The concept of evil in the nano age
from the bad-guys-shall-always-be-with-ye dept.
From India, Sharad Bailur writes "Frankly I am quite overwhelmed by what I have been reading these last few days beginning with Ed Regis's book, Nano just a few days ago. I had read the Feynman speech of 1969 [CP: make that 1959] some years ago and it seemed an interesting if far out idea and now this. I have ordered for the original Drexler bible Engines of Creation and expect to get it in another three weeks or so. I am interested in how absolute human evil can be dealt with in the nano age. I have a feeling that this is a problem that could turn out much more difficult than the optimistic assessment of most nano scientists."Read More for the rest of Sharad's post. "Remember, the desire to harm and destroy is not something that one can wish away. And evil can be as intelligent as any one else. I remember seeing an old bag-lady who was easily in late 70s in the Jamaica Plain area of Boston in 1983 being set upon and beaten up by a group of hoodlums "just for kicks". She had little other than her pathetic little plastic bag into which she was collecting rubbish scrounged from various garbage bins. How does one handle the "justforkix" syndrome in the nano age? I am all for the all purpose microwave oven that produces anything including copies of itself . But how do you control a nation that has this capability and refuses to offer it to others? Luxury and comfort are satisfying when you have them; they are more satisfying when others do not. I think these matters need to be discussed and thought out with care.
Sharad Bailur, Mumbai, India
http://members.tripod.com/~sbailur/index.html"
November 20th, 2000 at 6:33 PM
Man is heroic
All of this assumes that man is evil, not heroic. I think that man is heroic, so the issue is not teach man not to be evil, but keeping him from learning to become evil. Today, many governments have found ways to oppress people, either by using force against them, taking away their economic rights, or (like in the US) eating away at their basic natural rights for the 'common good'. People who are evil just for kicks are like that because they have been so disillusioned by the government and by the society that government has produced that they no longer care about it, and step outside it into a place where natural laws no longer apply. Human behavior is economic behavior, and regulating it means that, just like a market, humans will go wrong and won't preform as well as they could.
I'm more worried about what the states of the world might try to do with nanotech than the people. I also worry about religions that might try to 'cleanse' the world of an evil group of people (imagine what would have happened during the Crusades if they had nanotech). People, left alone, will create the best society possible, and thus will use nanotech in a way that is respectful of each other. In any other situation, nanotech is very dangerous because it can be controled by evil institutions, like states.
November 20th, 2000 at 6:52 PM
Re:Man is heroic
All of this assumes that man is evil, not heroic.
I don't think the original poster made such a general assumption. Even if you think of humans as generally good until corrupted, this ignores the fact that there do exist individuals who are basically evil and could put the power afforded them by MNT to great harm.
The existence of evil institutions doesn't in any way make the existence of evil individuals irrelevant.
November 21st, 2000 at 12:32 AM
Re:Man is Bored
Thing is
Youth (15-150) are just bored with life and want to fit in. They will make a circle of friends and act accordingly with them. You tend to find that the worst case senario comes from low income areas and the kids their have learned that the only thing that matters is to have fun at anyones expense. I went through a wild time when I was young and because of that, I know the mindset and why people do the stupid things they do. (if it helps you out, they usually regret these things later in life).
Well, what changed me was my first computer…chat rooms, talking to people with my mindset rather than whomever lived close.
In the (near) future, we will have cheap computers, virtual reality, and everyone will have a alternative to going out and causing havoc. Thing is, people have a destructive nature (a wanting to vent) so with the advent of VR, this will provide a perfect medium for young ones…they will be able to be as violent and destructive without actually getting in trouble. They will be able to hang out with dodgy friends over the net and have no problems with what they do…Tech will allow people to not be so bored…to give them something to do…and therefore allow them to keep the darker side where it belongs…in there mind.
I am not worried about a young hacker programming a nanobot simply because if and when we get to that level of technology, I am sure that there will be plenty of "police" nanobots around also…in the air and in our bodies…and any destructive or renegade bots will be disassembled on sight…
I think this is a important issue though, as we talk about what nanotech can do, we should also be talking about how to stop the bots effectively. It does seem easy enough and perhaps that is why their is little talk about it…Perhaps their should be a FAQ about some of the more common questions (without having to read a book).
November 21st, 2000 at 12:45 AM
Discussion forum?
I think that this is so important that it would be a good idea to start something similar to the arms control discussion still listed in the Features box. It might not work, as the heavy hand of moderation would be needed to stop it getting really ugly.
It's like Neal Stephenson said in The Diamond Age: Once we become capable of doing almost anything, it is what we choose to do that becomes much more important than what we can do. Nanoenthusiasts seem very capable of coming up with interesting uses for new technologies, but a disturbing number don't seem to think enough about doing what is right.
"But morality is relative, what's right for me has nothing to do with you, keep your meat thinking off my download blah blah blah." Poppycock. There may be no moral absolutes, but there are certain tenets, such as "Thou shalt not murder" that few sane people would discard. A lot of the more enthusiastic transhumans need to think about the effect their desires may have on other people. Nanotechnology is not worth any price.
