics. it happened in media. happened with nation states. it was happening all over. so i thought back on my idealism from when i have been the anchor. i have been kind of a fire breathing oping culture person for years to help bring up a lot of the rhetoric. and what we have always believed as if we made information available it would create so many aborigines and so must efficiency and creativity that we were not sure what happened, but surely the incredible scrubbing of goods and benefits would overwhelm problems otherwise be temporary, but we fail to consider something which

is, if you want to create this utopia where you have all these people sharing your information and everything is available, people might be created people, but computers are not. computers are vastly different from one another. some computers are giant server farms in utah collecting information for american intelligence organizations. some computers are giants -- giant server farms powered by their own power plants and cooled by rivers or blazers. they all need exotic ways. some of them belong to financial schemes. some belong the social media were searched companies, some along to finance years. they are all kinds of different ones, some of the rear distributive once the takeover our computers are run by criminal organizations, but they're all doing basically the same thing. so what happens is if everyone shares equally, whoever has the best computer gets on natural

advantages, its advantages that are so profound that they seduce the owners of the largest computers into the -- well, when you are gifted and privileged, you often don't notice it. it is the thing that is invisible, a form of failure that sneaks into people. and you end up in essentially taking advantage of your position without ever intending to our knowing because it is the most natural thing in the world. one way to explain what it is like, the biggest computer on a network is to go back to the a thought experiment creature from the 19th century. you will notice there would go to the 19th century a lot because i feel the 21st century is, in no way, an echo of the 19th century in a multitude of ways.

so there is a creature would like to introduce you to in a town like this it is so educated, most of you probably know. how many of you have encountered this? okay. you never know. so somebody you will need if you take a class in introductory thermodynamics. no, no. he will talk about physics. run. run. no. it is really simple. he had this to a man named after ambushing. imagine a little demon opening and closing a little tiny door, just an adb door just big enough for molecules slip through. the demon is watching molecules into chambers right next to each other and this little bar connected chambers. each chamber is still with a fluid, water, air, something like that. the demon is watching the molecules approaching the door, and if they're is a really how one on the left side of the memo led it through the right side, and if there's a rally called

one bad game and will let it go to the left side. and just by observing these molecules and opening the store very carefully that timman separates the hot from the cold. once you have done that, you can do something rather nuys which is open up the bigger door and the fickle than a hot mix again. then you can repeat the process in the have perpetual motion. global warming solved. perpetual motion machines cellmark. it's interesting. the active discrimination, the active dealing in information is real work. it's never purely abstract, or separated from reality. the active opening and closing the little door and observing the molecules and the celtics more power and generates more waste heat then you attempt to save by running the turbine in between sessions. this is also known as no free lunch, and you can never get ahead of the game.

every purported perpetual motion machine turns up to be a demon policy if you understand it well enough. faugh what happened with that any bad intent, they could -- pretended they could be the max will the men in obamanomics. here's how it works. the most familiar example is american health insurance. that most cherished of american institutions. so health insurance use to try to calculate risk and there were professionals called actuaries. they had to write down figures and tables and work with very poor in permission, roughly gathered and in at crude since they would try to set the rates of policy. their job was not really to exclude people by surprise. that only became possible when there was so much state and so much computational power today

you could set to pretend to be at maxwell's demand. you gather a statistical correlations to predict to has been needed insurance and an open a little door and say the people unlikely to need insurance gather over here and the people likely to need the benefits of insurance, we put them on the other side of the door. thereby, by having the biggest computer recreate the perfect investment. we create the perfect scheme that cannot fail because we are only insuring people in need it. we know for sure will make a great profit. they're is a story i, perhaps, should not tell. i will tell it without naming names. the editors lawyers cut it. they're is a little island that is used by the republican establishment for planning

retreats. i won't say where it is, and i had a consulting gig helping the largest american insurance concern figure out how operate the computers when they first got them. and remember this deal of this concern talking about how we really love to not insure people who are going to turn out to the insurance. we should deal to avoid doing that. and at that moment there was this weird like rushing sound and then it was this enormous -- and it was such a little earthquake. it turns out there was a meteor strikes right next to a -- and so anyway, those of you who are astronomers interested in me yours who are seeking a device to attract meteor's in order to be allowed to study and should really look to the population of health insurance executives. you will find unique. and the metaphor of making

should be clear. he think creating the perfect business that is all benefit and no risk, but the problem is your radiating his seat, the risk out to the world. and the world is not and can at large. it can't those are the risk or the people in the insurance. so eventually the system breaks. you undermine the system in which it made sense. so it's ultimately self-destructive, but in the immediate sense is more destructive to others. so in a short-term sense you could say, others are hurt more by me of what ultimately everyone certainly the people trying to run the perfect investment. this has happened to health insurance in america which we can see just by looking at the state of our country, but it also happened of finance again and again and again. some friends of mine who used to work at an outfit called

long-term capital. remember that one. so long-term capital was an attempt to use big computing to make a perfect investment fund. it seemed too good to be true, so in order to create an air of legitimacy they hire a bunch of people who had nobel prizes in economics to be associated with it, and it looked perfect first. when it failed, it failed big. guess you paid for it? hello, all of you. you paid for it. there was another one called and ron. and ron was doing whatever the same thing. a great big computer. let's make a perfect investment because we can predict where risk is. i remember getting a call from enron. they want to buy my idols are up. i thought, no. we don't want to sell. we don't want to sell a little party star of the we love so much to some companies test the strength to take advantage of a competing. guess who bought it? cool. i love them. i'm sure there are some people here tonight. we would get to that.

so then the thing about it is that even though maxwell the many allusions always break after a while, that condition is so great because at least in the first phase it does work. if you have the biggest computer and a connected network you can calculate little tiny ways to improve your game so that other people take the risk could you get the benefit. you just everything seems golden. what happens, finance and insurance, it will happen to silicon valley. it will happen to every other area of life of which are organized this way. this is the fundamental pattern that we have to figure out a way to transcend. it is not going to be easy because it is seductive. i've been on the of a side of it. it's great when it works. it is like heroin or something.

it's information heroin, and we have to find some way to yet off of it. i mentioned that time will be returning to the 19th century again and again. i will return to it now. in the 19th century a lot of things happened. there was a whole hundred years there. there was a civil war here. lots of new technology, lots of new science. in terms of human thought there was a unifying his theme that was so powerful and so presence that the expressions of it remain dominant today, and that theme was robot anxiety. the 19th century was defined intellectually to an amazing degree by ethier that people would be made obsolete by approving -- improving technology. you might not think of that is the 19th century concern. but let me give you a couple of

the signposts. first of all, the riots which were riots by textile workers being concerned that there would be made obsolete by improved textile machinery fell of the improved looms. that was a very ugly early battle that resulted in public executions of one not. that, in turn, strongly influenced the 19th century thinkers and a potential heir to the particular karl marx. if you read the early march, the 1840's marks, he was at that time it technology writer concerned precisely with this issue. i realized i was driving on alma listening to kate tsa, but that did not know. i thought it was kqed. it was someone going on about how ever going to lower barriers to market access and more going to a -- capital was going to

flow. no, god. another one of these stupid silicon valley start-ups. it was an actual reading of marks. it was the strangest thing. oh, my god. i went back and reread it. if you forget about -- i'm not a marxist. i think his solution has been proven to fail, but if you read his descriptive work on what was going on with human life in the world of improving technology, he sells contemporary. it really is extraordinary stuff there are not that many songs from the 19th century that are immediately familiar to us, but the ballad of john henry is one about a guy who is in a race with the robot that lies railroad tracks and manages to win but dies from exhaustion. it was the sort of tragic, erotic this to five disparate some of the people and raising its machines. the literature of the 19th century is with us today, and

recall it science fiction. the earliest science-fiction was directing motivated by a fear of human obsolescence. a wonderful example to of example is hd wells time machine worked humanities splits in the future and just uses pcs, one of which benefits from being the descendants of those who own facebook in is to gramm and google, the rich ones to run the scheme. they eat the other ones. the interesting thing in the vision is that both sides of that divide i made a kind of ridiculous. absurd. if you look at science fiction occasionally it is an alien who makes as obsolete, but it is one of the other. always a question of whether humans will become obsolete or not, and usually it is our own machines. as the theme over and over

again. the science fiction started out of robot anxiety in the 19th century. an interesting thing happened. in the 20th-century we did not see massive waves of unemployment because of improving technology. and of course the reason was that new jobs were created when machines get better and it shows that those jobs are usually more desirable. it did not happen automatically. there is this thing called the labor movement which was no small thing, a gigantic, but become a difficult movement. in a sense it was fighting for the right to get paid even if your job is as miserable and dangerous as old jobs. that is something that is often forgotten. so let's imagine for a moment that this bookstore is located in rochester, new york instead

of menlo park, california. if we were in rochester we would remember that in 19th century it was that cynosure of the manufacture of buggy whips. it when obsoletes because motorized vehicles gamelan. i love horses. dealing with horses as a necessity to get around is a pain in the bud. i don't know if he had done it. there is the feeding, the poop, and whose chairman the getting kate, not all of that nice. the whole thing is really a big nuisance. so having a motorized vehicle is not only cool, but it is so fun you wonder why people would not to spit it drive it. so if you have -- if you ever wonder why the teamsters union is tough union, have to be tough to assert that even the lawyer doing is sitting there putting your foot up battle, he still deserves to be paid. that's why cabbies' get paid.

and every time they use the job that is not utterly miserable and dangerous but still pays, you will notice something about that job which is that there was in the past some straw vote created some sort of the ratchet or structure that helps as people get paid despite the fact that they are not constantly risking death. there is either a union were academics are something. always some kind of mechanism. and this is the reason why in the georges century we have better jobs to do a better technology. it was not so much a question of whether people will -- were still needed but a judgment dammar hard-fought for the judgment that even if the new rules for people or more pleasant than the old, you could still get paid for them. that is what happened. so unemployment crisis averted.

middle-class strong. now, at the turn of the 21st century we suddenly decided to read a on that covenant. recently decided, screw the solution. who will let people go obsolete. let me spine allies see this happening. one of the magical little tools that are available for us swimmingly for free is language translation, a proximate language translation. you can up load an essay in english and get it back seemingly automatically turned into a spanish essay. not perfect, but readable. google to microsoft and a few others. the first company to iraq demonstrated was ibm labs, but it is a pretty common thing at this point. so the way that we talk about a service like this, most commonly, is as if they're is a giant artificial brain and we

are privileged to get the services of this artificial brain for free. isn't it a wonderful world in which you can benefit from the artificial brain for free? now, there have been a time when there was a hope that this spring might be created. it goes back to the 1950's when some of the pioneers were never really sure what would be involved than just one of my mentors when i was young, one of the founders of the a i field, he has signed a gradual basis since the summer project seeing if they could translate between math -- languages. no, that does not work. famously does not work. what does work is what we call a big data or giant corporation if

tension. the thing is it is a matchup of real people who we pretend don't exist. so what we're saying is, as this technology progresses and gets better and better, if you were a translator, multilingual, that job of translating is not like being a truckdriver, even though it is not miserable, this time you don't get paid for it because we have a non unwise to a pretended you don't exist to create the illusion of a giant electronic brain. so this is yet another example of what i call a siren server or

a maxwell demon where we are creating the illusion that all the value goes to one side. we will let all the value from the transition go to one side and all the people who actually did the work go over to the other side. we're going to try to make the perfect skimmer real mess electronic brain. when big date is involved and you hear the word artificial intelligence as something like that or even the were automatic what you should hear is instead the word accounting fraud. what is actually going on is that the real people who did the worker being forgotten, being hidden behind a curtain. an active magic, stage magic. as long as we keep thinking this way, if we decide to renege on the covenant that allows employment to continue even with the mystery of jobs reduced and the 20th-century come every reneged on that cabinet the 21st century will see the

realization of the anxieties of the 19th century the people will be made obsolete by machines. there's no need at this happen. it is based on a judgment about how we're willing to a knowledge other. one of hoping you can see here is there a connection between the kinds of roles the people can get paid for and this tendency of whoever owns the biggest computer to naturally benefit from the possibility of trying to calculate a perfect scheme to themselves. they're two sides of the same point of. the way it works is a big gathering data from people in the key is that if you have to pay for the data, if there was a market in it. yet to pay more for more viable affirmation and that sort of

thing. is the fact of the information is really creates the illusion that you could be maxwell's demon and information is never free. thus the we learned basic, ben mimics. okay. no we are in a cultural situation right now where in order for me to talk about these things i have to speak against the people i like the most. this is awkward because right now if you're on the side of the angel : if you're a good person, of course is supposed to love and open culture and open information and all those. i've been struck at open source code will become the msg of our culture. there is open source software. use and there were is being collected in poughkeepsie. it sounds like and don't want to

click on this. no one to cook on a story. of read about teeth to many thing. i believe it would be true for so long. that i think the open source people are the biggest problem right now, but they do create this kind of hipness or legitimacy to a problem that is mostly exploited by highly different people. so right now the form of free of permission and disenfranchisement that goes with it that people experience on the day-to-day the insists is

the kind brought to them by silicon valley. and once again you get a free online course. this did things go the other him. but it doesn't mean the course is in wonderful. the particular redo does and do our long-term prospects in exchange for short-term benefit. you might say all that new information of there, surely all those and people, that's what i thought about now working as long as the benefits are routed whoever owns the biggest computer will gather the benefits. in the book d'agata through many a examples of this. that talk about a hypothetical artificial bland that you will be allowed to insert insider tattoos like a little clip

accent that will synthesize chemicals to your body in about how that could create a wave of health and well-being but at the same time the doctors and pharmacists and chemists in all these people of work depending on how it's done because it could be done in such a way that all the real work is demonetize an unacknowledged. whoever runs the ratting computer becomes instantly -- instantly wealthy here. the greatest and fastest fortunes in the history of the world are being made around computers which is not what we had intended. so we might ask how we get out of this. what do we do instead? i mention that the way people experience the silicon valley company, but the way it has hit hardest so far as a financial world, the world of high frequency trades, the world of

weird leveraged, bundled derivative, as the things. there is actually a whole other class of financial schemes a run of big computers that not the familiar. fantastic adjusted those games that use the computers to move money around a precise moment so as to avoid paying tax anywhere in their interest ever were once . the stand of things are very commonplace. it is didactic at this point. there is an absurdity to them that is invisible to the people who do them. i have a bunch of bodies to work to out the math for high-frequency trades. is cool. it's really fun. i could almost see doing it because it's a really need to wait. the thing about a high-frequency trading machine is it makes trade so fast that there is not time for the real world, and permission from the real world to get an. it is technically impossible for these things to be optimizing based on events in reality. so this other arguments, optimizing the function of the

math of the market itself. and then that i actually think it can be legitimate, but only if there is only one monopolistic high-frequency trade. because if they're is a multiplicity of high-frequency trading machines, what they do is read their own algorithms and create residence to 27, so the fluctuations that detector created by each other and they collectively know many of the world rating is still ready. you will find this again and again where there will be a local framework in which would you were doing when you own a big computer seems to make sense, but if you like the bigger picture, it never does because there is never free lunch. i could go over many examples of this. so how do we gather this? one way is to say, you know what, this is it. we can't keep the market going anymore. we need some kind of of the way to organize some affairs. way to get everybody.

