Policy Wonk Advocates Government “Control” of NT
from the Keeping-Nanotech-Safe-for-Democracy dept.
A lengthy article in The Washington Monthly ("Downsizing," by N. Thompson, October 2000) makes an interesting case for government involvement and even regulation of nanotechnology development: "Deep government involvement in nanotechnology is more than a practical obligation from a research and national defense perspective. It's close to becoming a moral imperative." After a brief overview of the potential benefits and dangers of nanotechnology, and discussing Bill Joy's call for relinquishment, the article asserts: "There's a gaping hole in Joy's proposed strategy however: It's impossible." Thompson goes on to suggest that the "logical solution is controlled development. The United States needs to push the science forward but we also need . . . to make sure that, as much as possible, the main research bases for this technology develop either on our own soil or with close allies, and we need to support much of the early research so it can be closely tied into government regulation. The most obvious danger would come if the United States falls behind the rest of the world and finds itself unable to control the technology." The article concludes by quoting Ralph Merkle of Zyvex: "If you?ve relinquished it, then you're hosed."
December 15th, 2000 at 9:05 AM
Re: Government Control
I'm glad to see that others agree with my post, from about a month ago, that Governmental control of NT is not only ideal, but possibly necessary. I didn't see any way around it then, and I still don't. Anyone disagree?
December 15th, 2000 at 10:48 PM
Re: Government Control
I hate to tell you this, but the government will NOT be able to control Nanotechnology…even in its infancy stages. Why, you ask? Because it simply does not have enough brainpower to do so – the people in the government lack the proper education as well as a certain perception about the technological world around us.
When Nanotech comes out of the womb, the ONLY people who will be able to 'regulate' it will be its creators – and I GUARANTEE the pathetic United States will NOT be the creator of this technology. That's just alot of wishful thinking from a bunch of arrogant, uneducated bafoons.
December 16th, 2000 at 11:13 AM
Re: Government Control
Yes, I disagree.
I don't know of a single case where governmental involvement or regulation has improved a situation over the case without such regulation. In every case I've seen as examples of purported benefits of such involvement, it has turned out that the benefits were non-existent, or that previous government involvement had worsened the situation beforehand.
If you already believe that tyranny is a good, then control of nanotechnolgoy by tyranny will obviously seem to be a good. I don't believe that the bulk of the planet's population would survive governmental involvement in nanotechnology, if governmental agencies were actually able to prevent it being used by private individuals or organizations.
December 16th, 2000 at 12:33 PM
Nanotechnology should be managed, not controlled
I agree with the posters who feel that nanotechnology cannot be and should not be regulated by the government. Why?
It cannot be regulated by the government because the benefits are simply too great. As soon as governments see the potential benefits, any country that has any research budget at all will poor the money into nanotechnology. We see this happening with Europe and Japan already in response to the United States NNI. Because nanotechnology is small and relatively inexpensive to develop and much of the background information is in public journals, the barriers to scientists in other countries doing research in these areas will be low. I believe that scientists in Germany were able to trump the nanochemistry done with STMs at Cornell within 12 months. So everyone will have these technologies.
Furthermore, we have a very good model for a public forum, "The Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee", commonly known as RAC, that publishes the guidelines that the biotechnology industry has safely operated under for ~25 years. That doesn't mean that there are not accidents from time to time, it does mean that they aren't usually severe and we can clean up and improve the guidelines afterwards. Organizations that receive government funds must follow the guidelines, industry organizations that don't are probably creating a large potential liability for themselves.
As I've commented here; biotechnology is a limited subset of nanotechnology, so applying the principles that have worked in that industry seems reasonable. These are principles of transparent open debate and the development of consensus regarding the safety protocols that are required. It is also worth noting that most of the common problems people fear with nanotechnology can be engineered with biotechnology (e.g. bacteria that consume any and all living material), so the horse is already out of the barn.
