Drexler Calms Fears of Runaway Replicators
The IOP journal Nanotechnology has published a paper by Chris Phoenix and Eric Drexler titled "Safe exponential manufacturing" that addresses the fear of out-of-control nano-replicators, and analyzes risks, concerns, progress, misperceptions, and safety guidelines for future molecular nanotechnology (MNT) development.
The Foresight Institute press release:
NEWS RELEASE
Contact: Judy Conner
650.917.1122
Judy@foresight.orgNanotechnology Pioneer Calms Fears of Runaway Replicators
Institute of Physics Publishes Article on Safe Exponential Manufacturing
Palo Alto, CA – June 9, 2004 – The overactive fear of grey goo and out-of-control nano-replicators is scientifically addressed in the paper "Safe Exponential Manufacturing," released today by The Institute of Physics in their journal Nanotechnology. Co-authored by Dr. Eric Drexler, founder of Foresight Institute and author of Nanosystems and Engines of Creation, and Chris Phoenix, Director of Research at the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN), "Safe Exponential Manufacturing" analyzes risks, concerns, progress, misperceptions, and safety guidelines for future molecular nanotechnology (MNT) development.
Updated Molecular Nanotechnology Concepts
Drexler introduced the concepts of nanotechnology through his 1981 article in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences and his 1986 book Engines of Creation. The PNAS article was based on a biological model of molecular machine systems – hence the early focus on self-replication – but the logic of the technology led to the very different, non-biological approach described by Nanosystems in 1992 and in the more recent literature.
"Research and thinking in this area has come a long way since the earlier works," says Drexler. "Molecular machine systems can be thoroughly non-biological, and self replication is not necessary."
In particular, it turns out that developing manufacturing systems that use tiny, self-replicating machines would be needlessly inefficient and complicated. The simpler, more efficient, and more obviously safe approach is to make nanoscale tools and put them together in factories big enough to make what you want. Throughout history, people have used tools to make more and better tools. That's how we got from blacksmiths tools to automated industries. The natural path for nanotechnology is similar.
Since the publication of Nanosystems, the focus for Drexler and his colleagues has been on desktop-scale manufacturing devices. This nano-factory is based on the convergent assembly architecture, developed by Professor Ralph Merkle, where small parts are put together to form larger parts, starting with nanoscale blocks. The machines in this would work like the conveyor belts and assembly robots in a factory, doing similar jobs. If you pulled one out, it would be as inert as a light bulb pulled from its socket. See illustration.
Foresight Institute Guidelines for Molecular Manufacturing
With the fear of runaway replicators now in better perspective, attention on molecular nanotechnology can be directed to more important issues, including how the technology will be used, and by whom. Molecular nanotechnology will introduce a clean, large-scale manufacturing capacity that will impact humanity on a global level. These systems will affect all areas of society including medicine, the environment, national security, space development, economics, intellectual property, and privacy.
"To prepare for the unprecedented power of molecular machine systems, Foresight Institute created the Foresight Guidelines on Molecular Nanotechnology," said Christine Peterson, President and co-founder of Foresight Institute. "Rather than focus on scenarios of runaway replicators, we should anticipate how molecular manufacturing can be used to improve our health and quality of life, restore the environment, and prevent acts of aggression."
About Foresight Institute
Foresight Institute is the leading public interest organization focused on nanotechnology. Formed in 1986 by K. Eric Drexler and Christine Peterson, Foresight provides education, information, and public policy development on the topic of molecular nanotechnology and molecular manufacturing. The organization's goal is to guide emerging technologies to improve the human condition and environment.
About The Institute of Physics
The Institute of Physics is a leading international professional society with over 37,000 members, which promotes the advancement and dissemination of knowledge of and education in the science of physics, pure and applied. It has a world-wide membership and is a major international player in scientific publishing and electronic dissemination of research in physics and nanotechnology.