finally get socialism. i've gone down all those roads. i don't think they got a pretty places. there those who disagree with me. one is have a lot of kind of critics ye turn to keep markets of all? i think the problem with that is that politics also oscars over people if it's allowed to function on its own terms. i think what happens is politics when. certain types of unbridled capitalism like to hear a -- occurs in a purely political weight. again and again people i

remember being a young baby and trying again and again to live and a group tousled. a number of these households were words down the road. its sides may politics work. the reason is a lack of minutes and that people letter on rate fears of. that tends to believe that a purely political solution is just not going to happen. i think people are sort of perverse and difficult and all over the place. i think the use of market, the use of money should be understood. it is something that balances the tendencies of human society to become dysfunctional. money also can be terrible and concentrate power and lead to terrible and fairness. i think this sort of these dual magisterium of society and economics can kind of balance

each other's some worst failure modes. they can balance each other's torrance to some degree. this is a bit of a complex topic that won't go into, but i'll buy treated reasonably in the book. what i am thinking is so we can hope for from digital technology google a perfect society. i think in the attempt of perfection in since years. that will work. but sad to this process of balancing the system so that none of them can get too badly. i think of the way america is balance between a legislature in the judicial branch and an executive branch. it's an interesting and give weather hope is that each province the other from going off the deep and too much him. and for the most part it kind of works. sometimes we wish they would work together. so i think we have to think that

way about the society's organizing our affairs with. economics and social process season are a little different because economics is more abstract and more numerical and these two systems can balance each other. computations a third one. maybe these three things can balance the tetherball bury those people who have socialist tendencies begun trying to elevate capitalism. i'd go see it that way. let me give you a specific example about of bringing money into the world of information might create balance instead of extreme capitalist evil is something. one of the trends that is concerning me and a lot of people is the proliferation of cloud connected cameras. governments already benefit from having cameras on every corner in densely populated areas. sufferer because some of which came from outside of what google

bought contracts people by face or gate or all kinds of things and all the sudden have a system where governments can know where everyone is and what they're doing. wars were fought precisely from the -- precisely to keep government from getting this power, but now we think it's cute that silicon valley companies with canada and debbie's can do it be read that is problematic. that is really problematic. so how do you and do it? the usual way you try to undo it is you have some sort of advocacy group like the electronic frontier foundation, and they have lawyers the golan and argue a cover and officials and try to the slight kendis to match regulation. so here i am looking at a bunch of corporate programmers with huge computers and connectivity coming upon a scheme said unlocking a government bureaucrat strange, but prohibitions. i do not see a fair fight.

another example is regulators trying to control high frequency traders. the way high-frequency trading out rhythms go, if you try to slow the frequency of them are put caps on them are something like that, they just adapt and use that as part of the little system that there optimizing against him. so what can possibly be done? you can't use a prohibition wrote -- regime. you can have some effect. facades and -- is part of the solution, such traditionally one of the ways that the people constrains the government or for that matter the other powers, churches, and corporations is that it costs money to do things fess. the comptroller taxes creates a constraint. no taxation without representation. so the police don't get to have three cars. they can't just gutman of a lot and say, what cars from a police

department. out to send them over. they have to argue for taxes to pay for a budget and ago by them like everyone else. if you have to pay money once you recognize somebody, sudden you can't just do it without restraint. have to stratagem is a prioritized. what it does is instead of an automatic gathering of iteration our scheme it creates a much more on the situation in which you're using it in the matter and permission to create a balance scheme because the cost is real. permission is never free. paying for it only reflects the reality of affirmation, which is that it has to come from somewhere. it always comes from people. information is always people in disguise. that is a philosophical point we can go into in question. it creates at least a baseline netball but does not tend toward infinity of infinite power concentration.

so i think that monetizing information to a degree is actually friendly to civil liberties offs, friendly to creating balance in government. there are seats questions about how do it and i don't pretend to have all the answers. fifth let me go over a couple little topics about the prospects for permission costing money instead of being free. , does this exclude people from accessing information. a lot of the rhetoric of the free and open information is that even when the poor have access. we tried it and it as an exactly opposite. the middle-class is thinking wealth and power concentrated in smaller and smaller numbers. serbs every time you tweet account about the 1% to enrich the 1%.

so if this is something that is interesting to me. outcome endeavor mission systems, i see a winner-take-all. youtube and amazon or a cake starter something like that where there is one gathering point of rawness to cycle through, what you get is a tall tower, and may seated neck, and long tail. that is problematic because people are primes' want to believe to help. this goes back to a horatio's story. the idea that there are a few people who legitimately do well in the system. a lot of other people still living with parents and running

and up and there always within a hairsbreadth of that success. they won't get it. this really bugs me. there is a commonly held belief in the sort of illusion of tens of thousands are others of thousands of musicians work they do great because the proposals online. i've gone out and tied the count musicians doing well since and they're just anvils. i am struck that even the people at the top of the new regime, considered to be great success, kind of like we used to be considered going into the middle-class. how many people there who general marbles is. a billion hits and youtube. gideon dating advice for young woman. not easy stuff to watch for me, but mitt is a cross between

steady and martha stewart, some denied that. at china media. serbs and in her mid-20s you can rent a $19 house in l.a. and if you talk like an engineer or silicon valley for renting, i huge crown. i think it's great for someone in their 20's. the stairwell. considering how many people are starving. someone to minimize, but on the other hand, if that is that to the top, think about where everyone else's. we had this incredible lowering of expectations. the thing is for every general marbles there is just a million people who are only that close. all the people who have 20,000 or 000,000 use an youtube, is so

close. a few tantalizing things, if you gates. i could almost make this work. the society based on false hope is one of the cruelest. at some point, there will start to have pretty rough midlife crisis when it did now workout. it's a shame. it's a jazzy waiting to happen for the facebook generation. so let some point the facebook generation more likely kids will say we're sick of this domestic of every financial scheme being a giant computer that is trying said who rebate. basic every bit -- living have also. i often hear this sort of terror about if i have to pay for a reformation, paid tillich's someone stupid facebook page.

so you pay to go to a stupid movies and people pay to go to the czech's members is something . people preferred dump stuff all the time. they're based on want instead of need. this is what the talked about, this line shifts which i want and need. cosmetics, professional sports, i don't know. and don't even know where to begin. a vast amount of our economy is based on taste and want and subjective values. then there is absolutely no reason why there could not be a society as much we do get paid for our social media. was the part of this. a leap of faith is required. capitalism can work.

markets can work. markets work when they start helping people coordinate to create more wealth and more positive effects for each other that they would have otherwise. and when you have a market that grows as a result of that, more people be better in a trading system rather than sharing system. i think that has happened again and again in is a real effect an entirely appropriate, especially for an information network. yes guy you would be paying, but you would also be getting paid. the nature of getting paid would be unlike any other form of payment that people have experienced in market economies before. used to the idea the paper step more often than you get paid. you only get paid every two weeks is something for your salary or whenever. always buying your coffee and spending in this world do you paid in little drips and drabs. if you want to get a feeling for how much you want to be paid

that is being stolen from twitter.com/booktv information, you concur to the start keeping track of all the discounts you get when you allow someone is planning. elected your club card when you shop at the treasury's. the differential between what you spend in the year, the frequent-flier -- frequent flyer programs and how much you have to spend a few did not belong to them, and you get stuck to calculate that there is a fair amount of money that it did for real money instead of just a bargain, if you were in control of that money you might be making decisions that would put you into participation as a first class citizens in a market that would be plenty of growing instead of concentrating wealth. if you look at the information that people learn interested in in a network that does not go through a central hub and a thin neck and an emaciated, long tail that you see, you see this thinly connected thing for most people are vastly interested.

this is work that has been done, funded sometimes by facebook to try to protect itself some critics were saying that it is a centralizing employed. is very interesting research, but what it means is who we would see a middle-class home. this is intriguing because it is just possible that a monetize information network would yield a a kind of middle-class on in a new way instead of through their wretched systems which are called levees of the book like that taxi medallions and cosmetology license and academic tenure and union. there might be a kind of natural distribution of wealth that would create a thicker metal. i have to say something about the middle class because i have noticed that a lot of my hip friends, also have friends and even a little part of me is affronted by the terminal class because it means some kind of bushwa parent branded horrible

loss of hipness that is everything we must renounce as a middle-class. and i'm talking about really a different thing which is very simple which is the issue of the aristocracy that so occupied the founders of the united states. the key thing is that you need to have a preponderance of people kind of in the middle of outcomes of human life who collectively have more influence than any easily tip. the metal has to be able to have clout the tip. you need that if you want a democracy, if there is an elite that can outspend everyone else democracy becomes a sham. i am not happy with what is going on with money in politics and the u.s. lately. add on know anyone who is, but furthermore, if you care about market dynamics, if you like capitalism, if your libertarian you need exactly the same thing. the middle. otherwise you don't have customers. otherwise you end up with of

petrus state or a plutocracy or with oligarchs or some sort of fake, fuel system that is pretending to be a market but it isn't. so that system with a metal is robust is absolutely essential to every humane system of organizing human affairs that is ever appeared. you cannot count on something infinitely wise in charitable and the lead. this brings up another point which is, i happen to think that the silicon valley elite might be one of the nicest ones judge ever appeared in history. at think we are sweet. [laughter] but the thing is that we cannot let that enter into our thinking. you do not have to -- you do not have to try to imagine that the captains of silicon valley industry are villains or evil because there not for the most part. i still think seriema is great. i still think we were cute. the problem is that over time

you don't know who will inherit the power. exhibit a, the company that started the pattern for all of us and -- the desire for saying this, and mostly my condolences, but this is normal. this will happen to every human institution. this will proceed. things go through periods of decadence, corruption. we have to plan a society with that kind of realism that there will not be some internally benevolence pure and intelligent elite. every lead, the subject of degradation over time. so i am attempting a little stunned broadly in the book which is very experimental which is i making myself vulnerable in order to get a point across. i could have stopped the book halfway through with a scathing critique of how powers are

concentrated and then stopped. and i think a lot of cool people as well. talks about power in many ways and would get it out in a lot of school courses and humanities departments and would be -- a lot of french scholars would like it, whenever. it would have this kind of cachet, but i do something that's totally and as that which is talk about solutions even though i know for certain that my first pass to solutions cannot possibly be right even though i know that name going to read this stuff myself engineers and think, i was naive. how did i make that mistake? i lay my neck out before you because i think it is essential that we have the courage to be imperfect in our attempts to improve ourselves. want to be first in line. i think almost all of my friends who are very technical and of one of the -- run the biggest computers in the world and program and our people of very

good will who are open to these ideas. i have found extraordinary warmth from everybody in silicon valley who i talked to about this stuff, and even in the centers of finance of electoral politics and the spymasters. all of these worlds a big competition. i think we will -- one of the good things about this moment is that it is one of the more pleasant believes in history and is open-minded, and i think we have an excellent shot at fixing this. ..

>> we have climate science and it is the people that first discern global climate change and many e-mails were leaked and conspiracy theorists have poured over them. meanwhile, the people that put up these theories in support of us dirty measures in response to the financial scandal, they had to work around bad programming. we have not established that so that people could really hear its method. so as long as we are living with the schemes that are intended to

have perfect investments were the perfect scheme with these demonic attempts to make everyone else take the risk and concentrate the benefit, as long as we are living that come we need to understand. we have these people that are recommended by these algorithms. every time we apply these algorithms that don't work, they are supposed to finance, they might work because people are on the things in the back of our

mind, we know that it is all because of this game. it becomes the ability to discern truth and i view this as being connected to the bigger picture of how we can make ourselves get through this crazy century. so with that, i thank you so much and i would like to take some questions. [applause] >> for the question and answer session, it would be so great you guys if you guys could come up to the mark here. >> okay. >> thank you for coming

tonight. i have a question here that i would like to discuss. rewarding people for putting bits of information into the decision to make the middle class more robust. how does the creation with an informal economies and collaboration shift into this model. especially this monetizing information, monetizing our assets like renting out our homes, renting our bicycles and our power tools and etc. to have a second income. does this contribute to your idea of making the middle class more robust? >> you know, i talk about this in similar things in the book.

in general, the informal economy is not a good thing. people in the ghettos of the world are trying to get out of them and into formal ones. wells is the opposite of an informal economy. the thing you'll notice again and again that the people at the center of the things avoid risks. they say that we are at arms length. the problem with that is that

the risk is kind of related in this. what is happening is by trying to create this system, no matter what happens on the ground, the people have to take the risks themselves. so you can rent out your place and nobody rips you off and then something happens, that there was no insurance scheme and there was no risk pool of people, no planning for it. very gradually because and just

organizing people and taking risk with no planning to manage that risk. you know, there are various ways that can happen in my concern is that when people say, oh, i will create an insurance service for people who give each other rides over the internet, those insurance things become another example. it appears again and again. the generalized way out of it is to have it be monetized, and this includes making the leap to this kind of sophistication. everyone is forced because that is what informal economies are the amount next? >> i have been thinking a lot about these issues and i want to think about your brilliant presentation. in addition to technology there

is also the specter of personal health and education, and what i mean is that you have a population that has not been educated since great one, we all know that the problem in this is dismal and the problem is personal health and the food that we eat and that laws have been passed that make this not so little anymore. if you have a population that is not really that well educated and healthy, how then and that includes twitter or facebook for purely entertainment purposes. i think you need to bring in the heads of google or facebook. because without that i think

that they are not going to see the fallacy like you just said. they're just not going to see their own actions. so my question is how do we start to individually talk about this, how do we take those baby steps? >> you know, i have a lot of friends that are writers. there are a lot of people who write about big issues, those that give you things you can do, like with the things about food and all this stuff. part of me wants to do that and i haven't found a good way to do it. honestly if i do, i will write a book about it. a lot of the things are addressing this. because they precisely feed the monster that i am concerned

about. every time you tweet about it, you're running into the 1%. i'm working on this problem with what you can do. of course if you're highly technical, it's a different story and you can do all kinds of stuff. if you know how to program, you can operate your facebook privacy settings. and you can probably use all kinds of tools, you can use all this stuff, just as if you want to change the food system, it doesn't really solve the big problem, in the same way that only technical people could take advantage of doesn't really address anything. i would like to solve it many of people have ideas about this.

>> i am so glad to see that you mentioned this. >> thank you. >> the reason i mentioned this is because in u.s. history class i teach, i noted how you go back to the notion of the farmer, that everyone has a chance to get some land, they can become independent and be their own boss. you can grow your own food, you can have a great family. is this going to be possible with the internet? can we have millions and what i like so much about your work interest is opposing the

question. that america was supposed to be one the first europeans arrived and want to slice and dice it up. as to whether the internet can combat that. just by clicking on the internet. >> oh, my god, there there's so much to say about that. it was monetized, this is ted nelson's work before we knew how to make networks. the original networking included what i talked about it was lost in a series of tawdry incidents

described in the book. this is precisely part of the tradition in america and yet i grew up in the west and i grew up in southern new mexico where the roads were still dirt and people wandered around with horses in the desert. i can tell you that there is a lot that is not created about a world of people that are self-made. because it does favor the strong and it does create a world of mobs and gunslingers and so forth. it is not really a pretty world. what happened in the american west was the land was free except getting through your land, you have to go through these transportation systems. and gradually we lost that romance with the land instead of

the freelance. it is safer and creates wealth and coordination. >> you wrote can you get a new deal? >> okay, so there are some other people.

