Slashdot Mirror
Don't Stymie Nanotech
Anonymous Coward writes "A new paper released by the Pacific Research Institute says that nanotechnology holds benefits for society if not blocked by misguided regulation or outright bans. Already, some prominent individuals (like Bill Joy) have questioned the rationale of continuing nanotech research - PRI's paper explains that nanotech has more benefits than drawbacks, and that bans and heavy regulation are not in society's best interests"
1) Only if in responsible hands.
2) Only if the infamous 'grey goo' problem doesn't become reality. Then we're ALL fucked.
It's like nuclear bombs. We're stepping into unknown territory here, and there is lots of potential for evil. Hell, at first, they weren't even sure if an a-bomb detonation would IGNITE THE ATMOSPHERE, killing us all. Luckily, it didn't-- we dodged a bullet. We may not be so lucky next time.
On the other hand, if you ban it, then (not to be trite or anything, but...) "only criminals will have nanotech." So the terrorists will have nanotech, and the Mafia, but not the legitimate scientists.
Really, it's a lose-lose situation any time you open such a Pandora's box. Either way, you have to worry.
On the bright side, a lot of good can come out of new developments like this too.
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
Perhaps he's just upset because they didn't call it Janotechnology.
The oft-mentioned "grey goo" scenario is fundamentally flawed, because at the base level, this is how all organisms work: we feed and feed as much as our environs let us, and then breed and multiply to fill out our population to as far as our ecosystem supports. Without natural selection, climate changes, predators, or other natural population barriers, any organism (including humans) would become its own "grey goo". The fact that none of God's pantheon of creatures have managed to completely subvert nature and consume the planet should show anyone fearful of nanotech that it's absurd to think a human-created microdevice could do the same.
Most of these bans etc. would probably happen in the US sooner than anywhere else, where there seems to be an abundance of religious fundamentalists that more often than not misunderstand new scientific innovations, such as cloning. You have no idea how many Christians I know that believe cloning is wrong because their interpretation of cloning is comparable to that of what a photocopier does (think Multiplicity).
Of course, not all religious folks are this way, but I presume a large percentage of them are. Furthermore, there are other groups that play an equal role in the problem, such as the human rights activists who are so against stem cell research.
Not that anyone really pays much attention to science in America, but as long as the information about what is going on in Nano-tech is out there I am 100% behind the research. Really the only reason to keep it secret is if you are doing weapons research, and do we really need any more ways to kill each other, I mean nukes already do a damn good job. Science will always go on, leagal or not, because it has to, it is part of human nature, but it's not worth it if it does not benifit mankind.
Most all technologies hold great potential to do good. The reason they're banned is because of paranoid religious zealots. "Its playing god," "It's dangerous," "It'll be misused," wah wah wah.
We should be embracing the future and figuring out how to use new technologies to our advantage. Not avoiding the inevitable (i.e., human cloning, gene therapy, nanotech, biotech, etc). New technologies will come and be used whether we like it or not. Cloning will occur whether we ban it or not. The only question is if we're going to be left in the dark -- in a relative middle ages -- because of our own irrational fear and paranoia.
Some jelly bottles now say "free of genetically modified organisms". That's nice, considering genetically modified organisms aren't necessarily any worse or better than natural ones -- just different. Also, nice to know there might be millions of natural deadly bacteria in it. Sort of like the "all natural" bullshit -- shit is natural, but I wouldn't want to eat it.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
PRI is a fairly libertarian group. Their position papers whould be read with an eye towards their agenda; I'd be curious what might be influencing their analysis. These think tanks should have to pick names that say something about themselves -- if something salls itself the "Justice League" or "PeaceLoveHarmony Council" it tells you nothing about their actually being a front for the veal industry. Truth in advertising?
... and hasn't been quite the same since leaving. We haven't spoken for several years. :(
Disclosure: My half-sister worked for them
Proliferation to the point of ubiquity of cheap, reliable (read: self-replicating & autonomous) nanotech will have a dramatic effect on life on Earth the likes of which we haven't seen since early protists began excreting oxygen. It is impossible to fully realize the ramifications such a change would have, and it is certainly foolish to try to brand it as good or bad.
Bill Joy's now (in)famous article about the terrors of unabated research into nanotech and its siblings is one of the most profound post-WWII articles written, and ranks up there with such brilliant works as Ursula Franklin's Massey Lecture series, "The Real World of Technology." [1],[2]
Unfortunately, Bill made the same mistake as Ursula. Technology cannot and will not be contained. If we all agreed to a worldwide ban on unabated nanotech research, human cloning, or whatever the topic of the day is, there would be someone willing to fund a mad scientist based on a privately owned island[3]. Unfortunately, mad scientists have a bad habit of eventually succeeding.
