Difficulty of enforcing ethical standards
from the tough-question dept.
Sharad Bailur writes …I don't see the development in the forseeable future, of a system which is valid the world over, in which ethical standards which everybody agrees should be followed, are enforced. For instance how does one explain the millions of computer viruses floating around in the internet ether? If ethical standards cannot be enforced by some sort of international agreement, they will be followed more as an exception rather than as a rule. Besides, how does one enforce international agreements in the face of competing national sovereignties? We can at best by today's means isolate and blockade certain countries like Libya, Iraq and North Korea. In the face of a nanotech future these measures are surely hopelessly inadequate. How do we deal with this?" Read More for the full post. Sharad Bailur writes "With Foresight doing so much to discuss and promote ethical standards for a nanotech future, I am sure its engineers are constantly being reminded of what their ethics should be. Similarly most engineers do have ethical standards of sorts which they follow, not just in the US but elsewhere in the world as well. There is a computer game called "Win as much as you can" in which it is possible to train any ordinary computer to follow "patterns of behaviour" which encourage cooperation between computers rather than blind action on their part. Even if engineers were to be peculiarly bereft of any ethical sense on presumes that they would behave at least as well as those computers.
However, the problem is not with ethics. It is with its enforcement. I don't see the development in the forseeable future, of a system which is valid the world over, in which ethical standards which everybody agrees should be followed, are enforced. For instance how does one explain the millions of computer viruses floating around in the internet ether?
If ethical standards cannot be enforced by some sort of international agreement, they will be followed more as an exception rather than as a rule. Besides, how does one enforce international agreements in the face of competing national sovereignties? We can at best by today's means isolate and blockade certain countries like Libya, Iraq and North Korea. In the face of a nanotech future these measures are surely hopelessly inadequate. How do we deal with this?"
January 4th, 2001 at 10:35 PM
good questions
Creative vandalism. There's a lot less of it than the uncreative kind. But this type also self-replicates and propagates, so it gets around, and it builds up, so that the databases in virus scan programs, which have to list every virus and variant known, end up pretty big.
Another important part of the answer is poor security. I'm not a hacker, but I find it hard to understand why systems need to be so vulnerable. Some software engineers claim that they know how to make robustly secure systems; see the Foresight fact forum on computer security for discussion of "capability-based systems." It's not a new subject; the original research was done in the '70s and '80s, and most of the systems we use were developed since, but without much attention to security issues. By now, there is a huge installed base of insecure hardware and software, and we bear the cost of viruses and cyber-attacks mostly because it is cheaper (so far) to plug the holes one by one than to start over and replace everything with securely-constructed systems.
Agreements should include provisions for verification, transparency, and investigation on suspicious evidence. Political, economic, and if necessary, military pressure can be brought to bear against states that violate their agreements, or against those who refuse to join a control regime if this should be judged a matter of international security.
These three cases are very different. Libya is subject to relatively mild sanctions which it would like to get rid of. North Korea has been living in mostly self-imposed isolation since the 1950s; it is an economic basket case whose much-hyped missile and nuclear programs are basically for sale to the highest bidder. They've already traded the nuclear program for US aid, and they've offered to sell us their missile program as well, but Clinton has apparently decided against closing the deal.
Iraq has become a prisoner of a stalemated US politics and policy. Its people have been subject to almost genocidal economic sanctions and terroristic bombing by US and British planes for more than a decade. This has had a devastating effect on their health, welfare, and morale, but it has not unseated the dictator Saddam. UN inspections were used as a cover for military spying and as a pretext for prolonging the state of war. This has done incalculable damage to the cause of arms control, and as the inspections have been inoperative for two years there is currently nothing to deter Saddam from preparations for a future rearmament.
These are not simple situations. It is not like we have a legitimate international security regime which is functioning to punish or isolate outlaws. The rogue state doctrine is a unilateral US rhetorical invention, applied unevenly and often stupidly, with mixed motivations and mixed results.
It seems to me that high technology is currently increasing rather than decreasing the military advantage of the US and other advanced nations over the likes of Libya, Iraq or North Korea. The lopsided victories in Kuwait and Kosovo were unprecedented. Many people seem to think nanotech will be a great equalizer, but even if it is in the long run, I think that for several decades at least it will be an amplifier of inequality.