>> i agree that a bottom sub solution to monetizing this scene is very difficult. and so have you given any thought to the meeting of minds of people who own big computers and and how big it would have to be in order to make it meaningful. it also helps people who produce quality information and people who consume videos and things like that. >> okay. so yes, two questions there. in the book i fantasize that the top actors in the world get together and create a new send system and then they won't put tattoo artists out of work.

[laughter] some kind of weird event that happens every weekend or something. yeah, sure, i propose a few a few different routes to where we can have a transformation. but it is a phase change. although i have to say how much is financial suffering until people realize that the current financial regime is not currently working? how many times we have to go through this. you know, we did it with savings and loans, we did it with bundled securities and mortgages and now we are going to do it with sovereign debt and again and again. how many times does this have to happen. and it's kind of like the song and dance, how many times is a big computer have to fail before we call it crap ♪ ♪ than your other question is, i get this a lot, are they just a

few people that make all of the good information? i don't see empirically if i look at what people are interested in online, interested in each other in a very general way. where a preponderance of people get a medium amount of attention rather than getting all of the attention. it doesn't happen in a spoke and hub network, but it does happen in a connected graph like facebook. i am not convinced of that. i will remain optimistic. if it's really true, everyone uses it. i don't see the evidence, i am actually more optimistic about people.

>> thank you very much. it's very interesting. you are talking about the 21st century. i think the main achievement is understanding. and this will prove to be the case. if you think about it this way, when we talk about putting the value of information, it is the same thing as the property tax, and you know, so you on things. >> no, it's not.

>> i have friends that have done very well for themselves. new york city is filled with them. they watch what poor kids are wearing and they translate that to expensive fashions. so it is a bit a part of the terminology. but it's not so much only the obvious objects. the more 3-d printers work were the better it works.

>> i mean, i don't mean the object has become part of this. what you are trying to address is a tactical problem. >> you were just making a huge

logical error. i mean, there are number of things. >> of course, i know that. >> richard and i were friends and i remember. i understand it is nice to think

about a pristine totality and i understand that there is a motion. there are emotions. and that is what this is succumbing to it is quite ridiculous, and everyone knows it is ridiculous. then we have this thing where we pretend were 10 people exist and we have this sort of monster creature and there is a third alternative, which is every time micro payments go back to whoever wrote their routine.

those are what is forming around those machines come, where they didn't have to pay for the software. we have to try this other alternative. and they wouldn't have had to start the search surgeon that wouldn't have even have been

profitable. the internet has multiplied a huge number of times to support things like bittorrent. that is precisely what we are doing under the current regime. >> i am at microsoft research. >> i am not one of the big empires come at a and to sort of the community. i have been a chief officer and so i get the map. that is what i'm worried about.

the question is truth versus money. then there is the version of the truth of the powers that be the data at purgation itself is in the servers of google and wal-mart. if this was in support of this, it would be in a stadium. so broadly speaking there is a huge bias in favor of power and

against the kind of message they are trying to suppress. i don't want to overreach, i think we have time to fix this. we have to fix this before automation gets really good. before all of this is 3-d printed in all of this stuff. i get fairly specific in the book and leave these questions to go forward.

you have to keep feeding the monster of these information systems. i am finding a lot of good reception. >> i hope it works.

>> you have any technology as we go forward? >> technology doesn't exist. a martian looks at the computer and they can't tell whether it is a lava lamp or not. without culture technology, you have to know how to use it and you have to know what it means. it is not a freestanding thing. to the degree we are dependent upon technology. it is saying the same thing. so it is a piece of stage magic, it is important. >> okay, the example of the

translators. >> it has been a 20 year gap. >> it was more than 20 years ago? >> i happen to be giving a lecture and there was a stanford freshman looking at me saying, you are still alive? you are still here? and that was 13 years ago. >> can you speak to the two human qualities. you have kind of touched on this

case the to creating this? >> it is interesting because when silicon valley tries to be aired again, we can't quite pull it off. fundamentally we are sweeteners. but then when we don't think that we are being arrogant and that is one we usually are. there was this recent thing of a political action committee and it just kind of talk itself. and so there is a kind of sweetness to this culture. but i think humility is not just a lack of bullying, and actually

requires the hard work that we are trying to see and it's a constant process that you don't always get to. i am at least trying. i don't know. but it's an ongoing process. >> are you a parent? >> guest. >> my question for you is trying to figure out what is going on what are your thoughts or advice as we teach our children to be good and loving people. do you have any advice on what kids are studying in the community. >> my qualifications as a parent will become known to me and my daughter is an adult, which will not be 40 while.

i'm worried about how structured our kids lives are. and in a way, i think that the structure is a the play date someone you are a little kid. everybody goes into this pre-structured thing where they are following a group which is less work, this also goes back with those pre-structured catlike life. and i'm a little worried that, you know, i love the way we can teach science you can make your own robot and actually you can make your own organism

everything is pre-structured and you don't hit reality. you don't have the mystery of this place that we are indirectly so much. i am totally part of the problem. it is not going to happen. but on this sense, i am denying her something. and i don't know how to resolve that. it really bothers me. the other thing that i want to say is it is filled with elementary school math teachers. i cannot believe how incredibly crappy the curriculum is. when my daughter was in kindergarten, going to i went to pick her up one time and all the little girls, if i may say so, it is very true.

i ensure that i betrayed this blindness, this male blindness. we were really thinking about it and i went to my math teacher and said, all of these where it is. to me, this blows my mind. but this is not something that we seize upon. i don't know what to do about it. you see where the test doesn't measure anything important, all of the things that we see in the dating sites and the finance

side, where information becomes unreliable, even as it concentrates power. >> i know it has been 25 years since we worked with your company, trying to produce a virtual reality game console. >> is tom here? yes, tom was an ibm research fellow. something like that. >> were do you see this as a resurgence, coming back? >> i have been on this for a wild. virtually there is like this way

of and yes, i hope and i think that it's really cool. obviously it is cool that it is not so expensive these days. and i hope they do wonderfully. >> a bunch of my buddies work on it. someone asked before and i am absolutely convinced that what i'm saying is in all of our interests, including the people who are running the big computers now. it employed 140 working-class

people, one of them was that one of my place is worth a billion dollars. i love people being really successful, have tons of friends and i applaud that. we should create our success not from shrieking at, but tricking the economy and will actually come to make a perfect scheme. i am convinced that all the rest were actually do better than they are doing because we be part of a growing economy instead of one that is down to a little perfect scheme. so i >> tonight, booktv in primetime features books about the immigrant experience.

>> that's booktv in primetime starting at 8 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> columnist stanley crouch, what is on your summer reading list? >> well, i am working on a screenplay of my novel, "don't the moon look lonesome," so i have to reread it to actually figure out how to make a screenplay work. because it's a very complex story of an interracial romance, and the protagonist is this blonde woman from south dakota.

and my greatest achievement in my entire life and career was, i was talking to this guy and he mentioned my novel. and i said, well, welcome he did know who i was, right? he said, have you read that? i said, i've heard about it. i don't know -- yet, i read. he said i'm from south dakota. i said really? he said, in fact, i know every person in that woman's family. i've met all of them growing up. i said, really? he said yes. he got things exactly right that i didn't even tell in the book. and i said well, no novelist can ever get better praise the net. to have somebody from a state to

get i should never been to, believe the character so much that you knew those people. so that's what i'm trying to figure out how to translate. >> let us know what you reading this summer. tweet us and booktv, post it on a facebook page or send us an e-mail at booktv@c-span.org. >> we've got more coverage of nonfiction books and the book industry every weekend on booktv. including this saturday at 7 p.m. eastern, former mtv vj kennedy. >> i think it was powerful because they realized that they could tap into a generation of voters and also this is a time when you're in your teens and late teens and early '20s were your most passionate about things in your life.

they realize if you turn that passion to politics it would be a really incredible force. regardless, i agreed are desperate with the politics of the people who were my boss, i like the fact that they want to engage people. i like the facts that they wanted people to express and learn about their own political leanings and feelings. and then every once in a while i would jump in and get a little bloody and mix it up with them, but i always thought that was for the benefit of all. when you challenge one another, what you believe and why you believe, it will make you a better person for it. not just politically but all around. >> along with our schedule you can also see our programs any time at booktv.org and get the latest updates throughout the week. follow was on facebook and twitter. >> former secretary of state george schultz talked about his book, "issues on my mind:

strategies for the future" at an event at the hoover institution at stanford university. this is an hour. >> what are you doing for a living? >> all, i tried to live up to my four great-grandchildren, who to me represent the future. and i look at them and i say to myself, what can i do to make the world better for these kids? >> as a distinguished fellow at the hoover institution, what is it that you do? >> well, i work on the problem of nuclear weapons, and how to get better control of them, eventually eliminate them. i work on economic issues. i work on energy subjects, working a great deal of that. and i've also been trying to reflect a little bit on all my experiences and see if there's anything that can be learned from them.

i actually wrote a book to try to do that. >> and that book is called "issues on my mind." secretary shultz, what's the main issue on your mind today? >> the main issue is that the world that the united states had a great deal to do with constructing after world war ii, in effect we constructed a security and economic commons that serve us and serve everybody well. that comments is being torn apart right now, and we have to understand what's happening. and we have to be ready to interact in a constructive way to build a more coherent world than the one that has developed. so i reflect on my experiences in the book that you held up, the different ways in which we need to go about it.

we have some real opportunities in front of us. we have some issues. a lot of the things i proposed, talk about are so controversial nobody wants to hear you talk about them, but anyway, i do, so i enjoyed that. >> how would you say the world is security wise today as opposed to when you were secretary of state in the 1980s? >> very different to in the 1980s when i was secretary of state, we had the main threat of the soviet union and their nuclear arsenal, and our nuclear arsenal. and how you contain that. and maybe you remember from those days, the nuclear cloud was always somewhere there. well, i think that has diminished a great deal in terms of russia-u.s., though it is still there. but the threat is more of a greater disbursement of nuclear

weapons, the proliferation sometimes in the hands that are not deterrable. and in other ways, the world is kind of falling apart. and this is very disturbing, i think. >> rogue states, iran, potential nuclear power. how should it be handled? >> well, we have said it's an unacceptable. i remember, and i used this in my book, when i was a boot in the u.s. marine corps. you think you joined them in, you have been. you go to birmingham. it's only if you survive boot camp that you become a marine. i remember the day the sergeant handed in my rifle. he said, take good care of this rifle. this is your best friend. and remember one thing. never point this rifle at

anybody and leisure willing to pull the trigger. no empty threats. now, i told that story to present reagan on occasion, and he loved it because we said to ourselves, we've got to be very careful what we say. so people will realize that when we say something, it's going to of consequence, it does. and if it's not going of consequences, we don't say. so what the administration has in mind, i don't know, but they basically said it's unacceptable for iran to get nuclear weapons, that the option is not, i think secretary kerry testified, it's not containment, the object is prevention. so i don't know what their strategy is, but it better have some toughness in it or it isn't going to succeed. >> secretary shultz, what about the superpowers that have nuclear weapons?

russia, u.s., china? should there be more talks? should to be less weapons? should they be dismantled? >> one very positive thing, there's a lot of positive things, but one more reason was about three years ago i guess, president obama convened a meeting in washington. 40 heads of government were there. and the object was to see how everybody involved can do a better job of controlling this material. fissile material is what it takes to make a bomb. that's the hard part, getting the fissile material. and then that was followed up with another 12 years later installed, and i guess there's another one scheduled in amsterdam. and more and more heads of government are involved in that, and trying to really get hold of that. i think that's a very constructive thing. and in a recent thing that i've

written, along with the people i've been working with on this, henry kissinger, bill perry and sam nunn, we say, let that morphed into a kind of global nuclear enterprise, and get all of these, i'll say, more constructive non-rogue states together, to keep working at these different kinds of things that need to be done. there's some between us and russia that needs to be done, but there's others, too. >> what about when it comes to rogue states? in the '80s you were the administration that strategically bombed libya. what about bombing iran, at least its nuclear facility? >> well, just how you would go about that and how difficult it is, how successful you can be, i have no, i'm no part of intelligence, except to say it's probably difficult.

the israelis are more worried about it than anybody because iran every other day says they want to eliminate israel, why put out. since they have a nuclear weapon on the end of a ballistic missile, they could do it. i think we've learned from reading "mein kampf" that when someone likes that make a statement, you should take it seriously. and believe them. so i think that we have to think about forceful means, but i'm not informed enough to say more than that. >> in "issues on my mind" you write when it comes to terrorism, we in this country must think hard about the moral states involved. if we truly believe in our democratic values and our way of life, we must be willing to defend them. passive measures are unlikely to suffice, means a more active defense and deterrence must be considered and given the necessary political support.