Curiously, Ray Kurzweil took exactly the anti-cautionary approach in his equally (in)famous article, which actually spawned Bill Joy's. Who is right? Should we proceed enthusiastically to greater and more fantastic worlds than we can imagine, or restrain ourselves from destroying humanity?
The bottom line is that it doesn't matter what we _try_ to do, because someone out there will push forward. We will have nanotech in the most futuristic sense, and we will have human clones, indistinguishable from the originals. When, where, how, and who are irrelevant. It will happen. Be it fugitive criminal scientists working for money and fame, or noble researchers working for the betterment of the race, it will happen. The only thing we can do at this point is ACCEPT, EXPECT, and PLAN. The alternative is to REACT which just doesn't work well.[4]
The very saddest part of this is that it means we should be putting forth the brightest and most creative minds as legislators and policy makers. Seems like an ignoble fate for them.
If this makes no sense to you, then maybe I should quit posting to slashdot after returning from a single malt tasting.
[1]Whew! Don't know when I've had so many capital letters in one sentence!
[2]And I'm not just saying that because he created the One True Text Editor.
[3]It's surprising in this day just how many privately owned islands there are. Just go and check!
[4]I realise this sounds like a stupid slogan on an inspirational poster. Maybe I should write for those guys, despise them as I do.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
You don't read all that much about nanotech in the mainstream press these days, of course, but it's possible that could change. Michael Crichton-- he of Jurassic Park, Timeline, etc.-- is just about to release a new book on the subject, called Prey. And I seem to recall reading something about the movie rights already being sold.
You know a science is entering the mainstream press when Crichton writes a thriller about it. In other words, you can look forward to several dozen articles in about a year's time on Slate with headlines such as "Nanotech - Is It for Real?"
In his very first book, Engines of Creation, available online, Eric Drexler laid out the possible consequences of attempts to suppress nanotech research. See chapter 12 especially.
He describes an ambitious program which will allow nanotech to be developed safely, via active shields to protect the environment and sealed assembler labs to allow safe experimentation.
Of course Drexler was far, far ahead of his time, but his analysis should be a starting point for any consideration of the prospects for nanotech development.
I'm a molecular biologist myself, so as a rule I'm all for nanotechnology. However, the fact that the libertarian nutjob who wrote the PRI article support unfettered research makes me think regulation must be needed. He thinks the constitution guarantees the right to overthrow the government through armed struggle.
So, okay, he (Prof. Reynolds) makes a strong case against prohibition (of course, as a ccientist, I'm easy to persuade that R&D should never be banned outright.) Military secrecy is something I dislike, again, because secrecy is not good for science. Neither of these proposals are being floated in reasonable circles anyway, so this is something of a straw man proposal.
So, why does he oppose even modest regulation? From the paper, as it is academic in nature, it can be difficult to tell what policy he advocates, but I'm pretty sure he favores the lassez-faire option. He makes some arguments about deregulation generally which I regard as pretty vaccuous. Requiring companies to use the best available technology encourages other companies to research it and then force the first company to buy.
Anyway, to answer your question - the reason we'd want to regulate nanotechnology is because it might be dangerous. The thousands and thousands of completely harmless applications of nanotechnology - basically just material science - don't need any special regulation. It is only when the nanotechnology begins to resemble a living organism that the need for regulation comes into play. The fear, and it is remote but still legitimate, is that someone would make tiny robots that would breed out of control and become a social problem.
He points to biotechnology (which is basically unregulated, except in so far as it is also medical) as a big success. It has been - SO FAR. As yet, we have had no environmental catastrophes resultant from biotech, and the medical errors have been fairly small in scope, and would have been prevented if existing laws/procedures had been followed.
However - that doesn't mean that what we're doing is safe. It means, either, that what we've been doing is safe OR that we've been lucky. Personally, I think biotech is "pretty safe," but that agro-biotech (Monsanto, in particular) has too much free reign.
In any case, until we have a better idea of what nanotechnology will actually be like, it is premature to discuss regulation to make sure it is safe. Banning nanotechnology outright would be impossible for the reasons he has mentioned. Banning specifically self replicating nanotechnology, though I think it inadvisable, WOULD be feasable. Regulating self-replicating nanotechnology is probably desirable.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
"Or someone could release a horrible self reproducing nanite plauge that attacks human cells."
Um... if you can do that, you can also program them to attack these malicious nanites. Stuff like that only works if you have a monopoly on the technology.
"I don't think nuclear energy really has any upsides,"
So I'm going off-topic. Bah. I have karma to burn.
1.) incredible amounts of power output per unit mass of reactor. Even including radiation shielding.
2.) no need for an oxydizer. Great for submarines and spacecraft.
3.) Properly functioning reactors don't put out toxins (while just about everything else does). At worst you have "spent" fuel to get rid of, which doesn't accumulate anywhere near as fast as spent fuel in fossil fuel power sources (see point 1), and "spent" just means we don't yet have the technology to get more oomph out of it (if it's still releasing neutrons it's still useful). Why do you think we have so much focus on the "storage" of nuclear waste instead of "disposal?"
