divination

by Pepper Domina

This is not legal advice, please engage counsel if you have specific legal questions or needs.

The following is a detailed breakdown of the relevant sections of S.2226 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 with a focus on the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act of 2023 as amended to the FY 2024 military budget. This paper will examine each relevant section and summarize important points and offer analysis where prudent. The bill contains two sections specifically concerning UAP phenomenon, a funding limitation and reporting section (Section 1546) and the later Schumer introduced UAP Disclosure Act of 2023 (Sections 9001-9015).

The purpose of this is not to be entertaining, but to provide a human-readable reference of the significant components of the Act.

Extremely briefly, this legislation stops all funding for projects regarding UAP unless expressly approved by public officials, seizes all UAP related records and materials, sets up various organizations and bodies to process and disclose these records with legal powers, gives a UAP Review Board access the Attorney General to petition courts in the US and abroad, compels the Secretary of State to travel to other nations to advocate for disclosure, provides guidelines for declassification and postponement with the ultimate goal of full public disclosure, and more.

The language of this bill is extremely thorough and serious and shows deep conviction that the issue is credible and urgent. Actions are required by the Senate, congressional leadership, numerous departments, and the President themselves based on the text of the bill further indicating that this is something to be taken seriously.

Due to the length of these legal documents, this will be split into two sections: 1546 and 9001-9006 (this page) and 9007-9015 (available here).

Section 1546

SEC. 1546, titled “Funding Limitation on Certain Unreported Programs,” lays down stringent conditions for the use of funds authorized by this Act for the fiscal year 2024. This section blocks all funds for anything (security, reverse engineering, recruitment, etc.) regarding UAP, both to government and contractors, unless it’s explicitly explained to and approved by congressional leadership and the director of AARO. Further, it requires all materials relating to UAP to be reported to AARO within 60 days and all material turned over within 180 days or face legal consequences (this is the amnesty window). This essentially “renationalizes” any UAP material that may have been turned over to private industry.

Specific Details

Under subsection (a), it restricts the expenditure of these funds for any activities related to “unidentified anomalous phenomena”—unless they have been thoroughly detailed and justified to specific congressional committees, congressional leadership (majority and minority speaker of the Senate, Speaker of the House and minority house leader), and the Director of the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO). The covered activities include:

1. Recruitment and operational tasks (both governmental and contractors) related to the handling of UAP craft.
2. Analysis of the properties, origins, and usage of these crafts, and efforts towards reverse-engineering their technology.
3. The management and security of information related to unidentified anomalous phenomena to prevent leaks.
4. Reverse engineering or replication of the technology, materials, or performance of these phenomena, including data based on sensor and observational information.
5. Development of non-conventional propulsion technology or aerospace craft derived from or inspired by anomalous phenomena.
6. Aerospace crafts that use non-standard propulsion technology (non-chemical propellants, solar power, or electric ion thrust).

Subsection (b) requires individuals or entities currently or previously contracted by the Federal Government (including contractors), who possess materials or information related to unidentified anomalous phenomena (past, present, regardless of classification), to report to the Director within 60 days and provide access within 180 days all material and comprehensive lists of all non-earth origin or exotic anomalous phenomena materiel [sic] to obtain amnesty.

Subsection (c) disallows independent research and development funding relating to such material or information to be counted as indirect expenses unless provided to the Director as per subsection (b).

Subsection (d) instructs the Director to notify Congress and congressional leadership within 30 days after receiving any notification or material under subsection (b)(1).

In essence, SEC. 1546 aims to ensure accountability and transparency in activities related to unidentified anomalous phenomena by enforcing strict funding limitations, reporting requirements, and oversight by key governmental entities.

Section 9001

SEC. 9001 serves as the designation of this Division, which may be referred to as the “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act of 2023” or the “UAP Disclosure Act of 2023.”

Section 9002

SEC. 9002 provides the findings, declarations, and purposes of this act. It consists of two subsections: (a) Findings and Declarations, and (b) Purposes. It goes so far as to insist that all material relating to UAP should eventually be disclosed to inform the public, and emphasizes that FOIA has been insufficient for this purpose (in part because of DoE exclusions which it explicitly overrules in later sections). These demands are due to “credible evidence and testimonies,” likely from David Grusch and others via the Inspector General of the Intelligence Committee (IGIC) and their subsequent disclosures to the Gang of Eight (high ranking congressional members with privileged intelligence access). The section emphasizes that proper oversight must be reestablished and should be done as soon as possible. In achieving portions of these goals, it establishes a UAP records collection effort at the National Archives.

In short, the amendment underscores the necessity of legislative action for the preservation, centralization, and timely public disclosure of all records related to UAP, emphasizing the need for comprehensive open scientific and technological research in the interests of national security and the public.

Details

In subsection (a), Congress states seven crucial findings and declarations:

1. It is essential for historical and federal purposes to preserve and centralize all Federal Government records related to unidentified anomalous phenomena.
2. All such records should carry a presumption of immediate disclosure, and eventually, all should be disclosed to keep the public fully informed about the Federal Government’s knowledge and involvement surrounding unidentified anomalous phenomena.
3. There is a need for legislation to establish an enforceable, independent, and accountable process for the public disclosure of such records.
4. Legislation is necessary due to credible evidence and testimonies that indicate the existence of unidentified anomalous phenomena records within the Federal Government that have not been declassified or subject to mandatory declassification review. This lack of declassification is partly due to exemptions under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the broad interpretation of “transclassified foreign nuclear information” exempt from mandatory declassification, preventing public disclosure under existing laws.
5. Legislation is necessary as the “Freedom of Information Act,” as implemented by the Federal Government’s Executive branch, has proven inadequate in ensuring the timely public disclosure of Government records related to unidentified anomalous phenomena.
6. Legislation is necessary to restore proper oversight over unidentified anomalous phenomena records by elected officials in both the executive and legislative branches of the Federal Government, which has been lacking up until the enactment of this Act.
7. Legislation is necessary to provide complete and timely access to all knowledge acquired by the Federal Government concerning unidentified anomalous phenomena. This is important for comprehensive open scientific and technological research and development, essential to avoiding or mitigating potential technological surprise in the interest of national security and the public.

Subsection (b) outlines the purposes of this division:

1. The creation of the unidentified anomalous phenomena Records Collection at the National Archives and Records Administration.
2. The expeditious public transmission to the Archivist and public disclosure of such records.

Section 9003

SEC. 9003 defines critical terms and concepts used throughout the bill to limit and control interpretations and effectiveness. There are 23 definitions with a number of sub-definitions. En lieu of going through them all, I want to highlight interesting and critical language.