The US is very concerned about "rogues" gaining ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons which would serve as political deterrents to US military action against those states. This is the main strategic motive for the pursuit of national missile defense. But the US military does not need an unreliable NMD in order to defeat a third-world nation with few or no American casualties (they would of course attack any missiles while still on the ground) and it could not have prevented Saddam from killing 10,000s of Americans with CBW if he had wanted to do so in 1991, nor can it prevent other nations from launching overt or covert attacks with such agents in the future. Military power is about deterring and about striking decisively in combat; it's not about mindless mayhem (although there's a lot of that in the heat of battle) or crazy revenge scenarios or making sure that any such scenarios are impossible.
January 5th, 2001 at 12:41 AM
Re:good questions – good answers
Nanoweapons, for some reason, do not bother me as much as current biological weapons. We have exactly the same situation with them, and as yet no actual problem.
Still, as with software, the only answer to the problem of malicious code is a robust system. How many viruses are there on Linux? How many on Microsoft platforms? Are there more viruses on open source or closed source products? My machine will not be infected and has no massive list of viruses simply because its operating system was written with security in mind.
But in any event the "black hats" will do what they do regardless of anyone else's ethical concerns. What is abundantly clear is that trying to prevent nanotech "black hats" creating their warez is basically impossible. The rewards of an unregulated assembler are just too great for malefactors to ignore, and we will not be able to prevent it.
You mention Hussein, who has become far from a stalemated prisoner: He is respected by his people and his neigbours. He has galvanised substantial sectors of the world against the US/UK sanctions, both UN brokered and unilateral. Iraq is now even friends with Iran again, and the anti-US camp are pulling together.
In the same way, any attempts to enforce nanotechnology restrictions will be met with unlikely collaborating alliances. If, say, the US decides it alone is worthy of having nanotech, those countries which disagree will undoubtedly collaborate to produce their own. The rewards outweigh anything that the US can threaten with other than actual obliteration of all the other countries. Embargos don't work now, and won't work in the future.
There is no miracle cure for nanotechnology regulation, no magic specification, no omnipotent regulatory body or benevolent nanny state. Just us and our own responsibilities.
Vik :v)
January 5th, 2001 at 1:10 AM
There is no such thing as Global Ethics.
I'm not much of a fan of Issac Newton, but I do agree with one of his laws – which is whenever there is a reaction of any sort, there is an equal and completely opposite reaction; this is true in EVERYTHING you see in the world today, not just physics. This is going to be true in a Nanotech world too; some people will embrace the technology, others (probably most) will look down upon it and call it the work of the devil. That's just the way the world is; there is a great faction upon this earth right now – intelligent people vs non-intelligent people. Unfortunately, the non-intelligent outnumber the intelligent one-hundred fold, so no matter what happens in the future, we are still going to be surrounded by morons who will continue to make the world the pigstye it is now, unless the non-intelligent people (politicians, world leaders, the uneducated masses etc etc) either become miraculously intelligent or are completely decimated off the face of the earth forever. I actually prefer option #2 on that one, but that's just me.
January 5th, 2001 at 3:53 AM
Both of you have good points
Both of you have good points. A good place to start would be to ask why we fear a bioweapons attack in NY or DC, but not Ottowa. The answer? Because the U.S. (for better or worse) has taken apon itself, the role of global policeman. A role that has been strengthened, not reduced, by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Americans tend to be viewed (rightly or wrongly) as arrogant, over bearing people because of this attitude. It is precisely because of this arrogant foreign policy of our government, that someone may dream of creating a bio-weapon (or nano-weapon) to attack the U.S. with.Perhaps we need to reconsider our attitude towards other countries and other peoples, and end our aggressive, interventionist foreign policy. Then, maybe, the threat of international terrorism towards our country might end. Having lived outside the U.S. since 1991, I feel that I have some experience to back up my comments here.