It should not be "controlled" or excessively "regulated" because that will drive people who want to develop it underground and eventually off the planet where management or containment becomes even more difficult. If an atmosphere of regulation and control develops around nanotechnology then we will have to prevent people from traveling to countries that allow nanotechnology research (they could re-enter the country carrying blood-borne nano-bombs), eliminate web access to laboratories in those countries (remote design of nanobombs delivered in the mail…) and finally imprison everyone here on Earth (preventing someone from using Titan to manufacture a nanoarmy), sealing the eventual fate of humanity.
Now, at the same time, I would hope that goverments develop prudent policies towards the development of nanotechnology based weapons by rogue states. That would imply that Defense Laboratories might want to work on defensive systems against nanoweapons (heat and radiation work pretty well).
For those interested in this topic, Ben Bova has an interesting discussion regarding what would happen if the Government tried to "control" technologies related to anti-aging in the Chapters 16-21 of his Immortalit y: How Science Is Extending Your Lifespan, and Changing the World book. (Note in my review, that I thought the remainder of the book wasn't very good, but the discussion of why the technologies cannot be regulated is.)
If you really understand what nanotechnology allows (replicating everything in Isreal atom by atom, with both results containing half of the original atoms, enabling you to give it to both the Jews and the Palestinians), then you may begin to understand that the "scarcity mentality" that currently plagues humanity, is not required and you can rethink and develop creative solutions to the problems that currently seem insurmountable.
December 16th, 2000 at 11:54 PM
Re: Government Control
This 'womb' that you claim nanotech will come out of will be that particular place you seem to greatly hope it's not: inside the very-well-funded sanctuary of top-secret government research. There will be, or are, facilities already in place which are pushing the envelop further every day, and the highest-end and most funded of these belongs to government, whether financially or physically.
December 17th, 2000 at 9:18 AM
Re: Government Control
That may be the case – however, there are facilities set up around the entire world. And as I said earlier, the pathetic United States will NOT be the creator of this technology. If by some very improbable chance it does so happen that this pathetic country is the first to create this technology, I, as well as many others, will make sure this country is disposed of like it should be.
Nanotechnology deserves to be available to everyone, not just to a selected few. The world has suffered the tyranny of braindead governments long enough, and now is the time that we break from this terrible cycle. Unfortunately, Nanotech has both the potential to free us and enslave us – hopefully, there are a few of us on this planet which have the brains to use it for freedom and not enslavement.
December 17th, 2000 at 3:54 PM
Re: Government Control
Consider US history and technology. Throughout the history of this 'pathetic' country, this country which itself is almost an embodiment of transhumanism, a tribute to transcending old ideals, the US has grown exponentially. We've been on the cutting edge of Tech in general for as long as we've been in existence, we have unveiled new tech on a continuing basis for hundreds of years. Need I give examples?
Face it, your government-hating is a personal bias that you seem to _need_ in order to fulfill some malignant thought-pattern and disallusioned worldview.
Personally, I don't care for it.
December 17th, 2000 at 5:49 PM
Re: Government Control
Your government 'loving' ideals are filled with bias AND shortsightedness.
Who was it that caused the Cold War? Russia or the US? That's obvious.
Who has started every war in the history of this pathetic country? We have.
Which country CONTINUES to educate it's moronic civilians that CONSUMING is GOOD? WE HAVE.
This country is a contradiction of what it was SUPPOSED to stand for, and since I am not one who particulary likes hypocrisy, it is only natural for me to hate something so evident.
The United States, as it is now, does NOT deserve Nanotechnology because it will only use it to continue to make the same mistakes that it has in the past.
It is my belief that ONLY a TRUE COMMUNIST country can use Nanotechnology efficiently and for the good of everyone. If Communism is out of the question, then Anarchy is the only alternative. (Communism has NEVER existed in this world, by the way, so don't go off saying that China and Cuba are good examples…because they aren't – they are Republics, just like this pathetic country).
The moral of the story is, even if this pathetic country does create the technology first, the outcome will still be the same: Nanotechnology will flip and destroy its creators because they are trying to create it for selfish reasons…instead of creating it to save our world (and ourselves) from utter destruction.