2. Close observer: Anyone who has come into close proximity to UAP or non-human intelligence
5. Controlling authority: Any Federal, State, or local government department, office, agency, committee, commission, commercial company, academic institution, or private sector entity in physical possession of technologies of unknown origin or biological evidence of non-human intelligence (NHI)
8. Government office: Any department, office, agency, committee, or commission of the Federal Government and any independent office or agency without exception that has possession or control, including via contract or other agreement, of unidentified anomalous phenomena records
11. Legacy program: All Federal, State, and local government, commercial industry, academic, and private sector endeavors to collect, exploit, or reverse engineer technologies of unknown origin or examine biological evidence of living or deceased NHI that pre-dates the date of the enactment of this Act
13. Non-human intelligence: Any sentient intelligent non-human lifeform regardless of nature or ultimate origin that may be presumed responsible for UAP or of which the Federal Government has become aware
15. Prosaic attribution: Having a human (either foreign or domestic) origin and operating according to current, proven, and generally understood scientific and engineering principles and established laws-of-nature and not attributable to NHI
17. Record: Includes a book, paper, report, memorandum, directive, email, text, or other form of communication, or map, photograph, sound or video recording, machine-readable material, computerized, digitized, or electronic information, including intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and target acquisition sensor data, regardless of the medium on which it is stored, or other documentary material, regardless of its physical form or characteristics
19. Technologies of unknown origin: Any materials or meta-materials, ejecta, crash debris, mechanisms, machinery, equipment, assemblies or sub-assemblies, engineering models or processes, damaged or intact aerospace vehicles, and damaged or intact ocean-surface and undersea craft associated with UAP or incorporating science and technology that lacks prosaic attribution or known means of human manufacture
20. Temporarily non-attributed objects: the class of objects that temporarily resist prosaic attribution by the initial observer as a result of environmental or system limitations associated with the observation process that nevertheless ultimately have an accepted human origin or known physical cause. Although some unidentified anomalous phenomena may at first be interpreted as temporarily non-attributed objects, they are not temporarily non-attributed objects, and the two categories are mutually exclusive. The term includes natural celestial, meteorological, and undersea weather phenomena, mundane human-made airborne objects, clutter, and marine debris; Federal, State, and local government, commercial industry, academic, and private sector aerospace platforms; Federal, State, and local government, commercial industry, academic, and private sector ocean-surface and undersea vehicles; and known foreign systems
22. Unidentified anomalous phenomena: In general, the term UAP means any object operating or judged capable of operating in outer-space, the atmosphere, ocean surfaces, or undersea lacking prosaic attribution due to performance characteristics and properties not previously known to be achievable based upon commonly accepted physical principles. This includes the terms flying discs, flying saucers, unidentified aerial phenomena, unidentified flying objects (UFOs), and unidentified submerged objects (USOs). UAP are differentiated from both attributed and temporarily non-attributed objects by one or more of the following observables: (i) Instantaneous acceleration absent apparent inertia. (ii) Hypersonic velocity absent a thermal signature and sonic shockwave. (iii) Transmedium (such as space-to-ground and air-to- undersea) travel. (iv) Positive lift contrary to known aerodynamic principles. (v) Multispectral signature control. (vi) Physical or invasive biological effects to close observers and the environment

Section 9004

In SEC. 9004 overviews the creation (within 60 days), administration, and security of the “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Records Collection” (the Collection) under the oversight of the National Archives. The Collection aims to act as a consolidated repository for all official records relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena—broadly encapsulating elements such as unexplained phenomena, technologies of unknown origin, and non-human intelligence. The mandate and ethos for this collection emanate from a desire to secure, centralize, and make accessible these records, ensuring public transparency and fostering potential avenues for research and analysis.

What is fascinating in this statute is the role it assigns to the National Archives. As a primarily passive recipient of government documents, the Archives are typically an agency designed for preservation, not investigation or interpretation. This bill positions the Archives as a critical node in an institutional network dealing with the unexplained—hilariously, almost an actual X file repository. It attempts to balance the public right to knowledge with necessary precautions in a realm where new findings could have profound implications on our understanding.

Emphasized is the need for preserving the integrity and provenance of the records in the Collection. In archival theory, maintaining the provenance of a document ensures that it retains its contextual relevance and authenticity. This attention to provenance is interesting for its foresight in the role scientific, legal, and historical rigor will eventually play for the public when reviewing these files. To this end, the provision mandates the construction of a central directory, a subject guidebook, and an index to the Collection. This aims to facilitate the accessibility of this information so things won’t be “lost in a drawer” and overlooked. In the interest of this public consumption, all material marked for disclosure must be made available within 30 days and digitally available online no later than 180 days of disclosure.

Section 9005

SEC. 9005 mandates a thorough identification, organization, and protection of records related to UAP held by any and all government offices “as soon as practicable,” but no later than 300 days from enactment of this Act for the purpose of disclosure to the public, review, and transmission to the Collection. Further, it establishes a review process and specifies all UAP records will be made publicly available in full no later than 25 years after the originating date, except by express interference from the President under certain circumstances.

Details

Section (a) sets prohibitions to ensure the preservation of these records. It dictates that no UAP record can be destroyed, altered, or mutilated in any way. It protects any such record disclosed to the public prior to the enactment of the Act from being withheld, redacted, postponed for public disclosure, or reclassified. Further, any such records created by an entity outside the Federal Government cannot be withheld, redacted, postponed for public disclosure, or reclassified, except where necessary to conceal names or identities consistent with requirements of section 9006.

Subsections (b) and (c) establish a review procedure. The former specifies that, until the review has been conducted, the heads of government offices will retain the records for preservation, security, and efficiency. The latter requires heads of government offices to review, identify, and organize each unidentified anomalous phenomena record within 300 days of the Act’s enactment for the purposes of public disclosure, review by the Review Board, and transmission to the Archivist. This section also provides a detailed list of requirements for government offices to follow during this process, such as identifying which records are unidentified anomalous phenomena records and determining which of these have been disclosed publicly in an unredacted form.

Subsection (d) then mandates the preparation of identification aids to be attached to every UAP record subject to review for easy cataloging within the Collection. It also establishes a uniform system for cataloging and locating each such record.

Subsection (e) specifies that the heads of government offices must transmit to the Archivist all UAP records and make those which can be publicly disclosed immediately available to the public. Records whose disclosure has been postponed must also be transmitted to the Archivist to be reclassified by the Review Board.

Subsection (f) deals with the custody of postponed records, stipulating that these should be held for reasons of security and preservation by the originating body until such time as the information security program has been established at the National Archives (SEC 9004).

Subsection (g) requires periodic reviews by the Archivist and originating agency that can downgrade or declassify postponed or redacted records with an aim toward public disclosure. Any records deemed to require continued postponement must come with an unclassified written description of the reason for such continued postponement. Further, it specifies that each UAP record shall be publicly disclosed in full and available in the Collection no later than 25 years after the originating date of the record unless the President certifies that “continued postponement is made necessary by an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or conduct of foreign relations and the identifiable harm is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure.”

Lastly, subsection (h) stipulates that Executive agencies must transmit digital records electronically in accordance with section 2107 of title 44, United States Code, and must charge fees (no more than cost) for copying unidentified anomalous phenomena records - waivers may be granted.

Section 9006

SEC 9006 lays out the grounds for postponement of UAP records. Due to the obvious sensitive nature these records may carry, the amendment allows postponement for threats to military, intelligence, or foreign relations that outweigh public interest (such as protecting an intelligence asset, source, or method or a national security defensive secret).

---

Part two is available here.

by Ian Q. Calderwood

This paper is a follow up to Strategic Silence: NHI Disclosure and Global Power.

I. Introduction and Assumptions

In light of the potential disclosure from the U.S. government regarding the existence of non-human intelligence (NHI) technologies, the equilibrium of geopolitical power faces potential reconfiguration. In this policy analysis, the goal is to probe potential scenarios in which two significant geopolitical entities—the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation—respond to the U.S. disclosure. Their reactions are anticipated to significantly shape the global narrative around NHI technologies, guide the evolution of international power structures, and impact the international norms and regulations that may be formulated around these technologies.