Pertinent Links and Images
IOP Published paper – Safe Exponential Manufacturing,
http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/0957-4484
Foresight Guidelines for Molecular Manufacturing
http://www.foresight.org/guidelines/current.html
Desktop Nanofactory Images
http://www.foresight.org/NanoRev/nanofactory.html
Professor Ralph Merkle
http://www.merkle.com/
Additional coverage:
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN) press release
IOP press release: Nanotechnology pioneer slays "grey goo" myths
Interview with Drexler: Drexler dubs "grey goo" fears obsolete
BBC coverage: Nanotech guru turns back on 'goo'
OPINION
Safe exponential manufacturing
Chris Phoenix1 and Eric Drexler2
1 Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, Brooklyn, NY 11238, USA
2 Foresight Institute, Los Altos, CA 94022, USAReceived 6 April 2004
Published 9 June 2004Abstract. In 1959, Richard Feynman pointed out that nanometre-scale machines could be built and operated, and that the precision inherent in molecular construction would make it easy to build multiple identical copies. This raised the possibility of exponential manufacturing, in which production systems could rapidly and cheaply increase their productive capacity, which in turn suggested the possibility of destructive runaway self-replication. Early proposals for artificial nanomachinery focused on small self-replicating machines, discussing their potential productivity and their potential destructiveness if abused. In the light of controversy regarding scenarios based on runaway replication (so-called 'grey goo'), a review of current thinking regarding nanotechnology-based manufacturing is in order. Nanotechnology-based fabrication can be thoroughly non-biological and inherently safe: such systems need have no ability to move about, use natural resources, or undergo incremental mutation. Moreover, self-replication is unnecessary: the development and use of highly productive systems of nanomachinery (nanofactories) need not involve the construction of autonomous self-replicating nanomachines.
Accordingly, the construction of anything resembling a dangerous self-replicating nanomachine can and should be prohibited. Although advanced nanotechnologies could (with great difficulty and little incentive) be used to build such devices, other concerns present greater problems. Since weapon systems will be both easier to build and more likely to draw investment, the potential for dangerous systems is best considered in the context of military competition and arms control.
doi:10.1088/0957-4484/15/8/001
URL: http://stacks.iop.org/0957-4484/15/869
PII: S0957-4484(04)78839-X
Note: The abstract contains links that may be used to download the entire paper for free for a period of 30 days (free registration required).
June 10th, 2004 at 11:27 AM
No comfort here
The article states that "avoiding runaway replication will not be a matter of avoiding accidents or mutations, but of avoiding the deliberate construction of something dangerous."
Why is it that I don't find this assertion at all comforting? Is it perhaps because there are terrorists out there who will certainly try to construct soemthing dangerous using whatever tools are at hand?
Fortunately for us all, Drexler's basic approach remains unworkable. Give him another twenty years and he may realize this.
June 10th, 2004 at 6:51 PM
Forget Grey Goo – Evolution will have its way
I once posed a question to Eric Drexler through his wife Chris Peterson, and got a one word answer (via email, 16th May, 2001): ================================================= My question to Eric is: "Taking Darwin's wedge analogy, do you agree that life (in the broadest sense)operates according to the Principle Of Population, which therefore proves that life is (in at least one sense) a zero sum game?" Eric wrote to this: "yes". [Chris Petersons' additional comments]: However, I'd suggest that this not be quoted without a great deal of context. It's a bad idea to spread the meme that life is a zero sum game. But I get the impression you know that! Note that even if life is a zero sum game, it can still be extremely rewarding and fun for the individual concerned! ============================================== I'm happy to say I agree with Chris' additional comments. The Darwin's wedge reference was in relation to an article I sent to both Chris and Eric: http://members.optusnet.com.au/exponentialist/Darw in.htm Related articles are this one on Grey Goo: http://members.optusnet.com.au/exponentialist/Grey Goo.htm and this on Eric's handling of exponential growth / Malthus' Principle Of Population / the future of mankind in space: http://members.optusnet.com.au/exponentialist/Drex ler.htm How is this relevant to Eric's much publicised rejection of the Grey Goo scenario? Well, taking the Darwin's wedge analogy, population is driven by Malthus' Principle Of Population, and an exponentially expanding population in a limited environment (such as an island or a planet) inevitably displaces other populations, which then decline. Grey goo was never really the real problem with nanotechnology. Nanotech-enhanced species (including humans and other mammals, insects or plants via Freitas' various nanomedicines), will inevitably out-compete existing natural species. Together with biotech, genetic engineering, repro-genetic technologies (Refer Lee M Silver), AI (refer Ray Kurzweil), robotics etc etc….all of these will add up to enhanced and new species which will easily out-compete any existing species. Some might regard this as the Unnatural versus the Natural, and will fight against it. Others have accepted it as natural because it's simply evolution at work. I'll repeat a quote from Eric's Engines Of Creation which I believe still holds true even after Eric's supposedly newsworthy rejection of the grey goo scenario: "'Plants' with 'leaves' no more efficient than today's solar cells could out-compete real plants, crowding the biosphere with an inedible foliage. Tough, omnivorous 'bacteria' could out-compete real bacteria: they could spread like blowing pollen, replicate swiftly, and reduce the biosphere to dust in a matter of days. Dangerous replicators could easily be too tough, small, and rapidly spreading to stop – at least if we made no preparation. We have trouble enough controlling viruses and fruit flies." Forget grey goo (except for some entertaining science-fiction stories), it was never really the threat. Our ability as a species to alter the direction of evolution for any and all existing Earth species…this power of ours is only going to increase. The blind watchmaker may not be dead, but he's certainly getting his sight back.