>> well, you say if you have a law enforcement presence of you say okay, let us -- then we find out who did it and we try them in u.s. court, and if we make them guilty, there are endless appeals, they go to jail. well, what does that accomplish? a certain deterrence but in the meantime a terrorist act is taking place. and a terrorist act like 9/11 can kill a lot of people. so if you know something that is coming at you, why not stop it from happening? in other words, prevention. and i think when i first said that in 1984 it was very controversial, but after 9/11 people have said, of course we should be trying to stop that from happening your and so i

think the doctrine of trying to prevent things is a very important. and it's become common and we do it a great deal in this country. i think there've been lots of terrorist acts that didn't happen because we found out about them through intelligence and prevented them spent and where talk with former secretaries day, former secretary of labor, former secretary of the treasury, george shultz, about his new book "issues on my mind." mr. secretary, what was your favorite job you ever had? >> well, you say job, job implies something that you have to do in order to get some money. and if you say that, i never had a job in my life. i've always done things that i found rewarding and interesting. if i wound up doing something that wasn't like that, i would find something else to do. but in government it's a great privilege and opportunity to serve. and i had a succession of jobs, and all of them had their tough

moments, but all of them were rewarding, starting with my two and half years overseas in the united states marine corps in world war ii. and there i was, i was fighting for my country, and in the end we were victorious. i didn't have much to do with it but i was one person out there. i served in the eisenhower administration as its council of economic advisers. it was a great privilege. i remember going down my office was in this, the big office building right next to the white house, used to be called the old state building. anyway, i had an office with a window that looked out on the south lawn of the white house. i remember my father, who died not too long after that, but he came and i took into my office and he saw this a few and he said, son, you have arrived. so it was great to work their.

when you're working in the white house complex you have a view of the whole government. and i learned a lot about how you put the statistics together that we talk about all the time. so that was a great experience. then when i was secretary of labor, i had come i knew the substance matter very well and i knew the department will because i've done some things in both the kennedy and johnson administrations, and gave me that exposure. i didn't know anything about washington and politics and the press and all of that. so i had a good base of knowledge from which to learn about these things. and i was fortunate in persuading a man to come and be depressed person. -- the press person t. he was really good.

everybody, he really knew his subject. and he said he would sign on but he had conditions. i said okay, joe, what are your conditions? he said well, first of all, if i'm going to be the spokesman i have to know what's going on. i have to build to walk in, i don't want to be blindsided. if i'm blindsided then i'm over. i said, of course, you go anywhere you want. anybody would be glad to have you there. what else? he said, don't lie. i said come on, joe, i don't lie. he said, you be surprised what happens to people. become tender, they did under pressure, they don't lie but they mislead. misleading is as bad as lying. please got to be straight. i said okay, i'll be straight. what else? he said, never have a press conference unless you have some

news. i said, well, don't reporters like you kind of schmooze around? he said look, you don't understand. reported our guys were trying to make a living. the way you make a living is you get a news story with your name on it and it gets on the front page of your paper. you call a news conference and the reporter thinks this is my story, and he comes and you don't have any news, what's he going to do? is going to start asking questions to try to make you say something stupid, and that's the news. and he had a whole bunch of things like that but i learned a lot about the press from joe. and while sometimes people write things you don't like, on the whole you have a constructive attitude and you help them get the facts straight, you're going to be much better off. than i had, there was a guy named bryce harlow in the white

house who was the political counselor and congressional relations guy. and he took me under his wing to a certain extent, and he had rules. he said, never make a promise unless you can deliver on it. and if it turns out it's really hard to deliver, try all the harder. because people only deal with you if they trust you. and they trust you if you do what you say you're going to do. and his word was, trust is the coin of the realm. trust is the coin of the realm. so i always try to remember that. within the labor department, my first big battle in the congress, and i learned something about that. so it was a great learning thing. then i went from there to be director of the budget, and there you have the whole government out in front of you.

so that was great but then i became secretary of the treasury, and it was a time when we redid the international monetary system. lots of dealings with people all over the world, and i learned a lot about how to do something internationally. so that was great experience for me, learning was fun. i enjoyed it. enjoyed the people. some are still good friends today. at of course when i secretary of state, the tectonic plates of the world changed when ronald reagan and i took office, the cold war was as cold as it could get. and when we left it was all over but the shouting. so that was a huge thing to be involved in and watch unfold. >> mr. secretary, in your book, trenton, you've got some rules for leadership and a couple of those you've already expounded on.

harlowe rule and the joe loftis rule, but your first rule is to be a participant. >> oh, yeah. that's what democracy is all about it early on when i was working within the primaries ronald reagan gave me a tie. and on the tide it says democracy is not a spectator sport. so be proud of it, and be part of the politics, be willing to serve and be a participant. >> world number five, competence is the name of the game in leadership. >> well, it's a great start, to be confident. if you're not confident you're going to get in big trouble. i had a tough experience with that though. i told you when i went to washington as secretary of labor i was kind of an innocent of politics, and i had a bunch of political appointees slots to fill.

and i realized that you are trying to work with a diverse constituency. so i said i need the best management guide in this industrialization's, labor relations field there is. everybody told me there was a guy named jim hudson it was at lockheed which i never got the i talk to them and i said, we've got to have a real labor guy. not a lawyer who advises you but somebody negotiates on contracts and stands for, a real union guy. so we found a guy to do that. got to get somebody really knows man power training. so we've got to get somebody who's worked in the area of how to deal with discrimination in the workplace, and so on, lawyer and knows the labor market. anyway, i get a lot of these people lined up, and president-elect nixon thought it

would show progress in his initiation so he said why don't you bring them to the hotel, which was his headquarters, and will have a little meeting to take him down and introduce them to the press. so we have a meeting to goes well, i introduced the first one, jim hudson. to ask all kinds of questions and it was pretty obvious that jim was a real pro, and he knew what he was doing. some guy in the back of the room held his hand up and he said, are you a democrat or a republican? and my innocence, i never even asked him. he says, i'm a democrat. so next i gets up as i remember was earning weber who was dazzling. and center hold his head up and he says i'm a democrat. and it went like that. the last guy was jeff, our nominee to be head of the bureau of labor statistics, and he was a statistician's statistician. arthur burns who is very close to president nixon was is,

someone he wanted and i want. so i thought, finally we got a republican. something that asked the question, and he stands there like a cow chewing his cud, and he finally succumb well, i guess you'd have to say i'm an independent. anyway, i get back to my hotel room, the phone is ringing off the hook and all the republicans on the senate labor committee are saying, didn't you know there was an election? i said look, i cleared these names with the white house under clinton with the ranking republicans, anyway, i will give them credit because all my guys did terrific. they were competent people. and even some of the people who objected called me and said, we like your guys. and jim succeeding as secretary of labor when i move. unit became our ambassador to japan. earning weber became the first head of omb. he went on, president of

northwestern university and so on. if i had ruled all these people out because they were registered democrats, i wouldn't have had the competence or i'm not saying -- i should've asked the question and done something about it, but anyway. if you have confident people around you, you are going to do much better than if you don't. your first job is to form your team and get people who are competent in those slots spin and that leads to rule number six in the george shultz book, finally get the people on your team responsibility and reward them for exercising it. >> you want to be able to say here's what we are trying to achieve. this is our objective. and in your part, this is where you were supposed to be doing. and yes, you and i will work on it together but this is your responsibility.

and i want, i want to administer on the basis of no surprises, that if something happens bad, i want to know about it right away. if something happens that surprise lake good, i would like to know about that, too, because you can learn from those things. but you've got to give people leadership and objectives and hold them accountable. accountability is very important and an economic system or a governmental system. i'm fond of sports as a teacher of accountability and in my book i have some pictures of sports. but the american people of sports, and i think one of the reasons is the sense of accountability. they are you are standing on the green. you have the potter. there is the ball. there is the cup. you hit the ball and when the ball stops rolling, the result

is unambiguous. all real accountability. that's a picture of a golfing foursome, tom watson, lee trevino, president reagan and me. ronald reagan and i had a new year's eve golf game every year, and one year leader boehner and tom watson show up as our golfing team. it was quite a day. they were fun. >> george shultz, in content you're right about your time as secretary of treasury. why did you resign? >> well, the atmosphere became rather discouraging, even though i had a lot of really good experiences. one day i'm sitting in my office and the director of internal revenue, the commissioner, comes to see me.

and he said, i just had a visit from the president's counselor and he has made this list of 50 or so names of people to do a full field investigation of their tax returns. that's a very unpleasant process, i might say. what do i do? you don't do. what do i tell john dean? tell in your report to me and he has got a problem, he talks to me. it was interesting later on in the nixon tapes, i heard him discussing this with john dean, and they basically said, who the hell does blue eyes think he is not doing what we want? but they never had the nerve to put it to me, because if i resigned refusing to do something improper with the antenna revenue service, that wouldn't be a very good story for them. but anyway, that's our to me. and then i inherited the administration of ways and price controls, which i post originally but it was not in my

domain. incidentally, on the tee people running it for me were don rumsfeld and dick cheney. anyway, we are in the process of trying to get rid of it, and against my advice, president nixon we imposed them. and i said well, mr. president, it's your call, you're the president. i think it's a mistake and you should get yourself a new secretary of the treasury. so i resigned. on sort of policy issues. >> mr. secretary, did you have -- >> can also illustrate something? in these jobs, they are very reporting and you have a chance to deal with really major things, often you can really make a difference. so you tend to enjoy it. but you can't want the job too much. that is, you have to be true to

yourself, and i felt if i stayed under the circumstances of this decision i would not be being true to myself. so you can't want the job too much. .. >> guest: so we decided, i decided finish and art fletcher, who was working for me in this

area, that we should break this up. so we devised something that became called the philadelphia plan and told them you've got to have some hiring, got to find people who are capable people but nevertheless and get more people there, and let's have an objective and let's have a timetable and get going. so we were managing, trying to manage this process. be as you can imagine, it was very controversial. i was new secretary of labor, and all of a sudden i'm in this controversy. and i'm called to testify in the senate. and somebody's saying you're trying to impose a quota system. i said, i'm trying to replace one with. i'm trying to get rid of one. what do you mean? the quota is zero. it's been very effective. so we went back and forth. then there was a vote in the senate. i went to the gallery to watch. and hugh scott, who was the republican leader, gave me his

tally sheet, and it's reprinted in the book. we won by ten votes. it was a very bipartisan vote for and against, but it was dramatic. but it was my first battle, and i felt good about it because i felt i was, in a sense, morally on the right side of the issue. incidentally, one of the senators who voted with me was ted kennedy, and we became, in an odd way, good friends, respected each other. we had, well, different views on a lot of things, but we got along well. and that was very helpful to me later when i was secretary of state. he was a good colleague. >> host: are you still in touch with don rumsfeld and dick cheney? >> guest: yeah. dick was over in london i had the privilege of being a leader with jake baker of the american dell -- with jim baker, and dick schobeeed up there -- showed up there with his wife. they're good friends. so we had a chance to see him.

he went through -- you know, he went through, i said you're look willing great, dick. he had a heart replacement and so on, but now he's looking great, feeling great, strong. so catch up with these people. >> host: what about secretary rumsfeld? >> guest: well, i don't see a lot of him, but i'm in touch with him. he has a new book coming out, and i wrote a little blurb for it, had a little back and forth. it's a book on, you know, he's done this known, unknowns and known-knowns and stuff. very clever phraseology. it's a good book, interesting book. >> host: mr. secretary, what was your relationship with margaret thatcher? >> guest: well, i had a really good relationship with margaret. often we argued about things, and she's a pretty fierce be arguer. but she doesn't like lap dogs, seem who just, oh, yes,

margaret, yes, margaret. and so we, we would go at it. but our underlying way of thinking about things was very similar. so a lot was constructed by the reagan/thatcher relationship, and i was glad to be a part of it. and i was glad to go to her funeral because i had been close to her both before i was in office and after we left office. we still had times when we were together. so i was with glad to have a chance to go and pay my respects. because i hi it's a fair statement -- i think it's a fair statement that between margaret thatcher and ronald reagan and their leadership, they changed the world. the arc of history was changed. >> host: page 245 of "issues on my mind," you write that: in my view, the most striking trend now is something else. it's the growing dynamism,

cohesion and cooperation of like-minded nations that share an important set of positive goals. >> guest: well, that's what i think u.s. leadership, we managed to do after world war ii. you remember, there were some really great statesmen in the truman administration, and this was carried on. but these people look back and what did they see? they saw two with world wars, first one settled in rather vindictive terms, helped lead to the second. the second world war 70 million people were killed. and untold others displaced. they saw the great depression. they saw the protectionism. and the currency hiption that helped to aggravate it. they saw the holocaust. today said to themselves, what a crummy world.

and we're part of it whether we like it or not. so they set out to construct something better. then they saw the soviet union as an aggressive force to deal with. they developed ideas like containment, institutional structures like nato, the bretton woods system in economics, the trading effort to construct a successful effort to construct a trading setup. and the security efforts that were made. and over a period of time in each successive administration, they made their contributions. there was constructed a security and economic commons, and that's what i'm referring to. people contributed to it and benefits from it. there was leadership, without a doubt, and i think it's fair to say that without u.s.

leadership, constructive things seldom handle. that doesn't mean that people do what we want, but it means that when the u.s. is there with ideas and an effective participant, it helps to get things moving. i've seen that personally on many occasions. so that has been a great achievement. i can remember in the early 1980s i was in china and had a meeting with dung shaw ping. and he said now china is ready for the two openings. i said, what are the two openings? he said, well, first of all, we open to for movement of people within china, on opening -- an opening within china. what's the second one? the second was an opening of china to the outside world. and be i'm lucky that there is a reasonably coherent world to open up to. he understood that very well. so that's what i was referring

to. and that's the threat right now, that this is being torn apart in ways. it's changing. the world is awash in change. >> host: how should we view china? >> guest: well, it's a big country with a lot of talented people. it's had remarkable economic renaissance. it has very large problems to contend with. but it's a measure relatively new in modern times any actor on the scene. so i think we better have, develop a chose working relationship and ability to talk through problems with them. and that's the way we need to go about it. >> host: do we have that ability now? do we have that relationship now, i should say. >> guest: i hope so, but, you know, i'm not part of things.

i've been out of office for 25 years, but i was -- i'm part of a little group that henry kissinger organized that has meetings, some in china and then here, just seven or eight of us. and about a year ago we were in china, and the man who's now the president, he gave a dipper for us, spent -- a dinner for us, spent time. we had a lot of discussion. and the next day we spent about an hour and a half with the new premier, and i thought -- i checked this out with henry kissinger and others on our little delegation -- i said, you know, they're giving us a message a they want to have a collaborative relationship with the united states. that doesn't mean we don't have problems, but it means that we can talk about the problems and maybe we agree to disagree on some, or maybe we find ways of dealing with them. i know when i was in office, my first meeting with the chinese i

said and they liked the idea with dung paw ping and my counterpart, i said you with put on the table everything you want to talk about it, and i'll put everything on the table i want to talk about. let's make an agenda out of that. let's agree, i'll come to china once a year at least, you come to u.s. once a year at least, and and probably there are three or four meeting places where we with both come to a meeting of some kind. let's always set aside three hours or so just for us to work through this agenda. and that served us well. and we identified some opportunities, we saw problems, some of which we didn't, couldn't deal with, but on the whole finish and we developed

with the soviet union the same where they could say to me i know you want to get here, and you're trying to get it this way, and we can't handle that. but if you'll come around like this, maybe that could work with. so that's the way you do things if you can develop a reasonably trusting relationship. with the other party. and so i think that we'll have undoubtedly our big disagreements with china. right now the cyber area is very tense, in my judgment. but the way to do it is to sit down and talk to each other, be realistic, be strong, have an agenda. don't go in without an agenda and be ready to engage. >> host: were you ever asked, did you ever want to be secretary of the military, of

defense? >> guest: oh, that's a tough job. i was never asked to do that, and i really didn't think about it very much. but i know having been very close to it, it's a very hard job. i guess if i'd been offered it, i would have taken it. the president asks you to do something that you can do, i think you have an obligation to do it. of course, i, i consider myself still to be a marine, so i'm still in the military forces. and as secretary of state, i had a lot of dealings with the military. and i said to my counterpart, cap weinberger, one time i said, cap, according to the statute, the national security council consists of four people; the president, the vice president, the secretary of state and the secretary of defense. and it says in the statute each member is entitled to military advice. and cap said, well, i'm here,

i'm willing to talk to you. i said, cap, you're not wearing a uniform. i want to talk to the guys in uniform. so gradually that happened. i found out that then-chairman of the joint chiefs was, liked to play golf, and i've been a member of augusta national golf club for a while, and no golfer ever turns down an invitation to go. so i invited him down for a weekend. so we got to know be each other. -- to know each other. but it's important to have direct military advice when you're trying to conduct diplomacy or something happening. >> host: did you have a direct line to president reagan when you were secretary of state? >> guest: oh, i saw -- we had a system where he and i had two private meetings a week and, obviously to, whatever he wanted to talk about, that was first. but then i had always brought an agenda to talk about. and we had sort of an understanding. we never tried to make a

decision in those meetings, because those should be argued out in a broader context. but i would go and say, look, here's this problem, it's a gathering storm you can see on the horizon. and we don't know just where it's going, but here's the way we're thinking about it. here is what we're trying to do about it. what do you think? and we'd go back and forth. and, you know, he was a union leader at one point. he loved to talk about bar gaining, negotiation. big part of all this is negotiation, and i had my experiences in the labor arena. so we swapped stories back and forth. i got to have a really good understanding of how he went about things, how he thought about things. so i felt that was important because i'm representing him, and people sometimes said to me, well, what about your foreign policy? i always said, i don't have one. the president's got one.