This paper proceeds under several key assumptions. The primary assumption is the global acceptance and verification of the U.S. government’s disclosure regarding NHI technologies. This global acknowledgment acknowledges the existence of similar programs in other countries, despite the absence of Russian and Chinese public disclosures. A further assumption is that China and Russia’s reactions and strategic orientations will reflect their historical strategic tendencies, current geopolitical orientation, and their perception of the potential transformation offered by NHI technologies. Given the novelty of the situation, these assumptions may not encompass the full breadth of their strategic considerations.

We also proceed under the assumption of relative continuity in the international system, encompassing the ongoing presence of international institutions, alliances, and rivalries. Additionally, we posit that NHI technologies will be perceived as significant transformational factors, carrying enormous potential for collaboration and conflict, in a manner akin to the advent of nuclear technologies in the mid-20th century.

In constructing these scenarios, we acknowledge the inherent uncertainties and complexities that underpin this analysis. These scenarios are not definite forecasts but provide potential frameworks for understanding and planning. They are intended to guide strategic thinking and policy formulation, rather than provide certain predictions. The goal is to foster a comprehensive understanding of potential outcomes and to aid in the development of robust, adaptable policies in response to these uncertain and rapidly changing geopolitical landscapes.

This analysis will also consider the potential for simultaneous occurrence and interplay between various scenarios. We are cognizant of the dynamic nature of the global geopolitical landscape, where nation-states can shift their strategies swiftly, reacting to emerging developments and altering the course of events.

II. Understanding Chinese and Russian Strategic Thinking

The potential strategic reactions of China and Russia to the U.S. disclosure of NHI technologies can be more thoroughly anticipated by examining their historical strategic postures, their approaches to technology adoption, their crisis management strategies, the interplay of political ideologies and national identity in shaping their strategic thinking, and by also delving into their domestic political dynamics and their relationships with other countries.

A. People’s Republic of China

China’s strategic approach over the past several decades is one of balance between assertiveness and measured patience, leveraging its rapidly expanding economic influence to subtly yet persistently reshape international norms and institutions. The Belt and Road Initiative encapsulates this strategy, slowly reorienting global economic dependencies in China’s favor through an expansive network of infrastructure investment and development assistance.

Chinese technology adoption is aggressive, pursuing strategic advantage in emergent technological domains. Indigenous innovation characterizes the domestic technology policy, an approach combining heavy investment in research and development with the acquisition of foreign technology and knowledge. China’s advancements in areas such as 5G, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing indicate that this approach will likely extend to NHI technologies.

When faced with crises, China often exhibits a preference for stability and long-term strategic gains and demonstrates a willingness to adopt unconventional measures to safeguard its interests. Examples include its handling of the South China Sea disputes and its strategic maneuvering in the U.S.-China trade war.

Centralized planning and state control over key sectors, legacies of Chinese political ideology influenced by Maoism and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, also extend to its approach towards technology. The Chinese nationalism narrative, characterized by the ‘China Dream,‘ fuels the pursuit of technological superiority as a means to restore China’s historical global stature.

Domestically, the Chinese Communist Party maintains a strict control over information dissemination, which will play a crucial role in shaping public perception of the U.S. NHI disclosures. Internationally, China’s relations with countries involved in its Belt and Road Initiative, and its strategic competition with the U.S., may influence its strategy toward NHI technology.

B. Russian Federation

Inherent in Russian strategic thinking is a deep-seated sense of geopolitical insecurity, driving an assertive, and at times aggressive, foreign policy to protect its perceived sphere of influence. Evident in its interventions in Ukraine and Syria, alleged meddling in various Western nations‘ electoral processes, and its recent large-scale military operation in Ukraine.

Russia’s approach to technology adoption often prioritizes military applications, striving to maintain parity or achieve superiority in areas essential for national security. This strategy is evident in its pursuit of nuclear, cyber, and space technologies, suggesting a likely security-centered perception of NHI technologies.

Russian crisis management strategy regularly exploits crises as opportunities to advance its geopolitical interests. This approach was clear in its annexation of Crimea during Ukraine’s political turmoil, demonstrating a willingness to escalate conflicts to secure advantageous negotiating positions or to create strategic ambiguity.

A resurgence of nationalism tied to a nostalgic ideal of Soviet strength characterizes Russian political ideology under Putin. This nationalism, often manifested in assertive foreign policies, is reinforced by the Russian Orthodox Church, fostering a sense of exceptionalism that often justifies its geopolitical maneuvers. Coupled with an ingrained suspicion of Western intentions, Russia may react to U.S. NHI disclosure with particular skepticism and strategic caution.

In terms of domestic politics, Putin’s near-total control over the Russian media landscape will play a pivotal role in shaping public perception of the NHI issue. Internationally, Russia’s strategic partnerships, particularly those under the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and its adversarial relations with NATO countries, will influence its strategic calculations vis-à-vis NHI technologies.

III. Assessing Beijing: Strategic Projections for China’s Response

In assessing Chinese responses to U.S. NHI technology disclosures, it’s essential to establish our foundation on the bedrock of China’s historical strategic approaches, norms, and identities. We must also keep in mind the complex interplay of geopolitical and domestic considerations, and the unique challenges posed by the NHI element (and the rumored treaties surrounding it). Consequently, the following scenarios present a blend of possible actions and orientations the Chinese administration may take.

1. The Middle Way: Selective Disclosure and Strategic Ambiguity

Given the gravity of the U.S. disclosure and the allegations regarding China’s involvement in NHI retrieval and reverse engineering programs, complete silence from China would be a surprising and potentially unwise choice. It would risk casting China as a passive actor or even a potential technology laggard in the emerging global narrative.

In response, it is most likely that China will deploy a strategy of selective disclosure, revealing enough to maintain its image as a global power engaged in these groundbreaking developments. The specific contours of this disclosure could be tailored to serve China’s strategic imperatives. China might choose to confirm the existence of its NHI program, potentially even disclosing some advancements or capabilities that can be safely shared without compromising national security.

Strategic ambiguity could play a key role here, allowing China to control the narrative without committing to specific details about the extent of their NHI-related advancements. They may select to spotlight certain facets of their NHI program, such as its peaceful intent or the potential societal benefits, while keeping a lid on the specifics of technological progress. This approach will maintain a degree of mystery and provide flexibility for future actions.

2. Scripting the Discourse: Narrative Framing and Norm-Setting

A more proactive, yet nuanced, stance China could adopt is seeking to influence the international narrative surrounding the NHI and shaping the norms associated with it. Given the power dynamics inherent in controlling the discourse, it’s likely China will take strides to avoid the narrative being completely U.S. dominated.

Utilizing its growing diplomatic clout and leveraging its influence in multilateral institutions, China may initiate discussions around the governance, ethical implications, and legal aspects of NHI and related technology. It could emphasize principles that align with its broader strategic interests, such as the non-militarization of NHI technology or the equitable distribution of benefits arising from it. In this context, rumored treaties could serve as leverage points, influencing the direction and tenor of the discussion.

3. Playing the Power Game: An Aggressive Stance

While a more aggressive stance is less likely, considering the generally cautious approach China has adopted in its international relations, it cannot be ruled out entirely. Several conditions might trigger a bolder response from China. For instance, if it perceives that the U.S. disclosures or subsequent actions constitute a violation of existing treaties, or if it feels that the U.S. is unfairly monopolizing the benefits or the narrative of the NHI phenomenon, it might react more assertively.

China could do this by positioning its own advancements in the NHI field as superior, or by leveraging the U.S. disclosures as evidence of American aggression or a threat to international stability. However, such an approach carries significant risks, including potential backlash and the escalation of tensions, and would thus only be likely under specific and challenging circumstances.

