68 the US government, or it could have been someone else. Farrell: It could have been the US gov- ernment, it could have been the financial community or it could have been some- body else. We don’t know. That is the problem. We don’t know, in terms of assigning responsibility for these things, in terms of nation-states that would have these technologies. The obvious ones come to mind. Any sophisticated techno- logical power – Russia, China, Germany, France, Italy – would certainly have the capability of doing it. Some of them have actually suggested that they have the capability. Fitts: Here is what I have trouble believ- ing: That they could have done it without the US government. It seems that the US government has the power to stop it. Farrell: That is the problem. You would have the ability to stop or damp the effect if you knew that it was coming sufficiently in advance. This is all frequency. If you knew what was being done at such and such a frequency, you could target it, but that is the problem. There is also the pos- sibility – as horrifying as it is – that some of these things might be group efforts. Fitts: Oh, I definitely think that they are group efforts. Farrell: It may not be the case that we don’t have the capability to interdict it; it may be the case that that capability is inadequate to stop a group effort. This is the problem with this. We don’t know who the actors are, and we don’t really know what their agenda is. I think that the template is sufficient. Fitts: Clearly one of their agendas is to basically assume control of tremendous amounts of land in the Caribbean. So we’re in the middle of a major bankruptcy negotiation in Puerto Rico about whether or not Puerto Rico will get statehood, and Puerto Rico has absolutely their entire agriculture industry wiped out. Much of the bankruptcy was over the fraudulent inducement of debt by the big Wall Street investment firms. Then you have the creditors with a major seat at the table, but now that you’ve wiped out the utility that was the collateral for some of those creditors, it’s going to be a very interesting negotiation. We are watching disaster capitalism par excellence. Farrell: And we’re watching weather sys- tems. With this hurricane season, it’s not that we haven’t seen hurricane seasons like this, but four hurricanes lined up in rows? Fitts: It looked like a pinball game. Going up the s-curve, we discussed this last week about the shift from Global 2.0 to 3.0. This also brings us to the Unan- swered Questions because I think that how you resolve the obligations in Global 2.0 and the manner in which you go up the s-curve, there is tremendous variability in what can happen. My point in the 3rd Quarter Wrap Up to everyone is: The acceleration is upon us. Part of it is because, if you look at the im- plementation of new information systems, the speed of innovation – and not just innovation within areas, but across areas, and the integration of areas – is increasing dramatically. Peter Russell wrote a book in the late 1980’s about the speed of how total outstanding knowledge is increasing, and talked about, essentially, the same s-curve. He said that we were going from a world where information doubled every 150 years to a world where it would double every day. So we’re talking about phenomenal increases in the learning metabolism of the overall system. Of course, what is happening is you’re seeing severe bi- furcation between different groups and their learning metabolisms, and that is throwing everybody out of alignment with everybody else. I talked last time about Cathy O’Neil’s book, Weapons of Math Destruction, and how Silicon Valley is in a unique state of hubris and ignorance. It’s ignorance about where their money and technology has come from, but hubris in their sense of empowerment to centralize and re-engi- neer everything – whether it’s private or public territory. With them, there is no public territory and no public good or civic thing; they are free to do anything. Farrell: By the same token, there is no privacy. Fitts: So we’re going up that s-curve, and looking ahead, one of my big Unanswered Questions is: How will the obligations in Global 2.0 be handled because they are an obligation of our society? How will that shift happen, and how long will it take? I would love to know any thoughts that you have about that. Farrell: My suspicion is that what they are trying to do – to bring the culture wars back into it for a moment – and what one of their game plans might be is one of two things. It goes back to something I wrote about in Babylon’s Banksters when I was talking about a certain school within the European Union now that looks at infinite debt as a good thing. Needless to say, it’s a school that I totally disagree with. Fitts: You and me both! Farrell: Once again, part of it is based on a peculiar theology that rose in the Middle Ages in Europe regarding infinite debt. They either played that game, or the other game – which, from a certain standpoint, is a much more interesting one – that would reap them many benefits, but it would be extremely risky because it hasn’t been tried in millennia, and that is a com- plete jubilee. What makes me think that may be part of their thinking – press the ‘reset’ button and start over – is that, if you are trying to remake the culture and all of its institu- tions including the constitution, finance, governance, and everything, in your own technocratic image, then the result could be a society that is so blatantly different and discontinuous with what preceded it. You could make a cultural case or a phil- osophical case that all the obligations of, “That civilization no longer apply to us. We’re something completely different.” I think in order for them to press that reset button, they have to have a state of complete cultural change. The reason I am bringing this up is that this is exactly VI. News Trends & Stories with Dr. Joseph Farrell