my job is to help him form late it and carry it out. he's the guy who got elected, not me. >> host: from what you've observed, has the role of secretary of state changed since you were there in the another e e -- since you were there in the '80s? >> guest: well, it looks to me as though there isn't the same kind of relationships that i had with president nixon that, say, jim baker had with george bush. because i don't know exactly the reason. but i saw, for example, the other day that the national security adviser went to moscow to meet with putin and started ranging that relationship. if i was secretary of state, i would not tolerate that. that's my job. and the national security

adviser's a staff person, not a principal. i remember when colin powell got the job of secretary of national security adviser, he understood. and he came around to me, and he said i'm a member of your staff. obviously, the president's my main guide, but with my job is to staff the could be is ill. the council. and so i think that's beginning to get out of kilter, and in my book i have quite a lot to say about the structure of governance and how it's going, i think, in the wrong direction. >> host: secretary schultz, a couple more issues on your mind. number one, demographics. you're worried about demographics. >> guest: oh, i'm not worried about it, i'm observant of it. i see that the demographics of the world have changed and are continuing to change rapidly. the developed countries basically have low fertility,

rising long yeahty, they're getting to be older societies which has an impact on your outlook and your capabilities. the russians have a demographic catastrophe on their hands. they have very low fertility, longevity has managed only a little better than 60, women live 12 years longer than men. a lot of the younger, talented people are emigrating. they have huge problems in the caucuses to deal with. they have the long border with china, a lot of people on one side, hardly anybody on the other. so, but the demographics underlying this are devastating. china has, in some ways, the most interesting demographics because around 0 years ago -- 30 years ago fertility dropped like a stone. that meant for a quarter of a century china has had a growing

labor force and a declining number of the labor force had to support. call it a demographic dividend. now, those cohorts in the population are moving all up, and this situation is about to change like that. where suddenly you're going to have a declining labor force and a rising number -- this time older people -- that the labor force has to support. it's a big change. meanwhile, you have a north africa, middle east countries. fertility has come down some, but it's still very high. and longevity is not that big. so these are very young societies. and somehow many of them have gotten organized in such a way that the young people don't have hutch to do. much to do. and in this information and

communication age which i talk about in the book, nowadays the people in charge do not anymore have a monopoly on information or ability to organize. that is entirely changed. so in the middle east we see the arab awakening and the spark -- it was only a spark, but it was a spark -- was one guy in tunisia. and all he wanted to do was start a little business selling fruits and vegetables. and the regulators wanted to get a bribe from him, he refused, and they squashed him. he said, how do you expect me to make a living? he just wanted to work. and work, you know, does a lot for you. work gives you dignity. work, you get some income from work, and you feel i deserve that, i did something, and i got paid for it and deserved it. so i think many that turmoil

we're -- in that turmoil we're seeing in the middle east and north africa is not many going to settle down something somehow people have -- until somehow people have something to do. i know there are many issues tearing away at it, but that's a fundamental one. you can see it when you take a look at the demography. >> host: tied into that, another issue that you talk about is technology and the use of technology. >> guest: well, as i was saying, i don't think people quite appreciate the depth and the meaning of the information and communication revolution. it's changed the process of governance. it's particularly hard on autocratic governments that have been there a while. but in democratic governments people are accustomed to paying attention to what people want nevertheless, it's new. it shortens the distance between

the people who are governing and the people being governed. and it's changing. because people anywhere can find out all basic information. and they can also communicate with each other with cell phones and organize. so we're seeing that all over the place. and, of course, it's been prominent in the middle east, but the russians have been struggling with it, the chinese struggle with it. it's a phenomenon that's very much present. >> host: final issue, domestic/international, the drug war. what should be done about drugs in the u.s.? >> guest: well, first of all, we have to be willing to discuss the issue. it can't be a taboo issue. right? you agree? are you willing to talk about it? >> host: i'm just listening. [laughter]

>> guest: see? but for a long time nobody will discuss it. we've had the war on drugs. and i remember in the nixon administration we were worried, rightly, about the damage that drug cans do to an individual -- that drugs do to an individual and to a society. so i'm very, very much of the view that we need to figure out how to deal with that problem adequately. and there was the idea, and pat moynihan who was counselor in the white house, thought that one of the things to do would be to fix it so drugs are just not here. so he had this program of denial. and the two of us are riding up to camp david, and i have a presentation to make, so i'm studying my notes, and pat's in a state of euphoria. an irishman in a state of euphoria is something else. and he says to me, schultz, don't you realize we just had

the biggest drug bust in history? i said, congratulations he said, but, yeah, this was in marseilles, we've broken the french connection. i suppose you think as long as there is a big, profitable demand for drugs in this country, there will be a supply. i looked at him and said, moynihan, there's hope for you. but this effort to keep drugs out of here is a complete failure. and the problem of drugs in the united states is relatively great compared with many other like-minded countries. so we ought to at least discuss this and see what other people are doing. i think there's a lot to be said for decriminalizing use and small scale production -- possession. that is possession only for your own use. if you do that, you don't get

thrown in jail if you go to a treatment center and try to get some help. and you also keep the jails from being full of people who are caught smoking marijuana or something. you throw people in jail, and all you do is make criminals out of them. that's where they learn it. and amazingly, they're even getting drugs in jail. so we should take a different approach. because it's so vitally important to try to persuade people not to take these drugs, because they're so bad for them. and it's bad for society. and you can do things. look at what we've done in this country with cigarettes. there's still people who are smoking them, but much, much less than before because we've had a fact-based campaign -- not just advertising, but a campaign -- to persuade people

not to smoke. i remember the days when they had the advertisements, i'd walk a mile for a cap -- camel, and a pretty girl saying blow some my way with the smoke and all those kinds of things. well, now, if you see somebody smoking, you think there's something wrong with them. don't they understand they're killing themselves? so the whole steve's changed. -- atmosphere's changed. that can happen. and all kinds of things can be done beyond what we're doing. but we're spending gigantic amounts of money on this war, and one of the results of it is huge violence in other countries. in mexico over the last five or six years, some 50, 60,000 people have been killed. that's more than our wars in afghanistan and iraq. so there are huge costs. >> host: mr. secretary -- >> guest: we think it's a mexican problem. where does the money come from?

united states. where do the guns come from? united states. so these drug lords often have better equipment and are better organized than the government. the new mexican government seems to be struggling with it, and we need to struggle with them. but we need to say we have to do something about it. one time in office when i was many office nancy reagan had her just say no program. she you understood this. and she went to the united nations. she was invited to give a speech on the subject, and i went with her. and she said very directly that solutions to this problem start right here with doing something about people taking drugs. it was a beautiful statement she made. >> host: and in your book you include a letter from nancy reagan to you. >> guest: yes. well, there's also a nice

pictureover nancy -- picture of nancy and me at the u.n. consulting. but at any rate, she got a lot of pressure from the drug bureaucracy not to say what she said. but just like her husband, if that's what she thought, that's what she's going to say. and she did, and the impact in the world was just the opposite of what the drug bureaucracy thought it would be. that is, people responded saying, hooray, we -- so refreshing to hear you understand that. we will work even harder with you. be. >> host: are you still in touch with mrs. reagan? >> guest: yes. i talked to her just the other day. i gave her a report on the thatcher funeral. >> host: two final be questions. you mentioned earlier, mr. secretary, your father -- >> guest: i thought you said earlier you had two final questions. >> host: well, that was on issues. these are just in yen. earlier in the interview you mentioned your father. who were your parents, and where'd you grow up? >> guest: well, i was born in

new york city, and my parents moved us to englewood, new jersey, which is a little bedroom community. my father worked in new york. and my participants were just wonderful -- my parents were just wonderful people. my father grew up on a tarp -- on a farm in indiana and somehow got himself to depaul university, first member of his family ever to go to college. and then he was interested in history, and he got a scholarship to columbia and got a ph.d. in history and wrote a book with charles a. beard, famous historian. and then he was asked to start a school by the new york stock exchange, they train people in the ways of the stock, change, and he started that school called the new york stock exchange institute and developed it into quite a fine institution s. and he'd take me -- in those days people worked on saturday

mornings. now nobody works on saturdays anymore. but he'd take me into new york with him when i was a kid, and afterwards we'd go to -- i know there was a place called the b and g sandwich shop. i can taste them today, they're the best sandwiches. then we'd go up to a football game at columbia, or if there was an interesting lecture or something, we'd go to it. and he'd play catch with me endlessly with a baseball or a football. he was a wonderful father. and my mother was just a wonderful person. she set very high standards. she wanted things to be just so. she had great taste. and so i was very fortunate to have loving, talented, wonderful parents. i've got pictures of them all around everywhere. >> host: and here at the hoover institution at stanford university, another former secretary of state is located, your colleague, condoleezza

rice. what would you think if secretary rice ran for president? >> guest: well, she's a very capable person, and i haven't ever talked to her directly about that, but ino that she is really -- she understands the political process. ifferent running for an office than being an appointed person even in high office like secretary of state. so whether she wants to indulge in that, i don't know. but she'd be a very appealing candidate. >> host: did you ever run for office? >> guest: yes. when i live inside stowe, massachusetts, a little town in massachusetts when i was on faculty at mit, our school had only a few students per class, and massachusetts had a program for creating regional schools. all the little towns would get together and create a regional school. and i taught that was a good idea. and so people -- i thought that was a good idea.

so people said why don't you run for the school board? so i did. and the voters, in their wisdom, turned down the regional school, but they elected me by an overwhelming margin. >> host: and we have been talking with former secretary of state, labor and treasury, george shultz." issues on my mind: strategies for the future be," you're watching booktv on c-span2. >> tonight booktv in prime time features books about the immigrant experience. at 8 p.m., alvaro vargas losa on the book "global crossings: immigration, civilization and america." at 9:20 p.m. eastern, dee pack and sanjiv chopra on their book, "brotherhood." later, at 10:30, ying ma talks about "chinese girl in the ghetto." that's booktv in prime time

starting at 8 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> friday c-span's road to the white house 2016 features senator amy klobuchar of minnesota. she's the keynote speaker at the tenth anniversary north iowa wing ding fundraiser honoring former first lady and secretary of state hillary clinton who will not attend the event. that's live at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span. finish. >> put you on the spot here, but representative tom cole, what are you -- what's on your summer reading list? [laughter] >> well, i'm reading david roll's wonderful book, "the hopkins touch." about halfway through that now which is on harry hopkins, the legendary aide for fdr and a grinnell graduated. we probably don't have the same politics, but i admire the style, and it's a compelling life. probably next up for me, i haven't had a chance to read the

kaiser book, "act of congress," but the reviews have been compelling, and that's going to be an interesting case study. and when you know all the characters, you know barney frank and senate dod and some of the legislators, it's interesting to get that perspective and some of the staffers. and then there's a book that i've just ordered on james burns who was, you know, a legendary south carolina politic -- actually, jon that be martin, a pretty politico reporter put this on my radar. this is a guy who very nearly was, you know, vice president instead of truman in '44 and continued to play an extraordinary role in politics and became one of the architects of nixon's success in the south in '68 and '72. and he's actually, interestingly enough, just popped up working with harry hopkins on the 1940 -- in this book i'm reading -- on the 1940 nomination of fdr, the third term, which was pretty neat political work.

so, you know, look, i like to read about the process, and i like to study history, and i ought to read more policy and less history, but i just seem to learn better in history. >> let us know what you're reading this summer. tweet us @booktv, post it on our facebook page or send us an e-mail at booktv@cspan.org. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. weekdays featuring live coverage of if u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our web site, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> tuesday during the association for up manned vehicle systems -- unmanned vehicle systems international conference, a panel looked at the impact of underwater drones on maritime security. this is 90 minutes.

>> thank you very much, and welcome. i'll echo my welcome to all of you. and also endorse that i hope you will fill out the questionnaire, because it's a very helpful feedback to the association. before i introduce our four very competent speakers here today, i want to take you through just two charts that i put together to give you a vision of something that's coming in the next several months. play i have the first chart -- may i have the first chart, please. you're going to be hearing about this unmanned maritime systems technology consortium in the next several months and, hopefully, we'll have the approvals for that, and it'll be moving forward. it'll involve all of you in this room if you're either in academia, not for profits, nontraditional or traditional industry. and what it is, what it is is a

organization of structure, a process that doesn't use the far, it uses other transaction authority for rapid contracting to develop technology that could quickly spin into the fleet or satisfy requirements that have come to us that need urgent fulfilling. it, as i mentioned, it involves academia, not for profits, nontraditionals and traditionals. members will be exposed yearly to the issues, the real requirements, the capability gaps from the co-coms, the urgent operational needs statements, the major fleet capability gaps, issues from dhs, from noaa, from the coast guard, from port and harbor security, oil and gas companies, research laboratories, the warfare centers, darpa, oni, the naval development warfare

system, the naval mine and asw command and individual states. we actually have a major movement going forward in the state of virginia to bring in industry from virginia and other states who will join this as well. next chart. so what's, what is a tc? are there other ones that exist? the answer is, yes. the biggest one that the navy sponsors is the national shipbuilding research program, the nsrp, which happens to be a favorite of our big boss, the acquisition executive, mr. stackly. there is the defense be ordnance technology consortium which does about $140 million worth of business on a yearly basis. there's a robotics technology consortium that i had the ridge of helping to stand up for osd. there's a vertical lift one, and then there's a brand new one which has just started up, and

you need to keep your eyes on this one as well if your business area happens to be anything that has to do with security of our country relative to our borders. this is the border security technology consortium that dhs-cbp is just standing up. we're going to divide the work up in technology areas so that expertise can be brought to bear in these seven areas that you read on the chart. it's pretty self-explanatory. i won't read them to you, i but that's a logical breakout of how technology could be grouped together to give it the maximum benefit. so we're waiting on the official turn on from mr. stackly, we anticipate that may be this fall or the first quarter of fiscal 2014. watch the fed biz ops for announcement of the industry day. the association for unmanned vehicle systems international will host the industry day here in the greater washington area,

and if you have any other questions about this, see me afterwards or some other time. i'm not going to entertain or have any q&a on this topic during the course of this briefing period. okay, thank you. now, moving on to our four excellent speakers today. our first speaker will be captain duane ashton. duane is known to many of you. he's been around with us now, and he's the program manager for pms-406. he has the responsibility to field unmanned surface and unmanned underwater vehicles for thely to haval combat be ship application primarily. he's a noncanoe u person. he came up through the nrotc ranks. he has a master's degree in national security and strategic studies. and before he did his most recent tours, he was a commanding officer on several

submarines that had great times and good trials and periods of operation. he also had some shore assignments where he was the strategic programs bran with. head in the submarine warfare division and 871. now it's n971 with the few parlance of change. and for the office of naval, chief of naval operations, and he actually had an assignment in baghdad as the regime crimes liaison office chief. our second speaker will be scott littlefield. scott is well known to many of you who follow darpa activities or who are involved with doing work at darpa. scott is the technology, is the tactical technology office program manager for several major programs like act ii, actuv and others, and he specializes in advanced craft

and unmanned vehicles in maritime domains. scott was the -- prior to coming to darpa a, scott was the director of technology and innovation for the naval service weapons center at carter rock where he managed the science and technology portfolio. hehe also managed the s&t progrs before that including shipment, unmanned vehicles, sensors and power and energy at the office of naval research. scott has a couple of degrees which are very prevalent, and he's also a licensed professional engineer in the commonwealth of virginia. our third speaker comes to us today from o and r, mr. craig hughes. craig is the acting director of innovation at the office of naval research in boston. craig has a portfolio that

includes up to greater than $200 million per year which includes several innovative naval prototype programs and multiple chief of naval research leap ahead efforts. he provides senior leadership for the swamp works, a naval warfare experimentation, the chief of the naval operations speed to fleet and tech solutions operations. now, craig didn't start in the navy. he's a retired air force colonel. and so he served as the acting director of operational experimentation in the office of the secretary of defense and as director of operations in nato. he was also an f-15 charlie pilot. he has numerous degrees and brings a wealth of experience in acquisition to his, to this job and onr. our final speaker will give us a bit of an operational twist.