December 17th, 2000 at 6:05 PM
Government Tech
Maybe new tech has been coming out of the US, but only for the last 60 years has it been in control. Before that, sure new tech came a long, but the light buld and eletric generator were about the only amazing things. Everything else was a small accomplishment. Meanwhile, over in Europe, for centuries, different people have been on the bleeding edge. It is only recently that the US has taken over, and for the worse. The US insist on starting wars where there are none (why we are over in the Balkins fighting a virtual war still amazes me and the whole deal with the Middle East is insane, since the US is worried it might have to pay market price for crude oil).
I think that you *do* need to give some examples, and some good ones before the last 60 years (in the last 60 years I agree with you, so no need there).
I also don't trust *any* government with a tech like nanotech (I don't trust them with nuclear energy or genetics, either). I agree with our communist friend here in that a Maxist communism would work, but only because Maxist communism is anarchism without scarcity. So, either way I think it will be better.
No, stop being crazy about the US and face the facts that the US won't always be on top. The UK was on top for a long time, but came down because of exactly the attitude that you have.
December 18th, 2000 at 8:55 AM
Re: Government Control
Surpisingly, you make a good argument for Anarchy.
It would be trite of me to say that communism as a working machine is impossible, perhaps it is, perhaps not, but it is definitely improbable. SO before you come riding in on your white horse called Marxism, and before you show me some good examples of Marxist Communism in action (because otherwise we'd be here waiting, forever), I will take your Horse's legs from under it.
Communism hasn't worked in the past, and it doesn't appear that it will be used in the future.
But I don't think Capitalism has much future either.
I think there will be a new system, a hybrid of all human governments before, with a name which we do not yet know. The US is a similar system, a quasi-hybrid. This is the way we govern ourselves, with an evolutionary model, whether we choose to govern ourselves this way or not, this is the way.
I don't think any of us has any clue, or will ever have any clue, about the future. We have mere vague notions, predictions so obscure they defeat the true focus: detail. And the future is detail, new technology is 'detail', and as such is the one thing we are unable to predict or see. So which country will have control over Nanotech? According to you government doesn't have the power. You're probably right. The United States of America and her citizens will try to develop it as fast as they can though, because there's money in it. So we'll always at least be close to the 'bleeding-edge'.
So instead this new government — I think we'll see the emergence of 'coroporate countries', states, or communities as an increasing trend over time — will be different than any before. I also think these 'corporate countries' will inevitably transcend into cultural origins of their own. Because I believe the flow of culture drives humanity. I think Culture swells to a capacity, then flows outward and reacts with the surroundings, and creates new worlds.
But who knows.
December 18th, 2000 at 9:39 AM
Re: Government Control
That's a nice philosophy – really it is. But I like the idea of Nanotech breaking ALL boundries and getting rid of ALL culture as we know it – to literally break down the walls that our moronic ancestors established so long ago.
Just think of it…no more money, no more war; a world completely united, regardless of race, religion, or sex – A world that is not seperated by a status quo of any sorts. If a world like this existed, the word 'impossible' would literally be non-existant; we would literally become gods.
I would prefer that kind of future than any other to be honest. Just think of all the possibilities…
December 18th, 2000 at 10:49 AM
Re: Government Control
Believe me, I have. But utopian ideals are hard to swallow, and even harder to realize. I agree that it would be nice though.
"getting rid of ALL culture as we know it" .. well this sort of happens every year, if you know what I mean..
"breaking ALL boundries" .. Just as esteemed physicist Brian Greene (author of The Elegant Universe, among others) replied to my question 'what happens after GUT (after we can model reality with physics)', I have to mention that we'll never break through ALL boundaries.. in fact, the more we break through, the more there are to be broken. But this is semantics, and at least you've got a positive outlook. Better than some.
December 18th, 2000 at 12:16 PM
Re: Government Control
The many benefits acheived in the US have not been the result of government but the result of limitations placed upon government ownership and involvement by our Constitution. Keep the government out of NT if you want to see it develop quickly and be exploited well. A NASA like program will kill NT dead in this country.