4.) The fuel itself may be more dangerous per unit mass, but go back to point 1 again.
All in all, nuclear power is probably less deadly than fossil fuel power. Even ignoring the way fossil fuel plants fund terrorism, you'd have no more black lung, no more exploding oil refineries, no more harsh chemicals put out by refineries, no more airborne carcinogens...
"Look up Operation Plowshare, it was the government's stupid plan to use small nuclear explosions to dig canals."
Let's see... bury nukes deep enough that the explosion (and any and all radioactive fallout) is kept underground. The explosion makes a crater, you connect the dots. Viola. What's so dangerous about that? Heck, if the Indians and Pakistanis can pull off underground nuclear tests with zero released fallout, what makes you think we can't?
"Nanite paint that can remove rust and repair damage."
Screw that, you can make a tank out of nanite paint. Remember the game Total Annihilation?
I'm reminded of "Can-O-Man" from The Tick.
What would a self-replicating nano-machine do if it went out of control?
That scenario is only possible with "free-roaming" nanites. These are the most complex type, and the ones with the most restrictive parameters.
1) They need energy. Their fuel will only last so long. If they use solar energy (some super-chlorophyl), they have to face the next problem:
2) They need appropriate building materials. Most nanites are designed to build a certain thing. This is part of their physical design, and not just some program. Unless that certain thing is simple (carbon fiber) they'll need more than air and dirt to build with. But what if they're programmed to build more nanites and those nanites need only air to build with:
3) They are their own competition. At this stage they're an artificial life form. Bacteria don't overrun the planet because bacteria compete with bacteria. Why go through all the hassle of separating out your needed trace element from the environment, when you can just disassemble that nanite over there? And if these guys might actually be edible to bacteria...
In summary, a free-roaming nanite designed to reproduce indefinitely using any randomly available material is just too complex, with too little economic value, and has too many naturally occuring constraints, to be a worry. It makes cool science fiction, but then again, so did little green men living on Mars.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Save that quote, it will be good fodder for a future list of short-sighted predictions about the future. And while you're at it, check out page 11 of the article, which reads:
"Nanotechnology is likely to permit... artificial "disease" agents that could hide undetected in the bodies of enemy populations or leaders until triggered by external stimuli"
Sounds plausible to me (or at least as plausible as nanotechnology in general).
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
This technology is much closer to fruition than nanotech. In fact, it is practically around the corner.
If electricity is produced by electrons is morality produced by morons?
If you know anything about bacteria, the idea of us designing machines that can outcompete bacteria at the bacterial scale is ridiculous.
If you don't know anything about bacteria, and imagine bacteria sized self assembling little armored tanks with superior memory and AI to bacteria, that can somehow extract energy from their environment faster and more efficiently than bacteria (maybe with little nuclear engines?) the idea makes alot of sense.
And the divide is rather hard to cross unless you've had at least a college level micro-bio course or done equivalent research. (though I would disagree with the 'green' part, the 'grey goo' is already here, and it is inside us, but it more white to transluscent than green:-).
Once nanotechnology is in full force, how long do you think any encryption is going to stand up once we have the ability to make millions of specialized computers in a matter of weeks/days/hours/minutes?
Um. Encrypting something is easier than decrypting something by force. Therefore, no matter how much processing power is availiable to the world at large, encryption will still hold (discounting quantum computers or a solution to the NP complete set of problems).
Once the technology exists to create a computer for each possible combination in a 128-bit key, how long do you think your encryption is really going to hold up? Long enough for six million more computers to be built?
A 128 bit key has 3.4e38 possibilities. That's a lot of computers. Now, 6.022e23 hydrogen atoms make up one gram of mass (1 mole). Therefore there are at most 6.022e26 atoms in a kilogram. The Earth weights 5.972e24 kg. Therefore there is at most 3.6e51 atoms that make up the Earth.
Therefore perhaps the poster could explain to me how you could have the technology to "create a computer for each possible combination"? It might work for a 128-bit key, in theory. But a 256-bit key has 1.15e77 possibilities, which outnumbers the number of atoms in the Earth by billions to one. Even solving 128-bit encryption by having a computer per combination would require a minimum of weight of 565 million tonnes.
This reminds me of the story of the grains of rice and the chessboard, where one grain was put on the first square, two grains on the second, four on the third, and so forth. It quickly gets out of control, and you find that there isn't enough rice in the world to complete the sequence.
I don't want to think of the poster as an idiot, but he does seem like he's trying quite hard to be.
I work in a lab where there is some degree of what I suppose would be called nanotech is performed - and I am continually confused by this "debate" over nanotech. So what exactly is the scale where the "evil things" happen? When I make a device that has features smaller than a micron, do the "evil nanotech" gnomes come out and start infusing it with evil spells?