June 10th, 2004 at 11:44 PM
Heeeey!
I posted the same story and it got rejected – what gives?? I feel slighted! :-p
June 12th, 2004 at 4:29 PM
Foolishness
To say that 'runaway' replicating nano-machines isn't very likely is stupid, in my opinion. Why? Because there are people out there, like me, who desire such a scenario to happen. And we will make it happen eventually – it's not a matter of IF, it's a matter of WHEN.
Drexler says that such research should be prohibited – but who, exactly, is going to enforce such a law? The only way I can ever see such a broad scale attempt at keeping everyone in line is if a mind-control chip is implanted in each individual's head, literally stripping them of any free will.
The worst case scenarios of Nanotechnology are coming very soon – and due to the world's current infrastructure, both politically and economically, nothing can prevent them from happening. But, overall, it's all a good a thing. I'd rather see a world inhabited by only a handful of people, instead of 6 billion, anyway – and it looks like I will finally get my wish.
June 12th, 2004 at 5:43 PM
Re:Foolishness
Kadamose, you are entirely off the wall. Seek help now.
But your remarks do serve to expose Drexler and Phoenix as brain-dead.
June 19th, 2004 at 10:35 AM
Re:Foolishness / Not one or the other…
Kadamose, typical net troll, a sad thing to see on such a great forum. You and coward should just be edited out to make room for sensible conversation. Much like the advent of every new thing ever known to mankind, from the bow and arrow to the atomic bomb to anti-matter as a future power source, there is always the crowd that predicts "THIS" invention is our own creation of "our own demise." And yet here we are, still thinking that in some brilliant moment, we are the ones who noticed the thing to end all mankind. It's an old guessing game best resevered for cowards who stay home while new worlds are discovered. The greatest threat to humanity is not some manifestation of nanotech, it's the idiots who fear progress and only see doom and gloom in discovery. Jack
June 20th, 2004 at 12:23 AM
Re:Foolishness / Not one or the other…
Umm, you obviously misunderstand the situation here. I'm a huge supporter of Nanotech and genetic engineering – probably more so than anyone here. I am not one of those who fears progress either – I embrace it and anticipate it. This technology, however, cannot co-exist with today's world because the rapid change it will bring, will require expedited widespread adaption, which won't happen because most people are either too stupid or too stubborn to accept change.
I am merely seeing things the way they are – and, obviously, others do not share this vision.
This particular discussion started due to Drexler's remark on how self replicating Nanotech should be prohibited. But, he did not explain on how such a law would be enforced…and need I remind you, it will only take one person out of us all to 'destroy' most of the human race. With that in mind, I sincerely hope that the person who does turn the world upside down with pure chaos is me – because I find the current world to be both unfair and ugly, and it shouldn't be. The best thing to do is to simply wipe out the problem at the source – and the source is us.
July 13th, 2004 at 12:14 AM
Re:Foolishness / Not one or the other…
Kadamose…. In the end, there is always a solution to every problem, including Self-Assembling MNT and even the crazies like you (Groupie troll, see my website under "Philo" in the middle of the page for more info). http://home.comcast.net/~zeusenergy/philo.htm Don't count on being one of a "lucky few" to remain and definately expect to be singled out as a terrorist in the future should anything actually occur. Don't forget that humanity has been through some bad times in the past which could have "wiped us out". No, I'm not talking about Noah's flood or anything biblical. Instead, man has done himself the favor of destroying himself here and there. If thats what you mean I can understand your point. But to admit that you would push the button yourself, well that's a guilty plea my friend. I wonder how National Security will take your message? I'm sure your IP and therefore location could be found quite easily. If you want a conspiracy, I'm sure you will get it! Maybe then you will cry to some special interest group and become part of a cult after being released from the thorough questioning that will last for weeks. Then your final thoughts will be how horrible the system treated you as you become victim to a new Waco incident. The whole time I will be laughing about it as I keep my sanity and therefore my happiness as you drift towards self-destruction.