Slashdot Mirror
The Law And Nanotechnology
YIAAL writes: "An article in Smalltimes raises the issue of legal implications of nanotechnology in all sorts of areas. Would nanoweapons be treated as chemical or biological weapons, or do they need a new treaty? If you can use nanotechnology to copy anything and then share the "plans" with friends who can use nanotechnology to make copies of their own, is it like Napster for the material world?" The gray goo problem - accidentally releasing a self-replicating device that turns the entire world into copies of itself - is going to be a huge spur for close regulation of nano-devices.
Except that that bacteria puncturing nanotube was DERIVED from a bacterial gene that naturally inhabits the cell membrane, with the checkpoints to prevent autolysis removed artificially. It had 4 billion years of evolution making it an efficient hole puncher, it doesn't self replicate, and it takes a lot of them before its toxic. Basically, for the weight, Cyanide would be a lot better at killing people than your hypothetical human holepunch.
For those of you unfamiliar with Asimov and the Three Laws of Robotics it goes something like this.
:) Another way of controlling these pesky little automotons is through the use of food, if you make them dependant on something they cannot make themselves. This is the tricky part, as in theory they could probably make everything they ever need, or redesign themselves to no longer need the item.
1) A robot shall not through action or inaction allow a human come to harm.
2) A robot shall always obey the orders of a human unless it violates the first law.
3) A robot shall attempt to save itself, unless this violates the first and second laws.
Now, this was developed for robots with positronic brains, much more advanced than your average nano bot is likely to be. But when you take into consideration the complexity of what a nanobot has to do, there must be something controlling them, right? Well, I'm not sure a computer of today could really comprehend the idea of human life, or how its action could affect it.
Going completely offtopic now
But, if a hoarde of nanobots gets out of control, we do have a way of stopping them, an Electro Magnet Pulse wreaks havoc with pretty much every electronic device, and to shield the little buggers would be an act of utter stupidity.
Basically, if a destructive force of nanobots gets released, that can duplicate themselves, is immune to EMP, and is self sufficient. Well, we are quite screwed, you have to rely on the fact that no one in their right mind would design such a doomsday device.
--
Insert Witty Sig Here
When humans shifted from neolithic hunters to agricultural settlers about 10K years ago, civilization had to change, as did laws about land use: Modern notions of property were invented.
When humans shifted from simple agriculture to larger, more complicated cultures that required administration and trade, civilization changed. That's why things like writing, math, governments, and money were invented.
When humans shifted from those cultures to ones we would recognize as 'modern', civilization changed. Something like IP, or Copyright would have made no sense at all in the era before the printing press. And something like modern capitalism would not be able to exist without things we take for granted, like effective transportation and communications systems.
And if (and that's a big 'if' since the 'grey goo' is still science fiction) ever comes to be, guess what? Civilization will radically change to accomodate that shift. Inevitably.
Imagine a world where you could, quite literally, make something out of nothing. A lot of the basic assumptions driving modern capitalism would be violated: No more scarce resources to allocate, since nothing is scarce anymore. Much less power over individuals since (to be brutally honest) the only thing keeping the masses in check under our system is that pesky need for 2000 calories a day.
Honestly, how could IP law be applied? I've copied the gasoline you patented... now what? Will you tell my employer to fire me? Fine, I'll make food from dung. Will you put me in jail? Well, I have 10^6 nanobots in my pocket that will dig me a tunnel in seconds. You'd have to make IP violations a capital offence. Good luck building a stable society on THAT principle, my friend.
My point is that wondering how IP law would deal with the advent of nanotech is roughly like a caveman pondering how the Internet will effect the comings and goings of the herds he follows for hunting: The old way of looking at the world just wont 'stretch' to fit the new technology. This has happened many times before, and it will happen again for as long as we survive.
In some ways you can already see the current paradigm starting to burst at the seams: DMCA, Congress passing laws against cloning (with amusing discussions about souls and cheek cells worthy of medieval thelogians), etc.
It's all going to change. Period.
:Michael
Isn't it tragic that legislation and treaties are needed to control stuff like this? I find it very depressing that "common sense" and "good of the community" are such hard concepts to follow. I know all about the "tragedy of the commons" and understand that it is a reality, but it just seems absurd that an intelligent (maybe that's my mistake?) species can't see that we would make much more progress and be much more comfortable (albeit as a species) if we could cooperate.
What you're asking for is exactly what laws are supposed to be: Cooperation. Agreements about how to behave regarding things that affect the "good of the community."
And it's often good to decide such agreements up front, since different individuals can have very different ideas about what's "good for the community."
- - - -
The real Tetsujin 28 is a giant robot.
In all dead seriousness, I'm not 100% sure it would be, even _with_ nanotechnology. First off, how are you going to gain access to say, iron or oil(for plastics) or carbon? Sure, you can just steal it from someone else by destroying something they own, but I doubt any modern property-owning society is going to let you get away with that. Refine it from the trash you own? Ok, now you have a limited supply of materials from which you must construct _everything_. Sure, you may have one of every atom... But you're still limited by the amount of matter in those. 5 pounds of aluminum cans won't build you a starship, after all. Seawater? Try finding minute traces of gold (or whatever element you desire) in your local seawater when 500 other people have the same idea and have gotten there first. The ground? What happens when you move, and the guys who lived in the house before you 'mined' everything. Plus, what are you going to do with the scrap? Sure, you've just ground down enough mass to extract the material you need to say, build your house using nano-tech. What are you going to do with the excess material (politely referred to as 'slag' in the refining industry)? It's probably poisonous, or carcinogenic, or posesses undesirable qualities of some sort. Anyhow, to get off my negative stint and suggest my own (rather tepid) predictions, I can see conventional notions of property (real and portable) as remaining the same, and heck, even intellectual property remaining in a slightly altered form. I think it's likely that when nano-technological manufacturing is integrated on a personal level, trading information will become more prevalent. Oh, you want a microwave? Well, just download the plans for one from Maytag.com and upload it to your Nano-constructor module. In exchange, Maytag will require a certain amount of refined materials (iron, say) or perhaps some labour on your part (programming, designing ad campaigns, shuffling paper, running the office). Jobs would be more mutable, and you'd work in them until your accumulated salary equaled the cost of the product you purchased. That's not to say the above system doesn't have problems, merely that it's a guesstimate on my part about what _might_ happen. Anyhow, before people blab on about nano-technology instituting some sort of communism and the destruction of property, it pays to look at the problems involved. -Seraph
Darwinian evolution is based on survival of the fittest, driven by a variation in population characteristics generated by mutation. Replication errors are for the most part fatal to an organism, but there's a chance that an error accidentally makes something useful, which gives that organism an advantage, and so it begins to propagate across the population.