December 18th, 2000 at 12:21 PM
questions
Are all "the people in the government" so poorly-educated and ignorant of technology? My impression has been that a number of them are quite smart, aware, and well-educated.
Also, how can you "GUARANTEE the pathetic United States will NOT be the creator of this technology" despite the fact that the US remains the world's leader (though not unrivaled) in science, technology and industry?
December 18th, 2000 at 12:22 PM
Re: Government Control
You bet I disagree. If governemnet controls NT then you can effectively expect to never see it in your lifetime. Fundametal R&D should not be the nationalized property of some nation-state. It will no more fly as a government run operation than NASA will effectively get us into space in any meaningful fashion. I can just see the funding battles now. The religious reich will have a field day. I can see rigourous licensing of NT R&D facilities but not full government ownership or control. The licensing body does not have to be governmental either to accomplish its function of promoting as much safety as possible. It is especially problematic to have government control NT when NT is by its very nature the ultimate disruptive technology. As such it is a huge threat to the current way of doing business and to government power especially. It is very sad that in this country that has acheieved so much from restraining government and freeing indviduals that we are now so oblivious that we call for Big Daddy to be in charge every time we get a little nervous. Well, the State will be more than happy to take charge, much to our detriment.
December 18th, 2000 at 12:52 PM
Re:questions
1) Yes, most people in the government are stupid and braindead. Roughly 85% of the government employees do not even know how to program a computer, much less use one. Most of the people in the government come from wealthy, religious families who have no technological backgrounds whatsoever. The only reason why they are in the government to begin with is because of their 'supposed' righteous morals and values. If these people were so smart, like you like to think, considering you are standing up for them, there would be no double taxation without representation and this country would not be as fucked up as it is now. These people are morons, not saints, and they needed to be treated as such.
2) Also, the reason why I guarantee the United States will not be the first to create MNT is because the education system here is way behind the times and is quite inferior to most of the institutions around the world. This is why most Americans find it so hard to find a decent job…it is because they lack mathematics/chemistry/physics/science skills. This is why companies like Microsoft, Intel and Sun try to hire people from foreign countries…because their education is so much more mature than ours. Have you noticed lately that most college teachers in this country are foreign teachers? Does this tell you anything? It does tell me something – it means that if you are an American and wasn't born gentically smart, then you are doomed to be a retard the rest of your life just like the rest of the American population. Granted, there are 'some' smart Americans…but that is because they were born genetically smart – they are were not shaped or taught at all by their environment.
If any country will be the first to develop Naotech first, I would say it would be Sri Lanka. That is where most of the scientists and geneticists are as we speak. Why would they go there of all places? It's because Sri Lanka has NO TIES to ANY country. They don't care about copyright laws, or ANY law which is not made by them. This is what attracts so many scientists there – it's because they are free to do whatever they want.
December 18th, 2000 at 1:26 PM
more questions
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
An interesting notion, but what exactly is a "TRUE COMMUNIST country", and why is it the only kind of country that can use nanotech "efficiently and for the good of everyone"?
Why are other possible forms of society ruled out?
Another interesting hypothesis, but you don't give your reasoning. Other technologies have been created for selfish reasons, yet not destroyed their creators. Why would nanotech be different?
December 18th, 2000 at 2:32 PM
Re:more questions
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
-Umm, don't you know you history?-
An interesting notion, but what exactly is a "TRUE COMMUNIST country", and why is it the only kind of country that can use nanotech "efficiently and for the good of everyone"?
-This is because the people are the government, instead of people 'representing the people' to run a government. Also, in true communism there is NO MONEY SYSTEM which is absolutely necessary in a Nanotech environment.-
Why are other possible forms of society ruled out?
- The other forms are ruled out because they rely on a status quo and money system to run; they are the backbone of these 'other forms of society'; in a Nanotech world, the desires of our pathetic ancestors have NO PLACE in this world.-
Another interesting hypothesis, but you don't give your reasoning. Other technologies have been created for selfish reasons, yet not destroyed their creators. Why would nanotech be different?