Another useful avenue of discussion is what exactly to people want to do with biotech and nanotech? I maintain that most people (the white hats) simply want to improve thier lives, bodies, and wealth; and simply have a lot of fun. Perhaps this is what some of the "black hats" want to do as well. It is worth considering that when governments (or any other monopolistic entity) tries to pervent people from improving thier lives, bodies, and wealth; that such people become irritated and frustrated. They then become "black hats", and seek to strike back at governments or other entities that seek to deny them such essential liberties. So, by denying people the right to improve thier lives and bodies, a government or international organization could, unwittingly, create the biotech or nanotech terrorist threat that it really is trying to prevent.
Any discussion about ethics and abuse of technology should start with these points in mind.
January 5th, 2001 at 11:06 AM
Global ethical standards
A bits and pieces response : what I can fill in during the 15 minutes I have left at a cyber cafe.
With regard to international ethical standards and national sovereignty, I suggest you read Geoffery Robertson QC´s recent book "Crimes Against Humanity" where he outlines the growth of global human rights justice, out of the UN declaration of human rights and subsequent war crimes trials, most notably in Kosovo, and even the arrest of dictators such as Pinochet on foreign soil. Although the system is far from perfect, it has been progressing and now seems to be a serious deterrant to nation states that flout a common tenent of human rights law, something that is virtually irrespective of cultural differences. The establishment of the International Criminal Court is – in his mind – an important mechanism to enforce global human rights, as existing UNHR and criminal courts were too partisan due to the selection process of judicial officials. You should note that your government (the American government) has been one of the most relucant governments to sign up to international human rights conventions, and you will have noticed recently that Clinton did sign to the ICC, but I believe that it needs to be ratified by your Senate, which will likely be hostile to it. I recommend reading this book, it is quite an important perspective. However, he is clear to point out that the moment, human rights violations must be carried out by those in positions of power, such as government authorities – it does seem to be concerned with individual acts of irresponsibility (terrorism, for example), but given UN interest in this area, is perhaps something that could come into play in a long time. In any case, my confidence in these processes succeeding is limited, but there have been positive signs in recent times. You do not need to worry about Geoffery towing any sort of political line: he is scatchingly critical of many, and I enjoy his phraseology at times, including "the merry go round in Geneva".
As for global ethics on technology, we do have international conventions on nuclear power (non proliferation treaties), and you will be aware that in Iraqi, UN weapons inspectors were also concerned with biological weapons. It is likely then, that possible threats due to nanotechnology, pharmocology or other sorts of cutting edge genetic or technical "things" will roll under this banner.
January 5th, 2001 at 4:40 PM
Re:good questions – good answers
At least until we invent a system that thinks for itself and then it proceeds to take over the world so that it can police our actions. (Can you say "Collosus: The Forbin Project"?
January 6th, 2001 at 1:15 AM
In case the oil tankers don't pan out
Bioweapons exist today and we are very vulnerable to attacks that could kill a lot of people. But this is not necessarily militarily destabilizing. Nanotechnology-based weapons, not limited to microscopic nanopathogens, have a great potential for destabilization between major powers (those that posess the technology). The issue is discussed here.
It's pretty hard to control hackers when you give everyone personal computers and direct access to their lowest level of programming. Similarly, if universal assemblers are uncontrolled and widely available, you're going to have a lot of people creating dangerous or malicious "warez."
To avoid creating such a situation, nanotech should be made available to consumers only in the form of finished products or safe building blocks ("NanoJava"–btw, how's that going?). That won't make it impossible for anyone to establish an illicit capability, but it will make it much harder. Surveillance, investigation and enforcement, "artificial immune systems" or "active shields," and preparations to respond to serious threats with force, will be still be needed. There is hope that policing will be able to meet the challenge posed by criminal or terroristic activity if its incidence can be kept low enough by limiting the dissemination of enabling technologies.
This is true, thanks to a decade of the US's supremely arrogant "lone superpower" posture, squandering the opportunity to forge strong international security institutions in the post-Cold War era. I don't know who to blame more, Jesse Helms and the far right, or the liberals like Bill Clinton who cowered before them. Well, we're entering a new era now, and it's likely to get a lot worse; the new team actually wants to have enemies.