compared to the earlier three, because he's actually just came off of active duty not too long ago right in theater in iraq with the, with the group -- and i'll explain some of his background. a former explosive ordnance disposal officer and a veteran of six deployments in support of operation iraqi freedom and other combat be operations globally. from 2002 to 2003, he was the ops officer in the naval special clearance team one and deployed for the invasion of iraq as the operation officer for the coalition underwater mine countermeasure task unit clearing the two participant, the -- two parts, the two harbors up in the iraqi area. which involved the first combat use of unmanned underwater vehicles. so he has hands-on experience with our remus 100 systems.

he immediate he redeployed with the first exploratory strike group, and he was subject to the first use of uuvs from a single, from a strike group operating with the fifth fleet out of bahrain and led uuv operations in the vicinity of baghdad, returning back in about 2004. he served as an operations officer for counterimprovised explosive device task force, so he has experience with land-based mines as well as sea-based mines. from 2008 to 2010, he was the eod branch -- [inaudible] for joint special operations command and also served as a member of the special operations task force conducting multiple combat deployments. he's a graduate of the united states naval academy, and he brings to you today a flavor for the operational systems and what

they can mean to us. those are our speakers. i now ask you to welcome them and to our first speaker, captain ashton. [applause] >> okay, if you could bring up those first slides, please, i appreciate it, and i'll go ahead and use the button. well, good afternoon, everybody. what a privilege it is to speak to you this afternoon and with this august group of folks. ..

>> okay, what i would like to do first is talk about the program of record. it's an unmanned underwater vehicle in the heavyweight class that is part of the my account measure package that we have for combat ships. it's very unique in the sense that it's going after a mind threat that is either buried and also looks at the volume column in its entirety. so it's a little bit about it. in terms of an update. we completed the critical design review back in january and that went very, very well. very pleased with the overall performance of not only our industry team but the government team which includes the centers. really, really important part of

that success. one of the keys i think is the third going to spend a minute to discuss, that critical items are component items. one of the things that we did from the preliminary design review was to look at areas that we thought it was going to be high risk or areas that there could be risk. so for example, loss and recovery. since we took this low-frequency broadband capability that came from office of naval research and the navy research lab, they had spent quite a few years getting back to the point where it could transition to an acquisition program. so that was one area we wanted to look at the also the propulsion. we want to make sure it's quiet. a low platform noise capability. so we looked at that. we started from the preliminary design review through the critical design review to be

able to reduce risk. very, very successful, and i'm really pleased that worked as well as it did to our next milestone is actually the delivery of the engine and developments models. we are in the process of getting long lead items and starting to build subsystems together to continue our testing effort, ultimately meeting factory acceptance test and also our developmental testing. so you can kind of see the overall pieces here. when you go back to the 2004 master plan, talk about for parts of uuvs. you have manned portable lightweight, heavyweight, and then large diameter. in this case we have the heavyweight. you have the battery technology, the transmitter receiver and then the communication section. okay, so what is the system defined? i want to spend a couple minutes on this. as you think about these uuvs

and u.s. these, what are the platforms you want to build operate from? will they be from a. no, from a warship, a submarine? how he going to build a look at that in the future? being able to go to combat ship or a craft of opportunity, this is what we have before you. so it's going to be made up of two uuvs. yeah, they maintenance, on the far end, then you also have the launch and recovery device. how can you get these autonomous vehicles on and off the platform? that's a challenge. it's an area that requires some thought. we will have two battery sets for turnaround, which you come back to in a moment. operator console, that's really important also for that craft of opportunity and an post-mission analysis. how can you do that any it. been a key is that support container. that is wher were you going to e

able to do the charging them discharging, the operations of that kind of thing. but that is the interface to that mission module. and the package would include the people and the aircraft. so that is how i am able to go on to a full combat she. when you move forward, you want to be able to bring them on to your platform. you need to do in such a way that you're going to limit or reduce the cost to that platform as much as you can. the ships are already down and we're constructing it. we have a blockage in progress right there. so it's important for me to picture i'm working at that and i'm not going to provide them a huge engineering change proposal that's going to cause a lot of calls. so there is a balance that you have to do with these subsystems which is very, very important. the same with the nation modules. so i support a mission module program office, so how am i

going to be able to make sure i meet -- those requirements, very well written documents to be able to make sure i can seamlessly get into the system? i'm going to talk about now plus which is literal under seize system. what unique is, there's an opportunity to take science and technology, something that is innovative and get it to the warfighter. it's not a program of record so it's not a plan to you -- panacea but it does provide an opportunity to into the fleets and be able to get from them tactic procedures, be able to develop and hone concept of employment, concept of operation. so it's a very important tool that we have in our tool bag but it's not a program of record, that means you don't have all of those abilities, details that go

with it that help the warfighter. so is relationship. it's a handshake between the fleet, the resource sponsor an acquisition community. so all a bit about it. you can kind of see a simple picture. so it's made up of uuvs. so lightweight uuvs, namely 600 then uses communication with gliders to be able to look at threats. so employment is effective at baptist persistent surveillance. and littoral areas of the world. a little bit better idea what it looks like pics of vehicles are from hydroid and i want to take one step back because i talk about this, how you can transit that. well, plus is part of the innovative prototype in fiscal year 12, working from an urgent

operational need we were able to work with the resource, onr, to transition it. so that's an important way to be able to get technology and capability to the warfighter. you can kind of see the sections, but what's important is it allowed me to look in that area of importance. i could have my command and control essentially anywhere, and i have backup capability. and then we can keep the operational commander in the loop of what's going on. large displacement uuv. okay, so here is another example where we are coordinating with office of naval research in terms of another innovative prototype. this one where doing a little more normally in the past, you finish innovative prototype, and then you go ahead and then you start to look at being able to transition to the program of

record. because of the importance of the program, a senior navy leadership decide we want to be able to do this together so there's a very, very strong linkage between us and the office of naval research in that regard. we've completed the analysis and where in the process of our review which goes to the resource requirement review board, senior navy leadership concurs that with results and allows us to go to the cdd development or the capability development document. you can kind of see what we're trying to do here in terms of missions in the future. so what are we today? as i said, we're in the process of completing that stage which will allow us to go to that capability develop a document and then into my also a. and you can a.

and you can kind see where we go from there before. but one thing that i want to bring to your attention is in the near-term, and the next two weeks we will put out an opportunity for an information day, which will probably be in early fall timeframe. so we will give you enough time to prepare, but we are finalizing the details of being able to move out. if you go to the federal acquisition, and their there's a discussion about being able to have that discussion with industry up front, to help you look at it. so we are very much looking forward to that. most like will be at the classified level, but we're looking forward to that engagement because want to be able to talk about the differences between the program of record and from what we're doing with office of naval research. so the goal is to provide some more insight there, okay.

all right, what are some of the challenges? and i think we would look at unmanned underwater vehicles themselves, this is very, very important. so it's not just -- high-capacity energy systems. so you go and look at the office of naval research's int, they are looking at those high critical technology elements, high-risk areas to help the program of record. so that includes ability to handle large and variable environmental, refueling somehow you going to do that? launch and recovery, i talked about ought already in terms of the knifefish program, but when you look at being able to potentially operate from a warship, a surface ship, a submarine, then you need to be able to think that through. launch and recovery is not a trivial matter. autonomy and survivability. as you can imagine one of the big cost drivers is software.

software is going to be a big cost on. so economy is a big part of that. so being able to look at the environment and being able to help monitoring, replaying those things is important. security, another area. in standardization, which is a keep it as we move forward and look at modularity, ability to be able to just change out potentially your energy sections, to be able to move to differena different platform requirements, then it's going to be really, really important that you have that standardization, that open architecture well defined and understood, okay? so i think that's it. and did you would have questions or wait for the and? >> we will wait for the in so i will hold your questions until after. so thank you very much. [applause]

>> great, that work. scott littlefield from darpa. i'i'm going to talk to you about one of my major programs, continue to help unmanned does one avoid at once like it is very specific to the program together slides are relevant to the program but actually i think i broader applicability to cover the whole topic of unmanned vehicles and gym and some the key technical issues and design traits that are involved with coming up with a vehicle to mission but let me start with a programmatic slide on the active program. we are building a large unmanned surface vehicle, and in this case large mean 132 feet long and about 130 tons it is designed to do a track until mission, designed to keep up with a diesel electric

submarine. over a long bit of time. that was what drove the size and speed requirement and also drove us to a service vehicle because a surface vehicle can rely on diesel propulsion which is a significant advantage. some of the key technical issues in building a vehicle like this really, to some degree the centers are probably more important the autonomy, the goal here was have a vehicle that could operate under what we call sparse supervisory control. there's a link, human being on the other end of that link by the human being is not driving the vessel. the human being is more like if he will the commander, the person who is telling vehicle what the mission is and what to do but that the giggle actual has capability on its own to operate safely, to obey, not collide with other ships and effectively pursue the nation of chasing and evading summaries. that's really the darpa hard piece of the program is the economy more than the vessel itself.

the program has been underway for a while but we awarded the contract almost a year ago to build a full-scale prototype, critical design review coming up in a month and we expect of a vessel actually in the water undergoing testing in the middle of 2015. and captain ashton and i've enjoyed both the process might be for any the keys over to the navy and evolving we'll be insightful and coming up with a plan to do that. so let me kind of shift gears a little bit and talk about some things that are relevant and my programmatic think are relevant to any program. and the two key issues i want to hit our energy and autonomy. let me just describe get look at what this light is showing on the energy capacity and on the x. axis vehicle size. if you can imagine more or less a linear relationship. energy in some regards good answer good for any sort of desirable attribute, whether it be range, payload, volume, all

of those things could be plotted on a plot like this but it would end up looking about the same. there are tiki decisions you've got to make when you think that an unmanned maritime people to do any kind of mission. one is the want a service vehicle or a submersible vehicle? and so the energy argument would be that if you and get away with a surface vehicle that provide you with a huge advantage. if no had ever invented diesel fuel we want to invented. if you look at the red line, that's the energy that you can get with diesel engines, and the blue line is the own our stated goal of 1000-watt hours per kilogram which is a very technically challenging goal for an undersea air defense vehicle and is very exotic. so i think if you get away with being on the surface it's a real good argument for doing that. and it also if it makes a lot of other things easier as a like

payload. there's reasons why you can occasionally use it underneath the water. we need of both kinds of vehicles, but i think there's a real truncated, business case for looking at unmanned vehicle for an initiative. so that's one piece of the trade space together pieces how big should the vehicle be? and our looking at it you are kind of driven into one of those to sort of light blue shaded areas but you even need to build a vehicle that is small enough to fit into a warship, aren't you need to build a vehicle that is large enough to go anywhere in the world on its own. and you can look at the things that are kind of in between but it's an awkward size but you can look at things that would fit in the wild duck. the challenge run into there is there really are not enough of those.

so if you operate in a sort of light blue bubble that is down to the origin that's really where the navy has been concentrated, certainly all of the work that's been done in anything up to a heavyweight size vehicle is really focused on a vehicle that carries into the theater inside a warship or even on discussion about -- still focus on things that might be carried indicated by a warship. similarly if you look at the modules, you're looking at an unmanned surface vehicle that is about 11-meter size, about a 10-ton vehicle. so with a vehicle in that size black, 10 to 15 tons being the upper bound you are still very limited in terms of payload, range, and if you're operating on the surface, limited heatseeking capability. is incapable of going off and doing significant missions at long ranges away from ship for

some length of time. at darpa we decide to look at that other blue bubble that is in the upper right side of the chart, which is vehicles that are over 100 tons but if you start to get into that 100, 200-ton range you can design things i think this would be true for undersea us was surface vehicles that have the capability to get all the way to the region of interest on their own. certainly the vehicle we are building can go anywhere in the world from u.s. territory as an economic transit speed. so that opens up an interesting opportunity. one of the things that does for you is it decouples your unmanned force structure from your man to force structure. so today, to get x number of unmanned vehicles into theater you've got to have a matching number of manned platforms to carry them in. and i would argue that mission module payload space can when you talk about lps or any other platform, you know, the kilo on

a destroyer, the flight deck on an aircraft carrier that's expensive real estate. so you've probably seen the ad that aircraft carrier is sort have acres of sovereign territory, that's true but it also, if you do the math works out to about $2 billion in they could you're paying a lot of money for that. and so if you can develop a vehicle that can get all the way there on its own without taking up valuable real estate, there's some engines of value in doing that. so i hope i've made a case that you should at least consider vehicles that don't fit inside a warship that go all the way to the objective on their own. it bring some additional talk and complexity in the vehicle but maybe not as much as you might think because a lot of what you're buying is really structure and fuel tankage and things that are relatively less expensive than the high end which is mostly the sensors and the economy. so then if you look at a

possible metric of payload times range, any generic measure of goodness for unmanned vehicles, it scales better than literally. the reason for that is because hydrodynamic track to the first order is proportional to surface area, that payload and energy are all proportional to volume. so you could they do you actually get a significant win. the other thing that is not shown on display but is very pronounced for unmanned surface vehicles is if you want to keep up with the fleet within 11-meter size vehicle, it ends up being a plain book at playing both are not very efficient. they rely on dynamic lift. but if you can go to a larger, ma longer vehicle can potentially can get away with something that is a displacement craft that is much more efficient at any given speed, and the other they need to think about is how fast you really need to go. literally going slower means you can go a lot farther for any

given sized vehicle. so those are some of the kinds of things i think him into the trade station when you're think about what kind of vehicle you want. and i think, unfortunately, a lot of our thinking up until now has really been driven by constraints that hey, the vehicle has to be 21 inches in diameter because that's the biggest thing we can launch, something you back into what payload can we get into it. it doesn't mean you get a use of vehicle because we're developindevelopin g useful vehicles in that size range but i think if you're willing to get away from that constraint you can do a lot of things that you couldn't otherwise do. so let me shift gears and talk about autonomy which i think is another key enabler, sorting a major aspect of my program. and peace of autonomy in particular that i'm worried about is collision avoidance and more particularly the cold racks which are the international maritime organization for avoiding collisions at sea. so the good news in one resort the program to make a dent a lot