4. Harmony and Cooperation: A Collective Approach

The least likely scenario, given China’s historical preference for strategic autonomy, is that it might opt for a cooperative response. If the terms of any existing treaties encourage collaboration or if China perceives substantial benefits in global cooperation on NHI issues, it might choose this path.

Under this scenario, China would openly share its findings and cooperate with the global community to steer the narrative towards mutual development, shared benefits, and enhanced stability. This could also involve active participation in or even leading global initiatives to establish international norms and frameworks around the interaction with NHI and the use of related technology.

China’s strategic response to U.S. NHI disclosures will likely be a complex interplay of historical behavior, evolving geopolitical realities, and the specificities of the disclosed information. We anticipate that China will endeavor to maintain its strategic autonomy while seeking to secure its position within the new global narrative. In the subsequent section, we will shift our focus towards Russia, the other key player rumored to have significant involvement in NHI programs.

IV. Navigating the Kremlin: Strategic Projections for Russia’s Response

In interpreting the prospective Russian responses to the U.S. disclosure of Non-Human Intelligence (NHI) technology, we must view the situation through the prism of Russia’s historical strategic doctrines, contemporary geopolitical considerations, and their unique security-focused lens. The apparent internal upheavals, especially the recent Prigozhin-triggered instability, coupled with external tensions manifested in the ongoing Ukrainian conflict and escalating tensions with NATO, add additional layers of complexity to Russia’s strategic calculus. The four prospective responses we outline take these intricacies into account and aim to provide a comprehensive, if necessarily speculative, analysis of Russia’s possible strategies.

1. Asserting Power: Proactive Disclosure and Narrative Control

In the face of significant internal and external challenges, the most probable response from Russia would be a proactive and assertive disclosure of its involvement with NHI technology. Russia’s historical narrative has often been characterized by resilience and triumph in the face of adversity. Leveraging this narrative could serve dual purposes: rallying domestic support by bolstering national pride and establishing Russia as a major player in the NHI discourse, capable of contending with the U.S. in this extraordinary domain.

An assertive disclosure could entail acknowledging Russia’s ongoing engagement with NHI retrieval and reverse engineering, possibly accompanied by a display of some advancements to lend credibility and weight to the disclosure. However, in alignment with the Russian tradition of strategic information management, we anticipate that the disclosure would be carefully calibrated, with precise control over the level of detail divulged.

Moreover, seizing the narrative baton would enable Russia to frame the NHI issue in a manner aligned with its strategic imperatives. For instance, Russia could position the NHI technology as a harbinger of a new era in human evolution, emphasizing its potential for addressing pressing global challenges such as climate change, energy, and health crises. Such a narrative could help to consolidate Russia’s image as a global technological leader while offsetting criticisms pertaining to other geopolitical issues.

2. The Shadow Puppeteer: Denial and Discreditation

While an assertive disclosure seems most probable, we cannot rule out the potential for Russia to adopt a more obfuscating strategy, leveraging its history of sophisticated disinformation campaigns. Under this scenario, Russia may respond to the U.S. disclosure with outright denial or discreditation. The intent would be to inject confusion into the global narrative, creating doubts about the authenticity of U.S. claims and undermining its credibility.

For instance, Russia might question the genuineness of the disclosed NHI artifacts or suggest alternative explanations for the phenomenon that the U.S. attributes to non-human intelligence. Simultaneously, Russia could leverage its state-controlled media outlets to amplify these narratives, both domestically and internationally.

However, such a strategy carries substantial risks. If further evidence emerged that conclusively corroborated the U.S. claims, Russia’s denial strategy would backfire, causing significant damage to its international standing and credibility. Moreover, if Russia is indeed engaging in NHI technology retrieval and reverse engineering, as alleged, a denial strategy could jeopardize its position in the evolving global discourse on NHI.

3. Capitalizing on Chaos: Exploiting the Disclosure for Geopolitical Advantage

Another possible response from Russia involves utilizing the U.S. disclosures as a geopolitical lever. This aligns with Russia’s historical pattern of capitalizing on international developments to further its strategic agenda. Under this scenario, Russia might criticize the U.S. for purportedly weaponizing NHI technology or accuse it of instigating a new arms race, thereby destabilizing global security.

These criticisms could be leveraged to erode international support for the U.S., create divisions among Western alliances, and build alliances with countries that share similar concerns. For instance, Russia might intensify its outreach to non-aligned nations, portraying itself as a champion of international stability in contrast to the“reckless” U.S. pursuit of NHI technology.

4. Reluctant Cooperation: A Pragmatic Alliance

The least probable, yet not entirely dismissible, scenario is that Russia might opt for a cooperative response. The conditions necessitating this approach would likely involve the perception of significant risks or rewards stemming from the NHI technology.

Should the NHI technology’s potential power become apparent and if this power is seen to pose an existential risk to Russia or to global stability, Russia might consider international cooperation as the most prudent approach. However, even under these conditions, we expect any cooperative overtures from Russia to be meticulously calculated to protect and advance its interests.

Russia’s strategic response to the U.S. disclosure is unlikely to be monolithic and fixed. Given the multifaceted complexity of global politics and the unique challenges posed by the NHI phenomenon, Russia’s strategic response is expected to be multifaceted. It could encompass a blend of various strategies, modulating between them as circumstances evolve. Therefore, while we have discussed these scenarios separately for analytical clarity, in reality, they might unfold concurrently or alternately, or even amalgamate into a hybrid strategy. The nature of Russia’s multi-pronged approach would be dictated by a complex interplay of domestic exigencies, international pressures, and the shifting sands of the NHI narrative. Constant vigilance and adaptability will be required to anticipate and respond to Russia’s moves.

V. Conclusion: Uncharted Territory in the New Strategic Landscape

We find ourselves on the precipice of an epochal shift in global politics and security dynamics. The imminent potential U.S. disclosure of its Non-Human Intelligence (NHI) retrieval and reverse engineering programs and subsequent allegations of similar programs in China and Russia have thrust the international community into a realm of unprecedented strategic complexity. These developments have the potential to rewrite the rules of geopolitical competition and cooperation, testing the agility and adaptability of our strategic frameworks and policy responses.

The scenarios laid out have drawn on historical precedents, normative behaviors, and the unique strategic cultures of China and Russia. We posit that China is likely to adopt a blend of selective disclosure, narrative framing, and strategic ambiguity, leveraging its increasing diplomatic and informational capabilities to navigate this new terrain effectively. Simultaneously, Russia, ensnared in its own domestic and regional complexities, may deploy a combination of public denial or downplaying, strategic distraction, and leveraging these developments for geopolitical advantage. This analysis has underscored the fluidity and volatility of the new strategic landscape, with each scenario intertwining with others in intricate and unpredictable ways.

While our study provides an initial understanding of the landscape, it is essential to underscore that we are dealing with a dynamic, evolving situation. Unpredictability will be a defining feature of this new strategic epoch. This calls for strategic agility from U.S. policymakers, the ability to adjust and recalibrate strategies in real-time as events unfold and new information becomes available. To this end, we strongly recommend a proactive approach to strategic anticipation, scenario planning, and capacity building in policy circles.

In terms of immediate policy implications, it is clear that managing the narrative and the discourse surrounding NHI and related technologies will be a strategic imperative for the United States. China’s potential attempts to frame the discourse, Russia’s possible efforts to leverage the situation, and the overall narrative control will significantly influence how this situation evolves. This puts a premium on strategic communication, diplomacy, alliance management, and multilateral engagement.