I agree, unless the restrictions are agreed on by all the world's potential (in the near term) nanotechnology powers, and implemented in an even-handed and effective manner, with very strong verification provisions and enforcement mechanisms under the control of an international authority. If these conditions are met, then I think it will be possible to gain the voluntary acquiescence of almost all governments, and any remaining holdouts can be put on notice that coercive force will be used if necessary. The great danger, though, is that we will try to "go it alone" and end up in confrontation with a nanotechnic "peer competitor" or perhaps an alliance of "anti-US" forces.
We need to be less arrogant and aggressive, but we have an important and unique role to play in the world due to our economic and military power. The world does need policemen. The main problem is when we act as judge and lawmaker. We should not be too eager to intervene, but when we do, it should be under the authority of the UN to enforce established principles of international law. To make this work, US participation and support for international treaties and institutions is crucial.
Would this be the Cyborg/Upload Liberation Front? "Tragedy was narrowly averted when a group of Extropian terrorists were immobilized by utility fog just milliseconds before they planned to release an ALife bomb into the matter compilers at Nairobi International Spaceport. In a statement issued from somewhere in cyberspace, Extropian leader Commando Megamax vowed to continue the fight until all individuals are free to have their brains disassembled and recompiled in Python."
Uh… we'll see.
January 6th, 2001 at 10:14 AM
Re:Global ethical standards
"but I believe that it needs to be ratified by your Senate, which will likely be hostile to it."
Well, the Senate is usually what keeps the country from getting too crazy. The reason being that the senate is split pretty evenly on issues (about 45% liberal, 45% conservative, and 10% classic liberal), so it's hard to get much through unless it's one of those bills with tons of riders on it that people vote for just so that they can get their one, little piece of legislation through. Also, part of the reason is that the Senate has some people in it who realize that the UN doesn't exactly encourage American ideals (have you had a look at the UN's bill of rights equivilant (all 50 some rights) and how it happens to leave out over half the rights US citizens have (this includes full free speech rights, religious rights, gun ownership rights (the UN makes no mention of arms at all), court rights, and the ever important right to any power that is explicitly given to the government by the constitution)).
As I see it, the main problem is that the UN *wants* the US involved. The UN can't do anything unless US forces are there, since other countries just don't have the resources to run UN actions (remember things like the Korean War?). Clinton goes along with the UN, since there has never been a more liberal organization to govern and Bush is going to go along with it because, chances are, he wants more defense spending, and having bad guys to fight makes this possible. Maybe if we get lucky, a libertarian will make it to office, the US will revert to isolationism, and the world might get back to living peacfully. Then again, maybe I'll wake up tomorrow to find pink elephants walking in my front yard.
January 8th, 2001 at 2:57 AM
Ethics are human constructs
The concepts of ethical behaviour and "human rights" are human constructs. They were invented (in part) to have a civilising effect after thousands of years of barbarism and slavery.
Human constructs do not exist independently of human existence and thought. The currently accepted ethical framework that is the product of the last few hundred years was evolved to meet certain problems, some of which no longer apply, and fewer still will apply in the future. Perhaps it is time for a fundamental re-appraisal of those ethical frameworks. Infanticide was a perfectly normal method of birth control and god-appeasement in the Cathaginian empire – their environment largely dictated the development of this. Being a European, I am about to eat a horse burger for lunch. We should be careful of defining moral absolutes. In other words, the fact that moral frameworks are radically different across time and georgraphy should tell you that there is no "right" answer. No, not even the sublime truths of one's own moral code or ethical framework is the summit of human ethical thought, no matter how *right* it seems.
Is murder really morally unacceptable in a nanotech world? From the implications of nanotech which I read here, it would seem that murder is simply the re-arrangement of certain atoms in someone's body into another (non-information-processing) state. If that is so, then a court of law might in the future have to prove that the murder victim was an information-processing entity before the murder took place, that the murderer intended to cause a definite halt to information-processing, etc. Placing arbitrary value (to quote the Preamble to the UN charter :"We the people of the United Nations determined…to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person") on arbitratry patterns of atoms ("people") seems crazy in a nano-world. And if you don't agree, I guarantee you that the computers that will replace us will.