The two big advantages that a nanotech devices would have to gain by mutation are:
- The ability to use anything in the surrounding environment for construction rather than specific materials
- Removal of any in-built 'off switch' mechanism.
Both radically increase the fitness of the organism and so are likely to be propagated rapidly.Given that nanotech devices would have to be deployed in large populations to be useful, such effects have to be very carefully considered; the principles of evolution apply to even very simple mathematical representations of living populations.
The obvious quick fix (although still not guaranteed) is not to make the nanotech devices SELF-replicating; only have a 'constructor' build the nanotech devices, without them having autonomous replication. This reduces their effectiveness somewhat, but makes them a little more safe. (Although random faults can still give rise to a self-replicating device, and it only takes a few of them to start an exponential growth).
If nanotechnology were real and we could actually copy things, it would be an apocolypse. There would be no need for any kind of work any more. You want food, say "Let there be food," and there's food.
This if fundamentaly different from Napster, because it reverses the the curse placed on Adam and Eve. With Napster, artists who need the money to buy food don't get it. With nanocopying, there's no need to have money.
But, then again, I'm sure we can all count on corporate greed to obfuscate that obviousness, and we'll all get horribly entangled in weird copypatent laws.
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
Nanotechnology is going to literally destroy everything that humans have valued for the past 10,000 years, whether it be money, status, or religion; All of these things will literally be destroyed overnight.
I find it ironic that people want to place laws and regulations on this technology, even though there is no way that this technology can be controlled once it unleashed to the world. All forms of government will cease to exist because of (self-replicating) Nanotechnology, and this is due to the fact that all governments exist on the foundation of monetary gain; if this variable is taken away, the bulk sitting on what used to be a solid foundation will come crashing down. Of course, there will always be power hungry individuals out there who will try and rebuild the monetary foundation and all the crap that sat upon it, but they will fail miserabley.
Nanotechnology is the next step in Mankind's evolutionary process...but if people aren't willing to change and stop acting like a bunch of Neandarthals, then they deserve to be destroyed by the gray goo.
Would nanoweapons be treated as chemical or biological weapons, or do they need a new treaty?
/. to figure it out? This is just like: If I use this new pen I designed and built myself, is it still copyright infringement if I use it to copy your book? Etc...
Who cares? They are weapons and that's it.
If you can use nanotechnology to copy anything and then share the "plans" with friends who can use nanotechnology to make copies of their own, is it like Napster for the material world?
Well yes. Do you really need to ask
Internet isn't above any law, nanomachines won't either.
Nobox: Only simple products.
All this talk about about IP and scarcity of resources is great, but what about privacy? That scares the hell out of me. Just as they can currently run "random" drug tests, DUI checkpoints, etc, what's going to stop the sniffer and snooper nanites from randomly searching your home/car/body/desk at work?
Won't it be in the best shareholder interest to have little nano-trackers keeping tabs on ALL the company's resources, including human? How would The Law stop this? Why would they really want to if they're using the same tech. to ferret out law-breakers?
Operator, give me the number for 911!
ANYTHING could - and will - be copyrighted. Perhaps some smart dude will copyright gasoline - or food - and, the same way that the burden of proof is currently on software license holders to show a license, you will be forced to "prove" that you refined, or grew, the item in question, instead of "pirating" some nano-goo-created stuff.
Carefree highway, let me slip away on you.
You might be right but is something that is atomically the same as the real thing any less valuable. If I want to have a banana do I really care if it wasn't grown from mother nature? The nano-made one would probably be healthier since it wouldn't need to be sprayed with pesticides.
In other words we won't care.
As for weapons, I can only hope that a people who can have anything they wish for (due to nanotechnology) would have no need for war and would simply live their lives.
With freely copied software, you gain status for having released really cool or seriously functional product into the net. With nano-tech, the same social structures will invade the world of hardware. Mindshare will become important in more than just operating systems. Instead of having to buy our shoes from an established vendor, we'll have OpenSneakers with downloadable skins, and people will be running themeable screensavers on the smart paint in their bathrooms. (Which is cool until your bathroom crashes right before your next big party, and instead of your favorite theme, they get the blue screen of death.)
What this means is that style will continue to increase in importance. Lots of people can make music, but most folks would rather download the music of a professional. If you do it without paying them, the people who make money of the professional music get all cranky. As ease of copying invades the physical realm, there will be an attempt to extend copyright to the design of everything, in order to keep the money flowing to the companies that figured out, say watches or ballpoint pens.
Ultimately, we'll come up with some secure way to do micropayments to the people that generate cool designs, probably right before the old way of doing things collapses completely. And we'll probably have standard libraries full of the designs of everyday things and we'll pay people to make them look different and cool, just like we do today. Fashion will always make money.
Information wants to be $1.98/lb.