Slashdot Mirror
Nanotechnology, US Government, and Secrecy
Glenn Reynolds has written an interesting, albiet a bit speculative, in regards to the role of the US Government in the possible quieting of nanotechnology research. As Gleen points out, there's some good pre-existing guidelines to research as well, from the Foresight Institute.
is that it's not^H^H^H easily noticed. But my bloodstream could NOT be chock full of nanoprobes right now, subtley altering me, possibly even changing my thoughts and what I'm NOT typing right now, without me even NOT realizing it. It could NOT lead to some kind of cognitive dissonance where people are being told one thing but they DON'T believe they heard something completely different.
The future of nanotech is a HAPPPY HAPPY scary world.
Fuck that! I want nanobots in my bloodstream that automatically repair wounds, keep my arteries clean, and generally upkeep my body. Prefereably extending my lifespan to 200 or so years. Which should be long enough to implant my brain in an immortal robotic body that is indistinguishable from human in all the important ways. If the government wants to make Nano-bombs, fine... As Long as I get mine.>:)
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Glenn Reynolds has written an interesting, albiet a bit speculative, in regards to the role of the US Government in the possible quieting of nanotechnology research.
Um, is it just me, or is this sentence missing something, like what exactly was written?
Head down, go to sleep to the rhythm of the war drums...
I think this is how the Borg Collective got started...
Some work, presumably, would move into classified programs,...
Gee there's some earth shaking news. Some stuff is classified. God damn gover'ment must be out to get me again!
Believe nothing -- Buddha
Openness is a competitive tool, but now that the
U.S. is clearly by itself as the worlds only superpower,
its looking at errecting barriers to entry against
competitors aspiring to catch up and surpass. Forget
Europe here, think ahead a generation and look at
India & China. We are talking about technology as
a strategic asset, not just militarily but economically.
And I think it won't be just a nanotech thing.
Amazing how this trend runs counter to movements
(enabled by the internet!) for scientists to be
more open and abondon traditional publishers for
easily accessable electronic publishing!
Nanotech has some great possibilities, but some of the biggest advances are also the biggest problems.
Like he mentioned - nanotech could "cure" old age. What, then, will we do with the rapid population increase? We don't have the resources to handle that many people. Move into space, perhaps. And what happens to our rights when an "old" person decides they now want to grow old and die? Suicide is illegal here, might that not also be? Can you imagine being imprisoned for life if life meant forever?
Also, electronics are succeptible to electromagnetic fields. No MRIs for the people with nanotech running around inside them. And if you stand too close to the microwave or have a cellphone? It's bad enough with a pacemaker. What happens when nanotech is used to compensate for brian deterioration? Lead hats?
Presumably the technology won't ever self-replicate. That would be a nightmare. Imagine the resources it would consume. We would need huge processing power in tiny spaces to prevent deaths from over-replication.
Don't get me wrong. Nanotechnology has some great potential benefits - going where no doctor could safely go, curing terminal diseases, destroying viruses, and much more. But at first, all those advances will come at a pretty high price.
It has been said that science and discovery is neither good nor evil, but scientists have to look at the potential consequences of their actions. Both Einstein and Oppenheimer were opponents of nuclear weapons after they had been created. A few quotes to close:
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
I thought the analogy with 1950s comptuers was interesting, but I think a more appropriate analogy would be 1930s computing -- we're still a long way off.
And did anyone else note that Reynolds of the article didn't cite any sources for these "rumors" of a "nanotechnology clampdown"? Bad journalism + ignorance = hysteria.
Like any other technology, it is not good or evil in and of itself. It just is. What people do with it is either good or evil.
I must admit, there certainly are some scary possibilities with nanotech. Programmable viruses (as mentioned), which could be used to target specific groups or people (program by DNA); imperceptible tracking devices; and any other whacked idea you can come up with.
But there are also some productive possibilities as well. That same DNA programming could be used to detect cancer cells. Or imagine nano-surgical bots, fixing organs without ever having to open up the body again. The possibilities are endless here too.
The point is, the technology is going to go forward anyway. It's not like the U.S. is the only nation on earth researching nanotech. The question is: What do we do with it? Does it remain secret? A potential government monopoly? That would, in my opinion, be worse. The best way to discover the constructive and destructive possibilities of nanotech is to openly explore them; not to let the government say, "Well, that's a potential weapon. No research down that route." As I mentioned before, the same techniques that could allow programmable viruses could also allow DNA-targeted therapies, attacking cancers, bacteria, and (natural) viruses. So what happens then? Does fear trump potential?
That's just what I think. But then again, I don't really know what I'm talking about. I'm just winging it (ten years and counting),
-- If any of the above made sense, I assure it was purely by accident.
"The UN has mentioned that idealy 80% of the world's population would be killed.. "
Umm... citation?
"The Govt" is not footing the bill. The govt does not have any money. What it has is significant control over what is done with tax revenue, and it is at least supposedly accountable to the people whose money it controls and it is at least supposedly committed to implement the will of the people whose money it's spending.
Now granted, reality has diverged a long way from the ideal, at least in the US, but that's no reason to think that the decisions should be wholly theirs. Though no doubt many of them would be happy for us to believe that.
The UN has mentioned that idealy 80% of the world's population would be killed.