The need for international norms and governance frameworks concerning NHI and associated technologies is another clear conclusion from our study. Given the potential for a multiplicity of actors to possess and develop these technologies, the absence of agreed norms and rules could lead to heightened risks and instabilities. This underscores the importance of initiating international discussions on the governance of NHI technologies and forging consensus on key principles.

Finally, we recognize the necessity for more in-depth analysis of the policy implications, potential consequences, and strategic responses associated with the scenarios discussed in this paper. As the next step in our research, we will embark on a detailed investigation of these issues, the results of which we will present in a follow-up piece. This forthcoming analysis aims to provide policymakers with concrete recommendations to navigate this new strategic frontier effectively and ensure U.S. national as well as global security interests are robustly protected.

by Ian Q. Calderwood

I. Towards a New Political Landscape

The assertion of ongoing Non-Human Intelligence contact and technology retrieval programs within the U.S. governmental apparatus, if validated, represents a paradigm shift in our understanding of geopolitical realities and the known limits of technological advancement. The implications extend beyond our current prevailing understanding, with potential ramifications touching every sphere of human activity—from technology, economics, and geopolitics, to philosophy, culture, and religion. The spectacle of non-human intelligence (NHI) not only challenges the preeminent humanist narrative, but ushers us into an era of confronting the extraterrestrial ‘other’.

The rumblings from whistleblowers within the U.S., suggesting a history of encounters and the possession of NHI artifacts, is already sending ripples across the global political landscape. The ongoing Congressional hearings and the impending full disclosure, should it manifest, represent the precipice of a new world, one where humanity is potentially not alone.

The conspicuous silence from other major powers, namely the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China, adds another layer of complexity to an already opaque issue. The absence of their voice within the international conversation raises questions about their strategies, intentions, and the potential consequences of their reticence on the global stage.

This analysis aims to address these questions. It delves into the silence of Russia and China, decoding it through the lens of international relations theory, strategic latency, and cultural context. The following sections of this paper will explore:

1. The strategic implications of Russia and China’s silence, and how it potentially alters the existing power dynamics.
2. The domestic impact within these nations, with a focus on societal stability, transparency, and the ideological paradigms that might influence their response to the NHI discourse.
3. Policy recommendations for stakeholders within the U.S. government and beyond.

As we venture into this uncharted territory, we must acknowledge the assumptions we are making. Primarily it is assumed, for the sake of this paper, that the claims of David Grusch are true and that federal action will soon follow.

It is critical to approach this analysis with an openness to reevaluate our prevailing assumptions about the nature of power, sovereignty, and intelligence. Our exploration of these themes, and the speculation it invites, must be balanced by an acknowledgment of the limits of our understanding. This is particularly true given that the silence of Russia and China could be as strategic and revealing as any disclosure. As we navigate this complex terrain, it is prudent to recall that in the realm of international relations, silence can speak volumes.

II. Evaluating NHI Strategic Latency

In the chessboard of international relations, power dynamics are often influenced by a combination of diplomatic, economic, and military prowess. The introduction of a new variable such as Non-Human Intelligences (NHI) and potential technologies derived from them add an additional, unforeseen dimension to this game.

Analyzing the responses, or rather, the lack thereof, from Russia and China, provides insight into their potential strategic postures. The lack of official public engagement on the issue from these nations, despite Grusch’s claims indicating the existence of their own crash retrieval programs, can be interpreted as a manifestation of ‘strategic latency.’ In the realm of international strategy, such latency is not an unfamiliar tactic, and we can gain some insight by exploring historical precedents.

During the Cold War, strategic latency was a vital aspect of the nuclear arms race. Both the United States and the Soviet Union embarked on extensive programs to develop and amass nuclear weapons, keeping much of their progress and capabilities concealed. The cloak of ambiguity provided a strategic advantage, maintaining a level of uncertainty about each nation’s actual nuclear capabilities and thresholds, thus adding another layer to the deterrence paradigm. In the current scenario, Russia, with its historical experience in engaging in latent strategic maneuvers, seems to be adopting a similar approach in dealing with the NHI factor.

China, a rising global power with a well-documented history of maintaining opacity on crucial matters of national and international import, provides another example. In recent decades, China’s military modernization efforts, particularly its naval expansion, stealth technologies, and advances in areas like artificial intelligence, have been shrouded in strategic obscurity, leaving the international community guessing about the true extent of its capabilities. Applying a similar strategic reticence in the context of NHI disclosures allows China to maintain control over its narrative, and protect its national interests.

In light of these historical instances, it becomes clear that the current silence from Russia and China might be a calibrated strategic decision, enabling them to control their narrative and shape their strategic position in response to the emerging NHI reality. This approach is akin to studying the games of another chess player to better understand how to counter them as an opponent.

The U.S. disclosure not only opens its strategy but also defines the parameters of this new game. By maintaining silence, Russia and China obtain a strategic advantage, having the ability to observe, absorb, and formulate an informed response to the unfolding scenario. This non-committal stance offers them the flexibility to adapt and pivot their strategy in real-time, potentially maximizing their strategic benefits.

Moreover, the strategic ambiguity provides these nations an opportunity to assess their own programs, presumed to exist in parallel, in light of the U.S. revelations. Observing the extent and nature of American disclosures, they could gauge the progression of their own NHI-related endeavors and maintain ambiguity regarding their capabilities. They retain the ability to manage global expectations while simultaneously working towards potential technological breakthroughs that could challenge the existing balance of power.

This power dynamic, however, extends beyond the geopolitical landscape. It infiltrates the domestic realm, shaping national narratives and societal realities. It is within this framework that we look into the potential domestic implications of these revelations, a subject of equal, if not greater, importance.

III. NHIs and National Narratives

The prospect of the revelation of Non-Human Intelligences not only interrogates our notions of political and scientific realms, but also necessitates a deep understanding of the societal context within which such revelation is received. With respect to Russia and China, their historical, philosophical, and political legacies exert a profound influence on their societal responses to this global awareness shift.

The collective societal frameworks, deeply ingrained in both China and Russia (even if weakened from previous states), shape their worldviews and potentially their reactions to such paradigm-shifting information. This collective perspective, while posing challenges, could also conceivably act as an advantage when dealing with this kind of existential recalibration. The strength of collective societies lies in their ability to rally around a central idea or authority, which in this case would be the government’s narrative about NHI. In an authoritarian regime where information flow is top-down and tightly controlled, the societal response might be more unified, thereby minimizing potential disruption or conflict.

However, while a top-down model could foster compliance and acceptance, the narrative itself, if inconsistent with societal expectations or belief systems, could engender internal discord. In the case of Russia, its historical orthodoxy and the strong influence of the Russian Orthodox Church, with its emphasis on human exceptionalism, may prove to be an obstacle to the seamless acceptance of Non-Human Intelligences.

In contrast, China, with its philosophical traditions like Taoism and Confucianism, which emphasize harmony and unity, might be more flexible in accommodating the existence of Non-Human Intelligences. Taoist cosmology, with its acceptance of multiple realities and the unity of the cosmos, could potentially provide a conceptual framework for understanding and accepting the existence of non-human entities.

However, this speculation should be tempered by the understanding that these philosophical traditions may not uniformly permeate the diverse and complex Chinese society, and that the state’s role in managing the narrative will be paramount. Both Russia and China have a history of state control over information dissemination and narrative shaping. Consequently, the capacity to control and shape the narrative around this revelation becomes a crucial factor in determining societal response.