November 21st, 2000 at 3:10 PM
Re:Man is heroic
People, left alone, will create the best society possible, and thus will use nanotech in a way that is respectful of each other. In any other situation, nanotech is very dangerous because it can be controled by evil institutions, like states.
Doesn't this ignore that the institutions you decry – states, religions – are made up of people? People, left alone, have created religions and governments, of varying justice, beauty and quality.
There's more to evil than institutional power.
November 21st, 2000 at 6:39 PM
Nothing really changes
Nanotechnology, like any other technology, is simply a set of tools. They can be used for good or for evil. If you use nanotech to improve your life and those around you, then it is good. If you use it to screw over and/or kill people, then it is evil.
The basis of any morality has to based on the respect of people's lives and individual liberties. I have not read of any desire that the transhumanists have expressed that would explicitly violate this code of morality. Nanotech, like any other technology increases the RANGE of options available to people (like not having to grow old, which sucks anyways). But as long as we stick to the live-and-let-live ethic (which Christians call the golden rule) I don't see any problem.
November 21st, 2000 at 6:44 PM
Nano: The Breaker of Bonds; The Forger of Chains
Preface:
December 21st, 2012 – The first Nano Assembler is constructed, and hell literally breaks out in less than a few hours of its birth. Religions and Governments literally collapse overnight; Two thirds of the world's population is completely decimated and those who survive vow not to repeat the mistake of using the technology for greed ever again. Those who remain alive, study the wonderful gift/horrifying weapon that they created, and literally become gods – they do not become gods because of Nanotech alone; they become gods because they chose to dispose of the animalistic desires of their pathetic ancestors.
Is this Science Fiction? Not at all. The Mayan's predicted the exact date in which human beings would evolve into something that nature could have never accomplished. December 21st, 2012 is the end of the Mayan Calendar: a date in which humans not only evolve, but also is a date when the planet Nibiru (the 10th planet in our Solar System) comes back into orbit between Jupiter and Mars.
It is my belief that after this evolution, mankind will no longer have the desire to fight their worthless wars over sex, greed, and power – and thus, harmony will rule the world; not war.
November 21st, 2000 at 7:52 PM
The ethical principle
I was just reading the Redherring interview with Al Gore, and it reminded of what the guiding priciple should be. Empowering the individual. Nanotech (or any other technology) should be developed as open as possible as to provide the maximum potential for theindividual to take control of and to improve thier lives as they se fit. In an open environment, you have the mazimum wealth-creation effect as well as the widest range of applications avaiable to customers. The internet is an example here. Does anybody think that IT services would have developed as it would if Ma-Bell still existed as a monopoly.
Some of you expressed concerns about post-humans who "up-load" themselves. I've got news for you; we're going to be goo for a long time to come. Biotech as actually being developed faster than nanotech (for this application) and will give us complete control over the ageing process in 20-30 years. Those of you who fear that you're too old to benefit from this, give Alcor a call. They got vitrification available now. For reasons of bio-chemistry and neuro-biology, I don't expect "up-loading" to be an option in the 21st (or 22nd) century. So, this is an irrational fear.
Most people are going to do what I plan to do. They're going to use biotech/nanotech to improve thier bodies and minds, make themselves young again, and get on with creating wealth and partying it up, just as they do today. What's wrong with that?
Someone here said something about the price of nanotech being to great. Well let me tell you what I want. When I lived in LA 10-15 years ago: I used to drive down the highway (with my sunroof and windows open listening to music). Maybe I was going to the beach, night-club, meeting with the VC about my business plan, or whatever; and I used to feel the intense joy of openess, freedom, and the infinite possibilities of being. Guess what? I don't often feel this anymore, and I don't like it, and I think its related to the ageing process. You see, ageing creates a feeling of closed-ness, of finitude, a psychological feeling of claustrophobis.. Its like an itch you can't scatch. You know what? I don't like it, not one bit. And you know what else? There could never be a price too great to get free of it. I want my feeling of openess back and I will do whatever it takes to get it back. Because as far as I'm concerned, everything else is darkness.
Don't ever question the right of the individual to seek openess and freedom.
November 22nd, 2000 at 6:50 AM
Re:Nano: The Breaker of Bonds; The Forger of Chain
What reason do you have to trust the prediction of an extinct civilization?
November 22nd, 2000 at 5:13 PM
Institutions
Institutions may be made up of people, but they don't act on the will of people. Their excessive structure makes it so that no one can make the decision that is really best for them or the organization, only the one that seems best. Occasionally, there are instituions that work, but just like an engine, eventually loose their timing and digress into a evil state. The individual, though, is not forced by an organization to be limited in knowlege; one can learn as much or as little as one chooses before making a decision. Since it is one's best interest to learn as much as possible, that's what people do, unless they have been disillusioned by evil institutions so that they just accept what comes and no longer try to be a master of their own destinies.
Think of it like this: evil organizations are like the Borg or Romulans in Star Trek, where the people often make stupid decisions because their organiztion does not allow them to learn enough (Borgs just walk into danger, Romulans often play the fools). Then consider the Vulcans, who appeal only to themselves and take all the time they need to make the best decision for themsleves and, consequently, the whole. It's not the best metaphor, but maybe that helps to clearify where I'm coming from.