Sleep well…
January 8th, 2001 at 9:29 AM
Re:Global ethical standards
It is possible to enter into a long discussion about the global society, the United Nations, the United States, human rights, and perspectives on how the future world should be organised. Indeed, this is one of the key topics of the age as the world ebbs into a global society, if not in name, then in practical reality by virtue of increasing interdependence between entities around the world.
Nano-technologies have an impact at a global level, in the same manner as nuclear technologies (the scope for damage extends beyond an autonomous region and has impact on the rest of the community). By the time these technologies arrive, the world may be a global co-operative community. It may not involve the United Nations, but will involve international co-operation in some form. The enlightened way forward does not seem to involve states that regress into defensive isolationism, but seems to involve a cooperating community.
The ethical dimensions of nanotechnology can be considered at some abstract level, but at some point, these technologies will exist within the real world as we know it, so it seems that the way the world works is just as important as some kind of abstract consideration of ethics.
btw. The UN declaration of human rights should be something fundamental to humanity. It should be able to exist in tandem with other political contracts.
January 8th, 2001 at 9:43 AM
Re:Ethics are human constructs
I agree with your points. The concept of human rights will perhaps evolve into a right to life as just "human rights" may become outmoded. I do not know how this will work, and perhaps that is why it is a topic that people are thinking about. I follow Peter Singer with some interest, and wish there were greater high profile debate about topics of this form.
Personally, I think human and non human distinctions are pointless. I would rather talk about lifeforms and their right to self determination, whatever kind of construction they are. It is funny how current society is still jumping hurdles about solving issues around gender and sexuality. I have mixed feelings about the future. It seems to me that we go forward in a sort of long dragging sprawl.
January 8th, 2001 at 4:33 PM
human constructs
Still, it was infanticide.
Most Americans don't like horsemeat, presumably because it's unfamiliar. But they have no problem eating cow, pig, or lamb. Some even like deer. You can discuss the morality of meat-eating; I don't have a problem with it, as long as the animals are treated humanely.
Certainly we should be careful, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
Depends on what you mean by "radically." I don't think there has ever been a society within which the murder of one citizen by another has been considered acceptable. Infanticide is a borderline case, which may be why we have chosen to outlaw it (in order to secure the border).
Even your formulation allows there to be a right answer at any given time and place. Is it too outrageous to suggest that there are, in fact, rights and wrongs that we could finally recognize, and that this recognition would endure? Might we not be able to agree that infanticide is wrong, even if the ancient Carthaginians did practice it?
The same could be said of any action. Why bother to build cities or spaceships, then, why bother to live at all? Because we are creatures with reasons to do these things. With respect to us, all arrangements and rearrangements of atoms are not morally equivalent.
Humanity is the only possible unique reference point for the construction of morality; there is no morality in physics. The appeal to "information-processing" is actually pre-Copernican in spirit, looking for some suitable abstraction from what is human which can be claimed as objectively occupying a preferred position in the scheme of creation. It fails because all physical systems can be characterized in terms of "information" and its "processing." The radically post-Copernican view recognizes the lack of any justification for morality other than by reference to human values, but asserts by the same token that humanity does provide a unique, particular reference point, and one that we, as humans, objectively should adhere to.
Oh, I get it… you're joking, right!? And I thought you were serious… fooled again.
January 8th, 2001 at 8:57 PM
Re:human constructs
"Humanity is the only possible unique reference point for the construction of morality; there is no morality in physics."
Agreed, for humans. It is by our nature that the universal ethics of humans arise. Now, being intelligent, we can willfully break these laws, but the laws exist by our nature, and to act against our nature causes bad things to happen. Now, AIs will be in the position to develop their own ethics, since that is their 'unique reference point', as you put it.
As for no morality in physics: well, duh! It's physics. It's not something that is thinking, just the laws of the universe. It is the patterns that arise from stuff happening in the universe based on physical laws that are interesting. After all, we're here because some 'stuff' got together in a pattern that happened to be alive and know that it was alive.
Well, looking it over, it seems we might be agreeing on something, even though probably not on everything. I better post this before I ruin the moment.