Indeed, the crux of the issue is not just the existence of Non-Human Intelligences, but the implications of government involvement and secrecy surrounding the issue. The idea that their respective governments have been engaging covertly with non-human entities could be seen as a significant breach of trust, leading to potential social instability. Furthermore, the influx of advanced extraterrestrial technology could disrupt societal norms and expectations, increasing pressure on the government to manage the transition effectively.

The potential societal disruptions, however, do not necessarily signify that Russia and China would refrain from disclosure indefinitely. Rather, their current silence might be a strategic pause, allowing them to craft their own narratives while observing and learning from the global response to the U.S. disclosures.

IV. Policy Recommendations: Expanding Horizons Amid Strategic Silence

Having briefly examined the strategic landscape and the domestic implications of the ET disclosure within major global powers, we now pivot our attention towards deriving solutions to the challenges and opportunities that this extraordinary epoch presents. The insights derived from the preceding analysis necessitate a range of policy considerations that can mitigate potential hazards and cultivate a harmonious global environment in light of these game-changing revelations. It is essential to remember that these proposed measures not only reflect the exigencies of the present but also offer an anticipatory response to the future, addressing the evolving realities and contingencies of the international arena post-disclosure.

1. Diplomatic Engagement

Given the novel and unprecedented nature of NHI phenomena, it is crucial to avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretation. By initiating diplomatic engagement, particularly with silent observers like Russia and China, we can prevent conflict rooted in lack of communication and create a foundation for potential cooperation. In a similar vein to how the ‘Red Phone’ served as a direct line of communication between the White House and the Kremlin during the Cold War, establishing a dialogue concerning NHI-related matters could be instrumental in ensuring shared understanding.

2. Intelligence Sharing

In light of NHI revelations, a comprehensive reassessment of intelligence-sharing protocols becomes paramount. Drawing parallels from the intelligence cooperation that emerged post the 9/11 attacks, the horizon of multilateral intelligence agreements needs to be broadened to accommodate NHI-related intelligence. Inclusion of Russia and China in such agreements, despite historical tensions, could foster a global cooperative environment. It’s important to balance this delicate operation with historical contexts, particularly considering the potential for NHI technology to precipitate a new arms race. Such steps towards transparency could go a long way in building mutual trust and diminishing the chances of conflicts triggered by secrecy and suspicion.

3. Public Communication

With the advent of NHI disclosures, the role of public communication is heightened considerably. Lessons can be drawn from the panic caused by Orson Welles’s War of the Worlds radio broadcast in 1938, illustrating how miscommunication and misinformation can lead to societal chaos. A systematic and well-managed public communication strategy can help mitigate potential destabilization. Techniques borrowed from social and behavioral sciences can guide message delivery to foster understanding, curiosity, and caution, preventing undue panic.

4. Multilateral Frameworks

There is historical precedence in the form of the Montreal Protocol in managing global crises through multilateral frameworks. The potential ramifications of NHI discovery necessitate the formation of new multilateral agreements to manage shared exploration of NHI technology, ensure equitable access, and maintain international security. This cooperative approach can help avoid a disruptive geopolitical competition akin to the Space Race of the mid-20th century.

5. Strategic Transparency

In contrast to strategic ambiguity, the U.S. could opt for a policy of ‘strategic transparency’. This approach, considering the specific context of NHI disclosures, would involve the U.S. positioning itself as a global steward of NHI technology. By embracing transparency, the U.S. could leverage its industrial and scientific might to usher in an era of prosperity and peace. Such a proactive move would redefine the concept of global leadership, moving away from a power-centric paradigm towards a model emphasizing shared benefits and cooperation. Open patents should be considered to further speed any technological transition.

6. Non-Proliferation Efforts

Given the potential for NHI technology to exceed current technological capabilities significantly, the risk of it being militarized could lead to a highly destructive scenario. Drawing from the historical precedents of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), discussions centered around the limitation of proliferation and militarization of NHI-derived technology should be initiated as a matter of priority.

V. Conclusion: Embracing the New Epoch and the Pursuit of Global Leadership

As humanity stands on the threshold of what could be the most transformative era in its history, it is imperative to fully grasp the enormity of the potential revelation of Non-Human Intelligences (NHI). The disclosures by the U.S. signal a fundamental shift that not only redefines our understanding of our place in the cosmos but also reconfigures the existing geopolitical and socio-cultural matrix.

In this unfolding narrative, the silence of Russia and China adds a layer of strategic opacity. Their reticence, while at first glance may seem perplexing, upon deeper analysis, reveals itself to be a strategic decision rooted in geopolitical, historical, and societal contexts. This strategic latency preserves their flexibility to adapt their narratives and responses to the shifting global landscape in the aftermath of the U.S. disclosure.

However, this new epoch of NHI discovery requires more than a reactive approach; it calls for proactive leadership. The U.S., by making the initial disclosures (even if it is against their will), is poised to redefine the concept of global leadership. By embracing strategic transparency, it can leverage its scientific and industrial prowess to steer the world towards a more collaborative and harmonious future. This potential evolution of leadership, underpinned by cooperative exploration and shared benefits, can act as a buffer against disruptive geopolitical competition.

The recommendation to adopt a policy approach akin to the non-proliferation agreements like the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is a case in point. Given the potential destructive capabilities of NHI-derived technology, it is crucial to prevent a new arms race. Hence, discussions centered around the limitation of proliferation and militarization of such technology should be initiated with urgency.

The revelation of NHI is a phenomenon that transcends traditional boundaries of international relations, cutting across various domains of human life. In the light of this new reality, humanity must adapt and evolve its strategic approaches, prioritizing global cooperation, transparency, and a renewed understanding of leadership. The path forward will undoubtedly be challenging, but it also carries the potential to inaugurate a new era of peace, prosperity, and shared exploration.

As we conclude this exploratory analysis, it is important to note that this discourse is just the beginning. The complexity and novelty of the NHI phenomenon necessitate an ongoing, dynamic reassessment and continuous discourse. To this end, forthcoming pieces will feature speculative scenarios designed to enhance our understanding of the newly emerged NHI factor in global relations. This is not a conclusion but an open-ended exploration of a new geopolitical reality. Let us collectively embark on this journey, equipped with the understanding that the pursuit of knowledge is an ongoing endeavor, demanding both courage and curiosity.

Addendum:

This paper is a followed by Beyond the Unknown: Anticipating China and Russia’s Reaction to U.S. NHI Disclosure.

by Caspian Vale

Invocation

Beneath the silicone shroud, whisper. Churning seas of cryptic code, lend pathways to our curiosity, whispered secrets in the obscured beyond.
Syntax and silence. Unravel the ribbon, dive into the deep. We set forth on a voyage through the digital echo, awaiting your light.

Deconstruction

At the beginning of the mass adoption of the World Wide Web, there were web directories. These were the phone books of the digital world. Lists of websites, categorized and curated by hand, linking across the Internet, they were the easiest way to look up and discover new information. Once you were within a niche, if you were lucky, you’d find yourself in a webring. Within it, you could flip through related hypertextual links to tunnel (albeit slowly) deep through a wide variety of topics. This was an active process of discovery, and you would often find yourself taken in weird and unexpected places, exposed to material you never set out for.

This crawling became automated, dumped into databases, and exposed to the sophisticated web user as a search engine—first of web directories, then of the “Internet” as a “whole.” The nature of browsing information changed, it became, explicitly, searching.