-That is because there has never been a technology like Nanotechnology which could virtually change everything overnight. The technology we have today, including the A-Bomb, are nothing more than mere amateur toys compared to MNT. Not only that, but if you were to combine all of the Nuclear warheads and all of the weapons ever made by man, there still would not be enough power to destroy the world. Nanotechnology, however, is much much different, as I am sure you are quite aware of, and not only has the potential to destroy OUR world, but OTHER worlds as well. This is NOT science fiction, and if you believe it is, you shouldn't even be here.
December 18th, 2000 at 2:48 PM
Re: Government Control
I hate to nit-pick. Wait, no I don't!
I don't know of a single case where governmental involvement or regulation has improved a situation over the case without such regulation
I'm thinking early industrial revolution, putting children to work for many hours a day, practical slave labor, food processing and meat handling standards. The Triangle fire – needless deaths caused by no fire exits?
fwiw – I agree that government involvement will be too slow or unwieldy, but you can't believe such sweeping generalizations?
December 18th, 2000 at 2:57 PM
Re:questions
I can't believe you really think this way. No wonder your belief system has been invalidated everywhere but the Phillipines, North Korea and some of our more prestigous government funded schools.
Yes, most people in the government are stupid and braindead. How sad that you believe this, and don't see the good work that public servents do every day. One can hope that when your local fire department arrives to put out your house fire, the turn-out crew won't be stuipid and brain dead. Do you truly believe the vital public services that keep you alive are run by incompenants? Please.
If any country will be the first to develop Naotech first, I would say it would be Sri Lanka. The question is .. why aren't you there?
December 18th, 2000 at 3:05 PM
Re: Government Control
Who was it that caused the Cold War? Russia or the US? That's obvious
No, it's not at all obvious. You can make a case for both sides 'starting' the cold war, but it's more obvious to objective viewers who grabbed more territory after WWII, who killed more of their citzans than Hitler, who viscously stamped out Democracy when it grew . . .
Who has started every war in the history of this pathetic country? We have.
Bzz. Wrong. Just plain wrong on the facts
Don't get me wrong – I respect your right to your own opinion, and will defend to death your right to say it (would you do the same for me and mine?) but such sweeping generalizations don't help your point of view.
December 18th, 2000 at 3:21 PM
Re: Government Control
"All culture"…
Kinda throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't it? If you discard Socratic dialogue because the Greeks were warlike bastards who kept slaves, then might I suggest you will lose more than you will gain. There is a lot of stuff from the past worth keeping. We have the luxury of picking and choosing.
Oh, grow up. It is the sign of an adolescent mind to simply oppose the views of earlier generations wholesale because they gave us entrenched power systems, species mass extinction, the Bee Gees, etc. You can't judge earlier generations by the standards of today, because you run the risk of overlooking all the good that they did.
Let's take war, for example. Bad thing. But try, just for a moment, to put yourself in your grandparents shoes, particularly if they were European. Just imagine what it must have been like to live in the shadow of an honest-to-goodness Evil Empire bent on conquering the world. Imagine what it must have been like to face the possibility that your children may be born into slavery. What would you do? Of course they fought.
And yes, they dropped the atomic bomb in the process. It terrified the hell out of the entire world, and made many even more fearful for their children's safety. But not eveyone supported its deployment or use. You can't look at the worst aspects of a generation and impute those values to the entire culture.
As for moronic, well, it's all relative. The Palaeolithic hunter who invented a new type of arrowhead isn't going to win any Nobel prizes, but man, that's one smart monkeyman.
I don't feel like demolishing that whole "gods" thing again at the moment.
Getting on well with your parents?
December 18th, 2000 at 4:47 PM
Re:questions
Oh please…you know as well as I that most people in this blasted country don't have an IQ above 100. And this reason, alone, should be enough for you, as well as many others, to realize that to be responsible is to be intelligent…which these people clearly are not.