Do you have some kind of reference for this statistic or are you just scare-mongering? When you post something far-fetched like that you should include a hyperlink to some corroborating evidence on the web.
From my perspective the entire article by Reynolds was largely hype and scare-mongering. He makes references to rumors and whispers of a military crackdown on nanotech but never mentions where he's getting this stuff from. For all I know, he could have overheard a bunch of tie-dye shirt wearing hippies down at the local coffee-shop/pseudo-intellectual-hangout.
That having been said, I ask is it even possible for the government to suppress something as big as nanotech? A recent issue of Scientific American had a multi-article feature on nanotech and the possible uses. It just seems that this is going to be too big and wide-ranging for even the Pentagon to be able to control. Yeah, he cites some examples in past history of how militaries have tried to suppress "essential" technologies but things are different now. It was easier in "the old days" for the government to control information. With the amount of free-flowing data that we have today I doubt that the government would be able to do a very good job of controlling any exciting new technology. Yes, I understand the important role the Pentagon plays in determining what research gets done. But these people aren't idiots. They realize the best way for the US to gain the lead in nanotech is to just let scientists run for awhile. Maybe in the future they'll try to steer the direction of research. But until I start seeing some evidence of this, I disregard Reynolds and all the rest as revving up the hype machine
GMD
watch this
pronoblem
Why do nanobots have to be metallic and reliant upon the whims of EM?
Virii and bacterium have been doing fine for millions of years without caring about magnetics except where it was an advantage.
Cheese and yogurt, as an example, are produced by the action of special natural nanobots that react and process milk into portable storable food products. Beer and wine, as well.
Nothing says nanobots have to be metallic at all.
GPL Deconstructed
Car manufacturers are researching ways to make cars drive more efficiently (increasing the likelihood of long-term rampant roadkilling sprees) and increase their top speed (maximizing the damage done when one of these murderous machines hits its target).
Did I mention that car ownership is on the rise? Did I ALSO mention that selling cars is a huge industry? I see conspiracies everywhere, trying to promote the pro-car lobbies!
Something must be done. Write your political representatives and notify them that -- along with this newfangled "nanotechnology" thing -- you want the car lobby stopped.
-----------------------
You are what you think.
anything that impedes freedom. pretty straight foreward.
Hoo boy. Even if that was the actual US definition of "evil" and not the PR version, that's not straightforward. Not at all.
That's probably a fairly common impression in the US, though ... and arguably part of why the US is not a good judge of what's "evil" and what ain't.
In fact, even thinking that it's about "good" vs "evil" is such a huge oversimplification that it's worthless ... except for manipulating public opinion, for which it's evidently incredibly effective.
Current US-government research is becoming more heavily funded by the military. The near-term application seems to be sensors for various biological and chemical threats. That makes sense - one tiny nanotechnology unit is useful in that application. There's ongoing interest in a DNA reader, one of the obvious nanotechnology applications. Again, single units, perhaps assembled with a STM, work for that.
Self-replicating nanobots are still a long way off. That's the application that gets everybody excited, but it's hard to do.
It can't be that most of what we claim to be able to do one day is, in fact, impossible, with a good body of theory demonstrating that truth. If we are going to keep getting grants (and, God willing, venture capital someday) we have to keep our buzzword hot.
The government is really interested in what we're doing, but wants us to keep real quiet about it. The government is suppressing us--yeah, that's the ticket. The government is suppressing us. Oops, I wasn't supposed to say that (wink, wink).
Now, how can we get the message out? Who has watched so much Star Trek that they'll believe any damn thing is possible? I've got it!
All it takes is one bozo to put an = where he should have put an == to turn the whole planet into grey goo. I've been programming for nearly two decades now, professionally for a decade. I've followed behind other programmers. I would not trust 99.999% of them (Including myself, by the way) to program nanomachines.
If the level of competency of engineers designing molecular machines is that horrid, then, well, we have nothing to worry about.
Molecular machines that would self-replicate out of control isn't exactly an EASY thing to create. It's not like someone making a machine to snatch CO2 molecules from the air will accidentally insert an extra line of code that will make it turn into something that creates grey goo. You have to set out to make such a machine - and there really is no use to making something that will replicate out of control from elements abundant in the environment.
There are multiple BASIC ways to prevent such a scenario - such as using a trace element in the machine that isn't widely available will make sure that you won't have widespread goo.
The nanotech books Engines of Creation and Unbounding the Future, both available on-line at the Foresight Institute, both discuss this issue in detail.
Runaway machines turning all matter into more machines created by accident are a far remote possibility. Now, ones created maliciously are a bit of a different story.
Disasterbation is a useless mental activity you should try to give up.
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
US definition of evil:
anything that impedes freedom. pretty straight foreward.
Like Ashcroft's campaign to take away the freedom for people to commit suicide in Oregon - that the voters approved, twice?
Like the fact that you don't have the freedom to marry whomever you wish?
Like the fact that in some states, you don't have the freedom to have sex with another adult of the same sex? (even if the laws aren't that enforced)
That in some areas of the country, women don't have the freedom to live in a house in large numbers? (sorority houses are banned in places such as Evansville, IN, because they're defined as a "brothel")
I can go on and on about how many ways the government willingly impedes freedom.
"Freedom" is a buzzword in America that isn't really taken seriously.
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."