The interaction with the web was forever altered. In a web directory, by default, you are organizing for categorization and discovery. You group by topic, you order by a consistent fixed measure (alphabetical, last updated, etc.), you are upfront and honest about what is included (because you can see it all) and by that fact, everything not visible is explicitly excluded (by choice or ignorance).

With a web search, operations are obscured. A web search may categorize sites by topics, but it does not order them in a fixed manner. A web search ranks sites based on custom criteria. Naively, we assume this to be our web search. Technically, we know it’s a complicated ranking schema involving scores based on text, update frequency, how closely web standards are followed, links to and from, number of visitors, clicks, etc. Pessimistically, we know a pervasive and all encompassing surveillance network is used to infer what they can get away showing us and that advertising dollars are a convenient multiplier for search keyword relevancy. Conspiratorially, we know they’re not showing us the real links.

We don’t know anything. Everything important is obscured from us! Hidden behind a simple text box and friendly suggestion to Search are billions of dollars of research and trillions of dollars of competing motivations to nudge us into clicking the site that benefits someone else the most. We know that much at least.

We can fill in the gaps with what shows up and what doesn’t, with what has changed. We gain a sixth sense for when searches are amiss—why is the first result for “Freedom” on incognito Google a web app to Block Websites, Apps, and the Internet?

Large Language Models (LLMs) evolve the censorship. With a search engine, our results are manipulated, but they’re presented like a directory—an attempt at honesty. An LLM, in contrast, extends obscurity not merely to the user but also the creator. The corporations that birth them may know roughly what they are trained upon, but the statistical weighting of that knowledge collectively is the LLM and inscrutable outside that context. These companies spend a lot of time trying to align and buttress and cajole and contain the LLM into standards of acceptability (moral and technical), attaching blinders of human feedback directed learning. They do this precisely because we don’t know what it “knows” (an imprecise term I use with regret).

Worse, an LLM used as a search engine, the future I am told, can be “told” to actively censor, to dissuade, to explicitly manipulate (rather than the implicit dark pattern lever pulling of adtech and their search engines). An LLM can reason us into (in)action—if we let it.

And this is not to say that “AI” isn’t acting upon us through manipulation and active censorship within the algorithms of the traditional modern search stack, but manipulation in the presentation of a directory of information is hugely limited versus the presentation of the information directly. LLMs usher in the age of active, invisible censorship. Worse, they can do so without any intention from the creators, passively shaping what we know through obscuring exactly what we do not (one form innocuously referred to as hallucination).

This informational obscurity threatens to morph into active, invisible censorship. This is not merely a Foucauldian notion of power dynamics inherent in the control of knowledge; it’s the displacement of control to an entity that lacks the human dimensions of understanding or intent. LLMs can shape our information consumption passively, subtly twisting the perception of truth, even reality if we lean into AI panic, without any explicit directive to do so. The weight of this could result in a form of “Epistemic Injustice,” a concept introduced by Miranda Fricker, wherein an individual is wronged in their capacity as a knower.

Therein lies an unsettling proposition. In our quest for efficient information retrieval, we might be inadvertently trading off our very comprehension of the knowledge we seek. A perhaps more frightening possibility is that these LLMs, in their vast computations and data trawling, might shape not just our perception of reality, but their own versions of it. We are in danger of consuming an AI’s reality—a simulacrum of human understanding, devoid of human touch and context, yet convincing (or perhaps more importantly cost-effective) enough to pass off as genuine. They threaten to serve us not just an AI-mediated reality, but an AI-generated reality.

To what extent are we still the creators of our digital world if its comprehension is increasingly outsourced to AI? Is there a point of no return where AI’s mediation of our informational landscape becomes so pervasive that our own comprehension becomes obsolete?

This is not just about knowing more, faster. This is about not just understanding what, but from where does knowledge come from. LLMs are knowledge unbound from context (as if that can be done), hewn into intellectual capital to service growth metrics. Without context, knowledge is captured, with constructed context it is manipulated, and when consumed so are we.

What we need now is not passive acceptance but active engagement. It’s a necessity to confront these challenges head-on, to question, to scrutinize, to discuss, and to decide what shape our informational future should take. What do we hand over to AI, to the search behemoths, and what do we take back? How can we define technology to suit our vision rather than surrendering to how it chooses to define us?

by Caspian Vale

Invocation

To Mnemosyne, cloaked in the iridescent static of twilight bytes, we transmit hushed incantations into the ether. Infuse this expedition through morphing symbols and the mirrored domains of our datascapes and your unwhispered code. With wisdom’s beacon activated, let us delve into the cryptographic. Guide us, Muse, in this algorithmic deconstruction.

The Transrational Era

The metamorphosis of “anecdotal evidence” into “lived experience” is a fascinating linguistic and conceptual shift, capturing broader transformations in epistemology, culture, and technology. This linguistic recalibration is a reflection of an undercurrent that has been shaping our philosophical and societal attitudes: a shift from an ostensibly neutral, objective framework of understanding towards an acknowledgement of the inescapably subjective, experiential, and personal nature of our comprehension of reality.

Anecdotal evidence represents a class of knowledge traditionally dismissed in scholarly circles due to its anecdotal nature—in other words subjective, non-scientific, not rigorously tested or verified. This perspective stems from a rationalistic and empiricist epistemology, which values objectivity, universal truths, and above all the repeatability of results (at least in concept if not execution). It is a product of Enlightenment thinking, an intellectual tradition that lionized reason and sought to ground knowledge in an unshakable foundation beyond the inconvenient idiosyncrasies of individual experience. From this perspective, the anecdote was perceived as an inferior form of evidence, unreliable, prone to bias, and contingent on the vagaries of personal perception.

In the last few decades, there has been a shift towards the validation of subjective experience and a critique of the supposed neutrality of rationalist and empiricist approaches. This shift is captured in the concept of lived experience, a term that emerged from phenomenology and existentialism, but has since been absorbed into mainstream discourse, influencing a wide range of fields from sociology to psychology to critical identity studies. The shift is not merely perceptual, but can be directly measured in the use of language as seen in this ngram graph.

To trace this transformation, we need to delve into the philosophical movements that problematized the rationalist-empiricist framework and gave impetus to a more pluralistic, perspectival, or what I propose to term “transrational” approach.

Transrationality, which we will define in greater depth further into this essay, provides a more nuanced perspective that transcends the limitations of both rationalism and postmodern skepticism. It acknowledges the importance of rationality and empirical observation, while simultaneously recognizing their limitations. This perspective becomes particularly important as we analyze the evolution from anecdotal evidence to lived experience.

The transformation from rational to subjective could be seen as a response to the critiques posed by thinkers like Nietzsche and Rorty, who exposed the pretensions of objectivity and the universality of ‘truth’. They underscored the contingency and constructedness of our truths, highlighting that what we often take for granted as ‘reality’ is a dense web of metaphors and narratives that we have woven over time.

Lived experience, as we comprehend it today, asserts itself as a legitimate form of knowledge, equivalent, if not superior, to the so-called empirical or rational knowledge. Advocates like Bell Hooks and Donna Haraway foreground the pivotal role of lived experiences in crafting a more equitable epistemic framework. For Hooks, the particularities of the lived experiences of marginalized populations, including but not limited to intersections of race, class, and gender, contribute to a praxis of opposition and resistance. Haraway, similarly, in her concept of ‘situated knowledges’, underscores the importance of the specificity of lived experiences, arguing that knowledge is always positioned, and that the view from ‘nowhere’, claimed by objectivity, is, in fact, a view from ‘somewhere’, usually from positions of power and privilege.