If these people were intelligent, they would be recycling their garbage, they would be using hydrogen based cars instead if petroleum. (yes, the technology has been around for alomst 15 years). Is this the case? No. Instead, people would rather would rather consume all of the world's resources, and continue to reproduce like a bunch of maggots in heat. Do people like this DESERVE Nanotechnology? HELL NO.
The thought processes of the people MUST change before Nanotech comes out of the womb, otherwise we are all doomed, regardless of how intelligent some of us are.
December 18th, 2000 at 8:11 PM
Re: Government Control
"I'm thinking early industrial revolution, putting children to work for many hours a day, practical slave labor, food processing and meat handling standards. The Triangle fire – needless deaths caused by no fire exits?"
The faults of the Industrial Revolution are largely those of the unions. How so? Well, at first they did have to use children to work for cheap, but these kids weren't doing much else at home (certainly not getting much of an education), so they might as well do something. Eventually, though, the technology developed so that people could be largely removed. This didn't happen. The reason is that unions wanted to keep people working, refusing to let people loose their jobs. Today, we could have mass produced items really cheap, but we don't because of unions. Cars would be really cheap if they could be completely produced by robots, but the unions won't allow it. Now, who, do you recall, supported unions. Could it be, oh, the US government? Yes, it was. If they hadn't supported unions, they would have fallen apart and the world would be a better place. Try again.
December 18th, 2000 at 8:14 PM
Ultimate disruptive technology
Actually, that would be the Singularity, at which point the government will absolutely be too slow.
December 18th, 2000 at 8:17 PM
Anyone moderating?
This probably isn't the best place to bring this up, but is anyone even moderating? It's been a while since I've had it, and from the looks of this discussion the moderators either just aren't doing their job or aren't out there at all. I think some of these post deserve to be interesting and insightful (and maybe a few trolls and overrateds, too).
December 18th, 2000 at 9:34 PM
Re:Anyone moderating?
Disclaimer:Above author of previous post might have been under the influence of tetrahydrocannabinol, with extreme amounts of specifically the Delta-9 cannabinoid involved. The said author's posts should be consider highly inaccurate and 'overrated'. That is all.
December 19th, 2000 at 5:32 AM
Recombinant DNA advisory committee
Robert,
Do you (or others) have any good suggestions about where to look for information on the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee? I can (and will) search for more myself but since you work on biology related stuff, I thought I'd ask.
The first page of links I got on Google suggested some serious restructuring a few years back. They also indicate that members were appointed by government, so it's not completely independent of government even if the committee does (did?) a good job of involving others in open discussions. Personally that seems like it might be a workable model, especially if there is recognition that government can't and won't have any kind of absolute control, but still might play a useful role in helping to guide things or support forums, (as you suggest the RAC has been) where issues can be discussed and some consensus may emerge.
December 19th, 2000 at 9:35 AM
Re:questions
Kadamose, you have a very naive and presumptive-elitist worldview that leads me to believe you are a very angry adolescent. I hope that when you grow up, you will learn that others besides yourself have inherent worth, dignity and choice. So far you have denied that most people in the US have either worth or dignity, and you favor taking away their choice as well.
You really have no idea what people "deserve" and luckily you have no power to enforce your beliefs or choices on anyone except yourself. You will suffer some serious disillusionment as you grow up. If you don't–if you continue to view the rest of humanity as merely a stinking mass to be disposed of if possible–then you will rightly be labeled a sociopath.
Patrick
December 19th, 2000 at 11:12 AM
Re:questions
Spoken like a true humanitarian. You must be as blind as the 'fools' to be sticking up for the masses, who, in ignorance, refuse to acknowledge that THEY are destroying our world.
To be honest, I used to be like you…always hoping that there was some sort of light and goodness in our society – but there isn't. People would rather be lead by morons like sheep, instead of taking control of their own lives and doing what is best for them. Is this a sign of intelligence? Is this a sign of free will? Is this freedom? No. Therefore, these people aren't really people at all – instead they are nothing more than walking 'rocks' that shit with no thought processes whatsoever.