of useful work in this area and we benchmarked that and said there's an algorithm that works that will allow an unmanned surface vehicle to understand environmental around it and the appropriate in accordance with the coal regs. it wasn't quite there yet was the level of maturity to give people confidence that they could really trust the vehicle to do that. and so let me ca to go back ando a little reasoning by analogy. a lot of you probably know about the series of darpa challenges that were run in the past decade, the first and second grand challenge and in the urban challenge. that demonstrate the ability of an unmanned ground vehicle to successfully navigate in a complicated overland to get to a finish line in the case of the first to grant challenges, and then to operate in an urban environment and of a traffic laws in the case of the urban challenge. there's a good article that went back and look how good were

those vehicles actually, and in the first grand challenge the average operational failure rate per mile was one, and what you saw most of the vehicles didn't get very far in the very best one i think that nine miles on a 100-mile something course. the next summer everyone on average had improved but a couple order of magnitude and a couple of vehicles finished the course. at the same were shown in the urban challenge but still as you think about it, one sees operational failure per 100 miles isn't a number that you would feel comfortable about, you know, for example, if you're handing the keys to a teenage driver. so what you see is darpa declared victory and that was held in our ages ago, but since then there's been a much larger investment by google and by the various car companies to start to drive that the numbers that are actually useful for a real operational mission, which is

transportation on the way was exciting to get in a three or, maybe five orders of 90 did down the learning curve in order to have something that actually, that the lawyers would let them sell i guess. if you take the same amount to a look at how good would an unmanned maritime vehicle need to be for you to trust it to drive around and potentially, especially for folks, something as large as what i believe, potentially collide with another vehicle. and so mighty of the world is with got to be at least as good or not as good as the team to operate but if you go and look at how good human operators are, although every year the navy has a collision on the ground, it's actually not bad, it works out to about one failure per 6000 hours at sea. which is either pretty good and that's an impressive goal and that's what we're trying to import in the darpa program. the challenge is i can never afford are one of the time to go

and test my vehicle for 6000 hours. how do we begin to benchmarked exactly how good we are? i think in reality the strategy will have to be some combination of modeling and simulation, along with enough aptitude testing to validate that we can use the market but those are the kinds of numbers i think we have to drive toward and/or to build something that people will feel comfortable using. and i think in the long run if we can't solve that autonomy problem then what kind of back to remote-controlled boats. we are going to be very limited in terms of how we can use them and how far away. so that's really concluding -- conclude my remarks. i look forward to questions, thanks. [applause] >> you saw the clock. are you going to yield that to me? let's see, there we go.

garate. well, thank you and it's a pleasure to be. i'm in the office of envision an acting director for on behalf the taxpayer as well. thank you but i couldn't see your slides, and scott was telling me that darpa hasn't quite finished their x-ray vision goggles for me to see your slides. i'm very encouraging for you, thinking about your rapid contract because that's a very serious issue for us that we're interested but i also want to thank you for pointing out the fact that i do have an air force background to my wife calls me a traitor now that i'm working with the navy, but i started in the navy as a baby so i'm full circle, so thank you. and then the wind and sky, of course without a lot of collaboratiocollaboration opporo thank you and have learned a lot from both of you guys so thanks for that time together as well. so what i would like to take a

slightly different attack and talk about the office of naval research. i really tried to consider the audience and in the a lot of you in the audience are academics, development types and working in small companies, medium, large companies. code like to make sure that you get a good feel if you don't already for the office of naval research, because, frankly, you know, we on behalf of the taxpayer and dummy half of the navy, we have money to be able to invest in the kind of things that are important for the sailor and for the marines. our mission of course is to discover transition. that's what we're doing. we do that from 61, primarily with universities all the way through 60 and 60 level of investment in route to the eventual goal through collaboration with partners like darpa and under the guidance of folks like captain ash into transition didn't work that we are doing to folks like captain ashton and his folks so that these can be things that go into the hands of the warfighter.

these are certainly our objectives and our goals and we could not do it without people like you in this room. there's a long history of what has been done in onr and to know there's no way you can read that. and i think i would just like to point out a couple of highlights. first of all back in 1924, naval research lab which is part of partnership with onr first radio controlled airplane and the dawn of autonomous uav. we flew side by side with another airplane so if they lost control of it the other plane ae would take a break and throw it and try to hit the propeller something would crash before landed on someone's house to very exciting times. digital computers work that we did with the first full-scale digital computer at mit back in the '40s and 50s. very important and very integral to the work that all of us in the show are doing with autonomous system and unmanned systems. 1977 have worked with gps where onr launched a navigation techno

to satellite and really the beginning those of gps and camera things we do in this room with unmanned or autonomous vehicles can do what they did without gps? very, very rare. so what makes onr unique is that we have basically for the navy and the marines all of the 6-1, 6-2, 6-3 fsns under one roof, under the guidance of multiple folks down at the pentagon but primarily under the guidance of what's called the department of the navy, corporate board. we have aborted just like ford motor company has a poor. we have a board and our board helps us to confer and concluded and to collaborate with us about our objectives and what we tried to do. you can go to the onr website and you can find a document into pdf that is in onr the naval strategic plan. i'll touch on a couple of these

topics here during the discussion, but there's really a great source document there for you have a feel for what it is onr is focusing on, what's important for us. fortunately, also first the warfighter is integral to what we decide to do. we don't just do it on our own. i think this is a reputation of the years passed. we have engagement with the warfighters so we do things that the warfighter once. fortunately i work in the office of innovation and manage a portfolio of 200 plus million dollars a year in which sometimes the warfighter doesn't know what he wants or doesn't know what he doesn't know, and that if nobody did this it would never get done. so fortunately we have those kinds of things that we do in onr as well. can have an awful lot of our budget of our $2 billion plus budget year devoted to basic research, 45% or so basic research, working with foundations, universities. i'm sure some of you in this room have had the opportunity to engage with us on that. you'll also hear our famous for

box chart which as a result of our strategic plans, whether corporate or, how we invest in the things that we do. there are four main quake areas and they are listed there. i will only point out on my behalf the blue box which is a quick reaction. we have the portfolio into. we've work that we do with tech solutions with an immediate response for the navy as well. and then other second box under our office is innovations of about 12% of the overall budget. this is where we deal with things of which we are already received and mentioned today our innovative navy prototypes. duane mentioned plus which now has transition to become a conops speed to fleet average. he put his way with mouth is in terms of autonomy, unmanned systems. duane mentioned the lduuv.

we also another one called -- autonomous zero cargo utility systems. and if anything i've got my onr director of corporate strategic indications in the room, scott, and like it or knows of all the things onr does its the things in our office that gets the most attention. so don't cut my budget too much, if you can help it. of course, that is a big challenge that we have. just this morning i'm in a meeting with my staff figure how we will cut 10% for 15 through 19. what we're going to do with that. what programs, what are the backups, which programs might need to be pushed off a few years. these are serious issues with going on. okay, i'm still in the green so you can see that, right? we have key autonomy issues in terms of what we are trying to do goal wise. we have within onr, and from that strategic plan that i mentioned, areas of emphasis.

the economy working group has to fall under the control of our office. and within that we have developed these for primarily, primary key autonomy and system goals to focus on human interaction, perception and intelligent control, collaboration and intelligent architecture. these are things for us that we find to be very critically important to the work that we're doing to be able to add to the system that would bring on down the line. in support of these common goals we have some common themes or emphasis areas. these are aware in this particular field that we're all interested in today, this is where onr is focusing a lot of their efforts. and in a late onslaught you i'll have names and pictures, not pictured but names and phone number, contact info -- i think i'm about to do the names and e-mail addresses i think through auvsi you have accessibility to that. these are the areas of major

investments that we do in onr. and so if i'm in your shoes and i just went to a course where we talked about presentations, i should put myself in your shoes, what does your company do where you are an expert in and you should need to want to get to be good friends with the person at onr who is expert in what to do. how do we do that? we do it through, some have great interpersonal skills. so we are unable to meet folks that are at different events that we have. our naval partnership conference, free conference. we have an open be a broad agency announcement where anybody can say anything they want. if i'm beating people like myself or other onr folks that are in the audience through such an agent that we are doing here. i won't need to spend time talking about the lduuv because duane was a significant level of

technical and problematic expertise in this day ago or he talked about this, i would like to point out that this particular innovative naval prototype has an awful lot of interest within the navy and within other entities and his government as well. this is a prime example of the autonomy working group trying to break down the stovepipes that every organization has to suffer through, and we have to suffer through that sometimes as well because we find the work of the uuv itself being done come would also be segment of this investment in the int working on the lduuv power and energy requirements come if you can imagine those are quite special through code 33. and such. it's not something is being done in a vacuum, a lot of collaboration. for us today, we are transitioning from man's assistance to basically hybrid systems.

we talked about them. i've got an effort going on with damage control 21st century where we are developing firefighting robots, believe it or not but if you on a ship one of their primary duties is to be able to be trained and fight fires if it happens from the cook to the captain of the ship. and would you rather be able to send a robot in to do the initial battle assessment or do the initial worst-case firefighting and have to put your sons, daughters, cousins, fathers, et cetera, at risk. the uuv work we're doing, a lot of interesting work, launching uuvs from submerged platforms to be able to do isi work. great work we're doing there. we see the future of where we're going with this along the lines of intelligence and collaboration. you can use the buzzword open architecture but that is series business for us. don't even think about trying to develop a system in your company or your university that's going to need to have some sort of a

proprietary, you know, closed loop architecture. everything has got to be open architecture but it is just the way we are now and it is where we will continue to go. as i mentioned earlier, i'm sure -- that's a pretty big screen. no x-ray vision but all the phone numbers are up there. you've got great expertise on the panel here as well with a lot of these issues. this is all completely releasable but these are some of the folks who focus on the science and technology efforts that we have. one of the major emphasis areas, onr is the issue of stem the issue of trying to educate the workforce. we have a lot of emphasis in this area. i think that's great for our kids, our teenagers, are college students and those yet to come.

we do a lot of work with seaperch. we have an office in our organization led by one of our program man who is a national naval responsibly for naval engineering, of which the seaperch effort has been basically the program for middle and high school students featuring a submersible remotely operated vehicle. these kids can learn about the careers of being a naval engineer. they get to actually build stuff. they did have competitions. when we had this event in the mall, if you remember down like them all downtown d.c., the mall a few years ago, science technology, a standing, thousands and thousands kids, you cannot get anywhere close to seaperch because it was about popular with the children for helping to motivate them. first robotics, again, k-12 students, trying to inspire interest and participation. robotics programs, competitions. thousands of students, 80 teams sponsored and mentored by the

navy, and for most of these is a very vague thing to measure but they do exit surveys for the students, and they honestly say that as result of participation in these and the robo subs and robo bots programs, that their interest in stem a naval engineer, the kind of things that auvsi is interested in can of which robo bought and robo suck our collaboration efforts with auvsi pics i think something that you as a taxpayer you should be very proud of. my last slide, two minutes. i haven't changed colors. we will stay in touch. you've got information you. you've got a website that i mentioned. a lot of information about some of our programs. of course, anybody in the world can access these things so there's not that much information but there's some good info of the. point of contact we talked about. we, thanks for corporate communicate with office and the authors of the things that are active with a facebook page and twitter accounts you see things and you too.

we often have distinguished lecturers over a winner and we record that and posted on, former winners of various national and international level and things like that. so how do you continue to engage with onr? you get to know the people who are in the field of your interest that you know. you take a look at our onr website at the open baa prices where there. we're 24/7. if you work at 2:00 in the morning you can submit ideas to there. if you have things that are, no kidding, revolutionary high risk high payoff kind of ideas that help directly the navy or the marine corps, i'm interested in talking to you here and then, of course, we did everything that we do, every program that we start, when it comes time to actually picking people and having the work done, we use --

if you're not smart on how to use that and the engage in that, at a certain something that you need to spend a lot of time and effort on. so with that i'll wrap up my comments a day of able for any questions. thank you very much. [applause] >> okay, i'm tom reynolds. i'm here to talk to a little bit about what lessons we've learned over 12 years of war, countering ieds. the lessons were learned the hard way, and i'm hoping that my talking about them, sharing a few experiences we can look to see what we could do better with our force, our processes and our technologies on the maritime site. let's start talking about ieds and minds first, compare them a little bit. and ied is basically conventional ordnance improvised.

it's up to the imagination of the person who's making it. and they are planted with deception. they are also usually observed and covered by other weapon system. so the counter ied fight is never really an isolated fight. it's just part of a greater battle. same thing with a naval mind. the picture on the top left may look like mines that were conventionally made by italy. it's a picture of mines that we captured in 2003 and they were acts of mines we have never seen before. they were improvised. on the bottom off to the right and the side is a suicide boat we found in a warehouse. hadn't been used but we know they had used suicide boats before like the uss cole. like the ied, we don't expect the naval mines will be left unobserved or not covered. so in see him will be conducted in a vacuum it it it it will be

the enemy of serving us as well as other weapon systems to try to get our forces. what are the use for? we know that the attack our troops. that gets a lot of press. we lost a lot of good people, but really the ied in iraq and against it was a strategic weapon to attack the population, to great economic and political instability. so wasn't enough that we protected our force. it was key that we get on the offensive, not button our troops up in the vehicle and get out there and go reduce this threat that was attacking, you know, the iraqi and afghan populations. hitting the commerce, hitting their oil infrastructure. and information operations are critical when it comes to the counter ied fight. a lot of propaganda. a lot of influencing population. same thing, picture on the top left taken on the second or third day of the war. people need to go after and feed their families. they still need to work, and

protecting u.s. ships was very important, but what we really fear in areas like the straits of hormuz is what's going to happen to the world oil supply? the commerce will be attacked. political instability will be ineffective naval mines. and also they are used defensively. the picture on the bottom right, a picture of a hovercraft from the royal marine on a mine infested beach on the first day of the invasion. amphibious operations are also still an area that we're concerned about. and who uses and ied? it's not an individual but it's a network, complex, financiers, logisticians, media sales. there's the bomb makers themselves. and it's a network. and so really when you want to attack the ied, you are really talk about a network which is only a subset of an insurgency

in the case of iraq and afghanistan. and for the naval mines, now, whether it's the same insurgent group that is just one use and ied on the water or a mine, you are really still talking about a weapon that is best used by unconventional means. picture on the right over there is a barge captured on the initial opening days of the invasion, with iraqi mines hidden in oil drums. there's also i cut out in this barge an iraqi man's were put into. luckily, we captured this barge and captured about 88 of these mines before they relate. even though there were not mines in the water this is the kind of mine countermeasure. it's part of what we need to do. and so what did we do on the ground then to counter the ied? i mentioned the ied was put in place by a network. so we built a network on top of it. general mcchrystal's model, was to build characters and network to do with the terrorists, and the same thing has gone on with our ground

forces in dealing with the ied. after all, we began the war with a very fast moving force where our capabilities were part of separate phases. armor and infantry moving quickly, obstacles breached and then explosive or war cleaned up later on. the forces went integrated part of our force during the early days of the war. we needed to move pretty quickly but as we transitioned into a counterinsurgency and the ied was, well, when i was there in 2006 we've already faced 50,000 ied attacks in iraq alone. we had to change a force. read a look at our processes for packet network and, of course, were to develop new technologies to support us. also, databases. so again, we have a lot of boundaries on the ground. when a lot of individual working but we need to develop a strategic picture. after all, and ied cell working

up was known to attack in baghdad and elsewhere. so we had our own boundaries read overcome and we had of soldiers who would rotate into the field and they would have to learn from, well, the actions of the people have been occupying that ground earlier. and, of course, there was technology that was integrated to support us. so talked about the counter task force. what began as, when they really grew into a team of enablers. a lot more than people just renting save ieds, a lot of rancic experts, fbi, atf, intelligence specials from all the other services were brought in to really do a lot of analysis and collection and exploitation of captured ieds and detainees to really understand this network that we were fighting. and event equipment was developed as a result of that analysis.