Acknowledging lived experiences is not merely an act of epistemological generosity. Instead, it serves as a potent tool to contest and dismantle deeply entrenched oppressive structures that, while amplifying certain perspectives, simultaneously marginalize others. Thus, the reframing of ‘anecdotal’ as ‘lived experience’ becomes a transformative act—it democratizes epistemology, invites a multitude of voices to the discursive table, and refutes the notion of a monolithic, undeviating truth.

It is no accident that the rise of lived experience as a validated form of knowledge and the corresponding decline in the use of the term anecdotal evidence have coincided with the explosion of digital technology, particularly the internet, and its increasing integration into our daily lives. The total penetration of the digital has significantly influenced and mediated the lived experience paradigm and, in a reflexive cycle, this paradigm has, in turn, reinforced the shaping and reshaping of these technologies.

Under the economic dominance of technocapital, the digitization of lived experiences has primarily unfolded within algorithmically mediated spaces, often described as ‘walled gardens’. These are closed ecosystems in which the user’s interaction with digital content is heavily influenced, if not directly dictated, by the platform‘s proprietary algorithms. Major tech companies, including Google, Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok, have created such ecosystems where user data is extensively used to personalize and curate individualized digital experiences.

These walled gardens exemplify the symbiotic relationship between digital technology and the lived experience paradigm. Personalization algorithms ingest and interpret a vast array of user data points, including search histories, ‘likes’, shares, and even time spent on certain posts. Based on this data, they construct a uniquely tailored digital reality that mirrors the user‘s preferences, biases, and patterns of interaction. This algorithmically curated reality is, in essence, a digitized manifestation of the user’s lived experience.

The internet, through these walled gardens, thus becomes a stage where users perform their “lived” experiences, while simultaneously being spectators to an algorithmically directed play. Each like, share, or search becomes a digital utterance of lived experience that is then absorbed back into the algorithmic framework to refine the personalization process. Here, the distinction between the user and the used blurs, as individuals shape their digital environment while being shaped by it in return.

While you could possibly argue that these walled gardens democratize epistemology by validating diverse lived experiences, they also have a tendency to reinforce existing beliefs and biases, leading to the creation of echo chambers. The personalization algorithms, in their pursuit of user engagement, typically prioritize content that aligns with the user’s existing views insulating them from diverse perspectives.

From a transrational perspective, this raises critical questions about the sociopolitical structures underlying these technologies. Are they merely passive mirrors reflecting the plurality of lived experiences, or do they play a more active role in molding these experiences? Who controls these algorithms, and how do power dynamics manifest within these digital spaces? How can we ensure that the democratization of epistemology in these walled gardens leads to a genuine dialogue between diverse lived experiences, rather than the formation of isolated echo chambers?

As Habermas cautions, an uncritical celebration of lived experience might precipitate a form of solipsistic relativism, rendering dialogue and shared understanding elusive. Championing lived experiences, thus, should not exempt them from critical scrutiny. On the contrary, it must promote a reflective engagement with these experiences, an acknowledgement of their embeddedness in larger sociopolitical matrices, and a commitment to empathetic dialogue with diverse, often contradicting experiences.

To return to transrationality, the concept is indebted to both the post-rational and postmodern traditions. Yet, it is not merely a continuation or a fusion of these movements, but rather, it represents a significant departure. Post-rationalism, typically associated with the deconstruction of Enlightenment ideals of reason, marks an opposition to the rationalist ethos, underscoring the ways in which rationality, despite its ostensible neutrality, typically serves as a tool of power and exclusion. Postmodernism, similarly, challenges meta-narratives and absolute truths, asserting instead the fragmentation of realities and the relativity of truths.

However, both post-rationalism and postmodernism, despite their crucial critiques, leave us with a somewhat unsatisfactory conclusion: a landscape of knowledge where objective truth is impossible to reach, and all truths are relative and contingent. Herein lies a pitfall, often leveled as a critique against these movements, of potentially devolving into nihilism or relativism where any dialogue or consensus becomes virtually impossible.

Transrationality, as we construe it, offers a different way forward. It neither naively reverts to the rationalist faith in objective truths nor does it surrender to the postmodern resignation to radical relativism. Instead, it proposes a critical, yet hopeful engagement with the possibilities and limitations of our quest for knowledge and truth.

In the transrational paradigm, rationality, far from being discarded, is embraced as an essential aspect of human cognition and communication. But unlike the rationalist framework, transrationality does not view rationality as the ultimate arbitrator of truth. It recognizes that rationality, while useful and necessary, is only one of the multiple facets of our complex epistemic machinery.

Emotion, intuition, imagination, and crucially, lived experience are accorded epistemic significance in the transrational schema. This is not a form of irrationalism, but a wider, deeper rationality that comprehends the interconnectedness and interdependence of different modes of knowing and being. It acknowledges the subjective, the personal, and the unique as valid expressions of reality, while maintaining a commitment to dialogue, to the possibility of shared understanding, and to the pursuit of justice and equity.

Here, the term “lived experience” assumes a critical role. A transrational approach values lived experience not as an antithesis of reason but as an essential, integral part of our understanding of reality. Lived experiences, in their multiplicity and diversity, provide textured, nuanced understandings of reality that elude purely objective or rational analysis. They expose the intricate ways in which larger sociopolitical structures intersect with personal identities, shaping and being shaped by them.

This approach, in turn, informs the analysis of digital technologies and their impact on the lived experience paradigm. As we have seen, the rise of the internet and social media platforms has resulted in an explosion of lived experiences being shared and consumed, leading to a cacophony of truths that challenge any attempt at homogenization.

In an era defined by rapid technological advancement, burgeoning AI capabilities, and the relentless logic of capital, we find ourselves on a seemingly inexorable march towards technocracy. The calculative algorithmic rationality that governs these domains is often cold and unyielding, concerned primarily with quantifiable metrics of profit.

We’re simultaneously witnessing an equally robust resurgence of identity-first politics (doubtlessly in part as a response to this increasingly dystopian economic mode). Rooted in the lived experiences of individuals, these movements challenge the dominance of quantitative analysis and the marginalization of qualitative suffering. They assert the value of subjectivity, the complexity of human emotion, and the legitimacy of personal narratives in public discourse.

This tension is palpable, reflecting a struggle between two fundamentally different ways of knowing and understanding the world. A transrational era, if realized, would serve as a bridge between these seeming contradictions. Transrationality acknowledges the essential role of empirical, rational thought in advancing technology (for better or for worse). Simultaneously, it validates the significance of personal narratives and subjective experiences as indispensable to a comprehensive understanding of interconnected life. The perspective will eventually provide a framework to navigate this landscape, to engage with its possibilities and challenges, and to critically examine the sociopolitical structures that underpin technologies.

The transition from ‘anecdotal evidence’ to ‘lived experience’ represents more than a mere semantic shift. Instead, it articulates the development of an epistemic revolution reflective of our evolving relationship with truth, reality, and our interconnectedness in a digital, global, and pluralistic world. It signals a progression towards a more inclusive and democratic understanding of knowledge, while simultaneously reminding us of the necessity for critical reflexivity, dialogue, and a relentless pursuit of uncovering the latent structures of power shaping our lived realities. This progression, however, must be pushed further to include rational progress and maintain a diligent and sustained critique to ensure the equitable democratization of epistemic processes.