If people want to debate specific techniques, that's fine, but the huge variety of techniques unfortunately clustered as "nanotech" share only one common thread: they have small, well-controlled features. Is small inherently evil? Should we fear dwarves and chihuahuas? I mean, this is honestly ridiculous. Many of these evil "nanotech" research pursuits are nothing more than attempting to make stronger materials and more efficient solar cells, for example. No one would fear this if you didn't call it nanotech.
On the other hand, if you ban it, then (not to be trite or anything, but...) "only criminals will have nanotech."
Would that be the criminals with multi-billion dollar research AND development laboratories? Right. This is exactly the view shared by the non-tech world, and it shows a lack of understanding of what nanotech IS (no offense). I can't just go to the garage, make some nanotech, and kill someone with it.
People outside (and many in) the scientific community simply have no real idea of what nanotech is. For a few years there, the best way to get a research grant approved was to make sure that the word nanotech was somewhere in there. That was just as dumb as saying "ban nanotech." Banning specific techniques perhaps makes sense, but again, why ban something because it's small? Don't throw out the solar cell with the self-sharpening bullet.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Wrong on both counts. Nanotechnological diseases may or may not behave just like biological ones, depending on how they are designed. And in any case, biological diseases are already capable of discrimination. For example, look at malaria, which people from equatorial regions are more resistant to than others.
Nothing on a biological level separates the White Hats from the Black Hats, so it is simply not
possible to engineer a disease-- biological or otherwise-- that gets them but not us.
That depends. If your goal is genocide, there may be plenty of differences. Different races will have different markers in their DNA (those differing phenotypes have to come from somewhere, don't they?), they may have different diets.
The only hope for such a battle plan is geographic isolation, which, like counting on the direction of the wind in the trenches of the Great War, is no plan at all
Not at all. With a properly nasty nanotech "disease", you would spread it far and wide, infecting both your people and theirs. The agents would be program to remain inert and unnoticed until they received a certain trigger message (transmitted by radio or other means), at which point they would activate, killing or disabling their host. The trick would be that only you know the trigger message. You can then go around at will, killing whole populations using nothing more than a directional radio antenna.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Dear Sadly Misinformed --
If all you are going on is Engines of Creation (or rather, your vague recolection that it wasn't very good) I'd suggest you look into some of Drexler's other work, such as Nanosystems. It's always a bad idea to judge someone by a popularization of their work, even if they wrote it.
-- MarkusQ
The idea makes, in fact, no sense at all
Which was the point I was trying to make, thanks! (I thought "little nuclear reactors" would make it pretty clear I was pointing out the "gray goo" idea ignores the basic problems of energy source and heat dissapation).
But you're right, with folks seriously going off about the dangers of molecule sized diamond tanks, they might not notice the sarcasm tags around the nano-nukes:-)
you're trying to stir up some controversy where there isn't any.
By asking you to explain or expand on your statements? You alluded to some objections you had to Drexler and I asked you for more details. I'd hardly call this "stirring up controversy."
Saying that "Drexler isn't ahead of his time" is not the same thing as saying "everything he has ever done is rubbish". I said the former, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped acting as if I said the latter.
What you said was (and I quote):
You mention Feynman's talk, "There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom"; it seems you've not actually read it though. Feynman explicitly mentions building things at that level, and created a prize for the first people to build particular nanostructures (granted, some reprints of the talk might not include the prize information).
As a matter of fact, I have read it. (There's a copy on the web for anyone who hasn't.) The talk was mostly about something like modern semiconductors and what we currently call MEMS, including the prize you mentioned.
If you read it, you see that Feynman saying things such as (and again, I quote):
Only in a few paragraphs at the end does he mention the possibility of building atomically precise structures, and then only to say that he thinks it might be done.If you fail to understand what I'm saying, you're welcome to ask for a clarification rather than assuming the worst.
That is exactly what I did. You made a number of statements and I quoted your statements verbatim, and asked you for examples, clarification, etc.
Logically, there are only a few possibilities:
- You think that Drexler is wrong, atomically precise machines are not feasible. In which case, my question is, why do you think this?
- You agree that atomically precise machines are feasible, but think that someone else came up with and elaborated the idea first. If so, who?
- You think that Drexler is correct, and original, but has mismanaged the presentation of the idea. If so, I would be tempted to agree, while laying more of the blame on Foresight than on Drexler himself. But if this is your position, it's hard to see why you said what you did about his books, originality. etc. Further, it's hard to see why you'd object so strongly to whoever said he was ahead of his time, since (on the premise that you agree that Drexler-style nanotech will someday be a reality) coming up with an idea that will someday be feasible but isn't yet is practically the definition of being "ahead of your time". Thus my assumption that you must hold one of the first two positions.
-- MarkusQ