there was a process called prime fixed finish exploit and analyze which is a targeting process again develop othe of a special operations task force to go after terrorist but also used more specific for counter ied operations. technology was applied to each one of these areas. we begin very strong but it was when we develop the ability to exploit and analyze the forces that we encountered. could we really find that network and defeat it? like i said, a lot of analysis went into developing technology. some of it right in the field. infrared sensors begin to be used by ieds on the ground and was so taken up with the idea of putting plug in an ammo can and putting them on the end of the stick in front of the humvee so the inference center, center would fire off too quickly. very inexpensive technology. and then we had vehicles originally from south africa,

then built indiana states equipped with electronic warfare sensors. and families of unmanned systems. i love this picture on the right to do as he a soldier there with a robot on his back. sometimes that was the way to go. sometimes you had to walk where you needed to fully. sometimes you could take a vehicle and you could bring you a heavy robot and use them in conjunction. so a family of system, all benefiting from a communicate and network. a lessons learned coming back from the field. so how do we then look at this, you know, so what from the maritime site? luckily we already have a foundation. we have squadrons that are forward deployed. we have a database that we can build on and there's already some existing technology that we get it out of them we can learn some lessons from it, we can applied to a lot of the future programs that we have going on.

but what we have, like i said, is a foundation, it's not enough. our forces still awfully heavy on just finding, fixing and finishing without much exploitation and analysis capability that capability exists in the navy. it's just not integrated enough. also our force is not integrated into our strike groups like our ground fors like our ground force at integrated counter ied forces. treated as once or the face of an operation and then the carrier and the strike groups operative of the i think the technology that we have today can go on to th those strike groups, and keep pace with the force. and when we deal with a threat that becomes persistent, well, we'll have something right there that strike force can use. so if we look at a targeting process i talk about the counter

ied, mcm which are really isn't, the doctor history data, can also start a look at what technologies are needed for everyone of these different areas. i mentioned how i should get picture of a mind that hadn't been seen before. well, we want to neutralize, we want to blow up those but sometimes we want to also capture those mines, which is a pretty dangerous evolution to exploit them. technology is data for that and i was a right now deep-sea divers would love to see some unmanned systems take that role over. of course, we talked about unmanned underwater vehicles. some have been used in combat. if you have the capability, so do not satisfy but we have the capability. and that database that i mentioned, it can be turned into a whole lot more by, through use of a lot of our analysts building a more specific mine countermeasure picture. and so we end up i think with

future programs, again, that we need that right now we have some existing platforms and existing technologies that can be used. in 2003, two uuvs with the team through on a frigate that didn't have a working gun or even tail, or even a working lift but it had come and successfully prosecuted an exercise minefield off the coast of qatar. so you economy of existing ships that could benefit from some of those technologies right now. i spent an awful lot of money sending dive teams to go search vehicles that were important to i wonder how great it would become am also a former service worker officer, for a -- with the technology out there, most using the commercial side of the technology out there exist now to field some of those capabilities. it may not be the answer but lisa get in the hands of -- we

talked about the trend of them. the sears can star start to tout and field and come up with their own ideas of the. we also have already used -- they are lightweight uuvs, not headway uuvs but i think there's some capability there were launching and recovering of technology off of a variety of platforms. again i'm not advocating and would never advocate, never needed one robot on the ground war in iraq the it was always a family. after all, the would be different terrain, different friends in different enemies. so a family of systems i think would be the way to go here. okay, so with that i think i will be taking some questions afterwards but i really appreciate your time, thanks. [applause] >> okay, now it's your turn. let me open up the q&a period and invite you to ask any of the four speakers any question that

got stirred up in you as you were watching the briefings but you heard about the acquisition of captain ashton. you heard about scott's advanced work in asw and other applications for large u.s. cities, and you heard about the technology development process that onr has, now you've heard something about some operational experience and comparison of ieds on land and ieds under the water. so please, i'm sure you have questions that are burning their to be asked. who is going to start? and try to use the microphone, please, so everybody can hear you. >> for scott, just interested beyond any long -- on site requirements for speeding you mean for -- >> yes, rf or satellite.

>> that's great. right. our vehicle was designed to operate independently and potential at great distances from the pathogroup. so we did have a staff come requirement. we are using -- i think that's kind of reasonable and convenient as you know the objective system would be some kind of -- [inaudible] >> thank you. >> don't be bashful. we have plenty of time yet. please. >> i'm just curious about active come is it tracking someone in peacetime or wartime or both? >> well, so track and trail is inherently, it's a peacetime

kind of omission but if you think if you're in a full out war and you know what the submarine is, you probably wouldn't put a weapon on them, but in the buildup to work you might want to know what the submarines are. that's really the phase we are focused on. >> thank you for the great presentation and the work you're doing and autonomy. one of the questions i have, where do you think are the biggest targets that industry and government and commercial industry can leverage and have some joint collaborative or leverage commercial technology being done in automotive, being done in maritime industry into your program and the government? what opportunities are there for those technologies? >> who would like to try that

first? >> well, i'll go ahead and start that. you know, for two and half years, actually now we're working with acquisition community across several pillars. with the unmanned air vehicles, for example. so we reached out and cooperation, to help us collaborate together from a government perspective to make sure that when they go out with our standard that they are clear. so one way to be able to answer your question is when you go look at the announcement for the future, you know, realizing that autonomy is going to be a big part, what can you bring to the table. so i think it's going to

probably be a collaborative environment where you're going to have to work with other folks that have expertise in different areas to be able to help her find the answer. but we realized, you know, speaking for having the collaborative working together not only within government, we need to reach out and also had a discussion with an industry as well, and we have through the process, for example, an industry that we been part of as well to be able to help garner that information. so it's a great question. we realized that that's something we have to continue to work hard. >> i might only add to my mentioned on slide seven and slide six of our presentation about the different areas of investment, just another approach to answering your question. you know, these arein that are hard problems that we're trying to focus on, and when you

want to collaborate with onr, the point is we don't buy stuff. we don't buy stuff for the navy. we help and work with you to create new stuff. and so if that's the angle you have an order for us to be able to be a partnership in that. >> scott, anything else? >> i just made i will pick up on one of the things captain ashton mentioned. there is a lot to be said for trying to develop some open architecture solution so that when you developing very complicated software intensive system, and then later on down the road you want to integrate a new sensor or take down a different nation that you'd like to start all over at the beginning, i think trying to develop some common standards for building blocks of autonomy is i think is important and that's really, certainly the professional society can play a big role in trying to put some of that together.

>> next. go ahead. >> peed with phoenix international. thank you very for an excellent panel. for a guy who's been out there using these systems, particularly the au these from an operational user perspective, how did those systems work? were you impressed? did he do what you want? are there things you want to see from operator perspective that those systems do so we're giving you what you need? >> i would have to say we have the capability but shouldn't be satisfied. i think nothing affects morale more than something that is to tell you count on, to risk their lives to bring into the field and then it not work. and so i was always pretty happy with the technology. i didn't use it as it was designed. we had a soldier that was

missing in the tigris river for three weeks in 2003, and i deployed with au these which was not the place for it. but we were desperate. we need to recover the remains of a soldier because the time we didn't know if he was mia. we use the unmanned underwater vehicles in ways that they were never designed to be used. we broke one but it was worth it. because we had a possible soldier missing in action. ..

and there are some really imaginative and smart people out there that thinks some of them are just high school grads or something and they come up with really good ideas so the flexibility of that is very helpful. >> there's also -- i will add on to that as well -- there has been a move in the last several years i personally got involved in an office with the secretary defense on an exercise for a thunderstorm to find a counter drug activities in the caribbean. we gave the system -- there was a large displacement of unmanned vehicles made by penn state -- to sub deveron 5 up in washington state.

that's the kind of thing you want to do. you want not to have industry do the demonstration. you want the deck placed sailors and the chief to operate the system after a brief amount of teaching from the industry, a person who has developed this. because then they do just what tom said -- they think of more creative ways than you can possibly imagine how to use the system, and they will find them and tell us before they become programs of record. that's why experimentation is very, very important in our business in the defense department. experiment first with actual users, the people in st. louis. at the same way with the small remis as well. you definitely don't want to taint the vision of the person who is ultimately going to be the recipient of the technology that you've developed. you want to give them something that they can see, they can put their hands on and they can operate and learn how to use it.

that develops the support from the bottom-up. we always say today we have great top support. sno and the needy are on maritime robotics. no question about that whatsoever. if you build bottom-up support then you get the deck placed sailor and it won't sit in somebody's warehouse because they say too many false alarms or this or whatever the region happens to be. and then you build an mittal cadre of people like the postgraduate school, who are now being taught and have disciplined programs and robotics so that they can write master's and doctoral thesis activities to help that cadre of leadership that then carries the issue forward and they understand more about how to use systems and have a greater amount on them. next. >> ibm bob with the research lab. thank you for the set up.

i just have a comment on robotics and especially autonomy researchers. very gratifying to see autonomy mention the more than energy today, so that is a breakthrough for us. the but actually, my question is about the onr support. and i noticed something called the maritime robotics challenge that had the onr logo that's going to be next year in singapore. did you have any background on that and how you got connected with the folks in singapore and, like, who is the target audience, high school versus university students etc.? >> will actually we were just chatting about this on the metro on the way here this morning, so thanks for the question. i don't know that there's been an official announcement because the dates haven't been set. but i do understand this is some kind of international competition. i think we are focused on the

pacific rim, perhaps for teams and the u.s. team and then a challenge focused on some sort of day robotics and uav mission. so i'm sorry, that's really about all we have right now. but sitting exactly behind you is our director of the corporate strategic directions. semidey at the break you can try to touch base with him. thank you. >> hello. brad bishop, a professor in weapons and systems engineering at the united states academy just to the east of here. my question is for all of u.s. stakeholders in my business. what do you think we ought to be teaching the next generation of engineers, njos in regards to these technologies come operational experience, hands-on, would you like to see from us to advance these technologies? thank you. >> i will go ahead and start. i think that is an excellent question because we kind of

talked about it in the different places. you know, from stem and as dick discussed at the high levels of education. but, you know, right now i see the issue is trust and confidence on the unmanned systems. so as we move forward -- because you have ways of doing business. you know, the navy has done the business -- you go back and look at different things. for the simple when we go from sailing to steaming, we have the same challenges of the culture of being able to shift that. we saw that when we started to do the unmanned vehicles, but there was always something in our history that caused a change to occur. and what's going to be the change for our unmanned maritime systems? i think it's going to be a matter of trust and confidence, and scott brought a perfect example about coal rigs.

we need to be able to do that. so to answer your question is to get -- to get the shipman excited about this technology and realize there's going to be a cultural shift and that we are going to have to gain trust and confidence up and down the chain of command. you know, one of the wonderful things about the user authorization systems for example i have van moa with the squadron in san diego and up in the northwest to get that hands on operational experience. but it has to go all the way up the chain said that the commander that is responsible at the time says okay i notice how is going to be able to do the mission. some trust and confidence is what i would recommend. >> i guess i will flip it around a little bit. i think in some regards we need to let them tell us what these are good for because they will

have a better intuition and have been in the business a long time. when you look where the unmanned maritime peoples are today it's kind of where aviation was in the early 20s. everybody knew that the aircraft could be launched and they would be useful for something. nobody at that time could have predicted the battle of midway. kind of where we are now. we need that next generation to come along and figure out what are the interesting thing is you can do with these tools. >> i would add this whole concept of the systems and really thinking about how the system or the collection of assets with different missions and different spaces do with the need to do in collaboration with each other because our ability to communicate is just going to get tighter. our ability to have large size things is going to go down.

how do we get that our ability to a very small compact long duration of devotee to push it up when they need to and then go into this kind of sleep mode? and the last thing i will add is try to put yourself in the possession of the beneficiaries of the uav. what i think about the casualty evacuation what is it going to take for us to let your son or daughter to get into to be perhaps injured in the mountains of afghanistan and be able to be come have your team mates slight you into a uav that takes off and fly as you down to some sort of an area to get further medical attention? that's a very significant cultural jump. you really have to believe that is going to work.

>> as a midshipmen myself, over four years you're always thinking about graduation day and what will my career be. right now, i don't know and maybe these gentleman can tell you that who is going to command those uav and unmanned detachments? the contractors are doing some of the work right now. and how good is that career path? for the analyst inside, there is no nec. one of my top officers was forced out of the navy because he had been in the uav too long. he didn't have the right career and check in the blocks going forward so he's retired and phenomenal, so didn't think chief. but the officer corps really is for anybody that had anything to do with uav and have been in

command. so i'm curious to see what the midshipmen are doing for the technology but i'm going to serve the select seals and the submarines for the unmanned systems and is that a part of the service worker committee. so i'm curious about the career path and that will be what will serve the midshipmen. >> there have been studies done by the strategic studies group at the naval war college, and also by the naval warfare development command down and norfolk. i recommend that these mid's be taught or shown or exercise some of those things because i will give them a better understanding as well from an academic type of perspective along these lines and you may not even want to try some war demon in your class as another exercise to do that

>> here comes mr. walter himself. >> i appreciate the naval academy setting us up for that one. but i do want to know that there is a curriculum at nps for graduate students to in fact pursue the unmanned systems pick in fact a couple of different routes to get people into that business. in a lot of variation of supporting technologies that support that that is also part of nps. i would invite you if you think you have a good answer to this question see the admiral who is here in the crowd and i will hold a weekly lecture series where we offer industry, navy, laboratories. you still own me a presentation. to come talk to the students about what is going on in the world, to help their appetite. and in fact, if you are so

motivated you can also participate and challenge and give us a fee system projects that people should be working on. if you haven't been over here and you had been next door, you would have heard a lieutenant in the mechanical engineering which is the unmanned systems world give a presentation on a nine month project looking at the uavs. as we get tasking from operational folks, we did a lot of research for onr and others but we are also interested in you talking to students and also letting us show you what's going on at nps if you can't find any good reason to come to monterey we really need to have a talk. [laughter] >> thank you. we have time for one more question. who's got another good one? this has been great. you have been participating. give me one more. >> i could a