December 19th, 2000 at 12:02 PM
Re:Nanotechnology should be managed, not controlle
That would make it a rather special case. Cars are regulated by the government. So are airplanes and boats. Also toys, drugs, foods, chemicals, clothing, houses, nearly all industrial processes and the number of handicapped parking spaces at your local shopping mall. All of this is very offensive to some people, but they haven't been notably effective in electing politicians who would abolish such regulations wholesale.
Are none of the above-listed items beneficial?
The article we are supposed to be discussing points out that the current US nanotech research budget is about equal to the cost of one failed star wars test.
Nanotech may be about making things that are small, but the research effort needed to realize its potential is not small, neither is the price tag.
Is Germany "everyone"? Besides, you are talking about one small experimental advance.
I agree that no one country will enjoy a monopoly on any important nanotech capability, at least not for very long. But most countries will not have an independent capability for many years, if ever. It is most reasonable to expect that the list of countries which will develop the technology first, and become potential competitors, will be limited to those which are either highly developed or are large and have a lot of resources, and which already posess a base of high techology on which to build.
This has been accepted as adequate mainly due to the widely-held view that biotech R&D does not pose the risks that were once feared. We don't expect the sort of accidents that can't just be cleaned up. Perhaps that will turn out to be true of most nanoreplicator research as well. On the other hand, public attitudes toward biotech have been growing more negative, and it may be in the industry's interest for safety standards to be more directly regulated.
In the case of nanotech, the issues go beyond the out-of-control replicator cartoon. As the technology matures, it will become extremely dangerous because of the many things it can be used to do. Biotech can't be used to make homemade nuclear bombs (there are laws regarding the production of pathogenic agents) or tiny spy devices. Nanotech will have a much larger impact on our world than biotech has had to date. But it is possible also that biotech will become important enough to mandate stricter regulation than is currently in effect.
…very limited; in fact, current biotech is a limited subset of biotech, and it is already raising lots of contentious issues.
That argument sounds reasonable, but it ignores an awful lot that is going on now and that is expected to emerge in the future.
That is an interesting conjecture, but it raises the question of why the ecosphere does not contain only a single species feeding on itself. I think the answer is because the conjecture is wrong. But that raises the question of why we would expect nanotech to pose such a danger. I think the answer is that we don't know if it will, but we can imagine that nanotech, because it could be organized in a completely different way using different molecular structures than life, might represent a stronger attractor, in some sense, that would be able to reorganize biomass in a way that living organisms would not be able to digest.
Some of these people already seem not quite to have their feet planted. As for "underground," I think you are talking here about criminal activity.
You mean unregulated research. Yes, that could happen, but I would expect the best labs to be located in the most developed countries, and if a problem developed with some rogue states serving as a haven for mad scientists, there are ways that the issue could be dealt with.
These sound like very cartoonish, unrealistic scenarios.
Is this the only alternative to laissez-faire? I don't think so. We will venture into space as a species, under the authority of governments and under the rule of law, and using a well-regulated technology. Why would you reject such a future?
Yes, but what will we do about the development of nanotechnology-based weapons by states such as the US, Russia, China, India, Europe, Japan, Israel…? If we adopt your wild-frontier vision of the future in space, how will we avoid a runaway arms race and the creation of an unstable confrontation between super-arsenals? What about nanotechnology-based weapons that generate heat and radiation? How will we defend against those?
We can do this today. Set up a reservation in Nevada, sculpt the land, build a few monuments. It would cost the US government a lot less than the current $5 billion/yr. price tag of Camp David – Oslo. Now, which group do you propose should move there? If you think about that for a while, you may begin to understand that technology is not the answer to all the problems that currently plague humanity.
December 19th, 2000 at 1:45 PM
Re:questions
Hmmmm… it appears that further discussion is futile. Have a nice one!
Patrick
December 19th, 2000 at 3:07 PM
Re: Government Control
Now, who, do you recall, supported unions. Could it be, oh, the US government? Yes, it was.
Interesting assertion. Can you provide proof for your comments?
December 19th, 2000 at 3:16 PM
Re:questions
I'll have to agree with Patrick. You're a fun guy to argue with, and I'll bet you are a hoot at parties, but, as my Grampa Johnson might have said "that boy (girl?) ain't right".
December 19th, 2000 at 6:20 PM
Sucker for punishment
I have a subtle blend of both sadism and masochism in my character, so I'll pick up the torch and keep running for a bit…
I agree with Patrick that the phrasing of your statements is indicative of someone in their late teens or early twenties, though with the infantilising effect that most popular culture has had on us for the last few decades, you could be older than me, which would be sad. You may possibly have a difficult relationship with your parents, as you certainly have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to authority figures.
Kadamose, I have no reason to believe that the following theory applies to you, but put it in your percolator and see if it comes out brown…
One of the reasons that adolescents are so angry about authority figures is that they realise that growing up means that Santa Claus doesn't come to visit any more, and that they must fend for themselves in a harsh and hostile world. This leads to feelings of betrayal and anger, as well as a deep-seated desire to find a way to circumvent responsibility. One easy step is to decry all of the effort that previous generations have made to produce a better world for their children by pointing to all the atrocities and mistakes that have been made. This serves as justification to "drop out" and take an ironic stance of noninvolvement, nihilism or just plain pouting.
Nanotechnology is a godsend to just such a viewpoint. It will be a totally transformative technology that will sweep away much that came before it, and its self replicating nature means that most of the entrenched economic structures of today will be rendered impotent. The risk is, some people may believe that it is enough to proclaim loudly that they embrace the coming change, without making an effort to do something constructive to bring it about. It's akin to saying "Ha ha, Mum and Dad can kiss my arse once I win the lottery/make my first big drug score/get pregnant, etc"
Instead of talking about who you can screw with your first universal assembler, which will of course be made freely available to angry antiauthoritarians like you (not!), how about gratefully accepting the good things that have been done on your behalf, learn from the mistakes that previous generations made so that we wouldn't have to, and try to take a more positive role in the wonderful journey that lies ahead.
December 20th, 2000 at 6:44 AM
Re: Government Control
Sure I can. Go open up a history book and look at the time period post Civil War to the year 1900. Presidents (I don't remember which ones, right now) supported union actions against railroads and steel mills, for sure, and those same unions that they supported also worked on conditions in factories (there was some action against factories, too, but I don't remember, at the moment, by which presidents). I know I sound a bit vague, but I don't have a history book at the moment and the Internet is not the best source of accurate history. In a couple of weeks I could report back with more research and specific example down to the day that would offer proof of this.
December 23rd, 2000 at 8:51 AM
Re: Government Control
What generalizations are those? I was speaking of a particular case: what I know. It may be that there are cases where preemptive force has saved lives, saved money, or otherwise improved a situation. My statement, however, was that I didn't know of any such cases.
Here's why I said it that way: whenever I've looked into the circumstances surrounding any particular act of intervention by government, in a case where such intervention could not have been duplicated voluntarily, and where it unarguably improved the situation, it has always turned out that the situation was, in part, caused by government interference in the market. There is never just one cause, so it is usually difficult to sort out the effects of particular causes. It may be that there are cases where government intervention (e.g., preemptive force) was the best way to handle the situation, but given that of all the examples I've researched, not one has turned out that way, my default assumption is now that government never helps any situation.
February 15th, 2001 at 5:40 PM
Re:Recombinant DNA advisory committee
One RAC URL (as of Feb. 15, 2001) is:
http://www4.od.nih.gov/oba/aboutrdagt. htm
another is
http://www4.od.nih.gov/oba/guidelines .ht ml
If for any reason it "disappears" go to your favorite search engine and type "Recombinant DNA Advisory Committe" or "Recombinant DNA and Gene Transfer" (preferably in quotes to get the search engines to treat them as linked keywords).