Merkle in Spectrum: preventing nanotech abuse
from the white-hats-must-move-fast dept.
Senior Associate Ralph Merkle has an opinion piece in IEEE Spectrum on preventing nanotech abuse. Excerpt: "Deliberate abuse, the misuse of a technology by some small group or nation to cause great harm, is best prevented by measures based on a clear understanding of that technology. Nanotechnology could, in the future, be used to rapidly identify and block attacks. Distributed surveillance systems could quickly identify arms buildups and offensive weapons deployments, while lighter, stronger, and smarter materials controlled by powerful molecular computers would let us make radically improved versions of existing weapons able to respond to such threats. Replicating manufacturing systems could rapidly churn out the needed defenses in huge quantities. Such systems are best developed by continuing a vigorous R&D program, which provides a clear understanding of the potential threats and countermeasures available."
January 26th, 2001 at 10:00 PM
comment
This article displays Ralph's usual understated humor and careful style, as well as his usual biases. I agree with nearly everything he says, except:
Bill, are you out there? Did you really propose this? If you did, I misunderstood. I thought you merely said that you considered nanotech dangerous enough that you, personally, wouldn't work on it. You suggested also that there were some particular forms or applications of technology that should be relinquished, but I did not think that necessarily meant the entire concept of nanotech or of assemblers. That didn't seem so unreasonable to me, and I don't know why Ralph uses you as a straw man to stick the knife into, standing for all who express alarm about the rush toward a "technological singularity".
Is this the only form of deliberate abuse? What about the misuse of technology by a large group or nation? What about the use of technology to cause many small harms?
This is clearly a logical possibility, but that does not prove that the attempt to use it in this way will necessarily be successful.
At first we were told the targets of such "defenses" would be terrorists and small nations, but here the description is indistinguishable from a call to develop a powerful war-making potential that could as well be directed against other major powers. Since the US will undoubtedly not have a monopoly on this technology, unilateral pursuit of such a nanotechnic war machine will inevitably result in an arms race and a nanotechnic confrontation which, as I have argued here, would be unstable and explosive. Ralph writes as if he is pretending this issue does not exist, but it is hard to avoid the feeling that he is in fact calling for an aggressive unilateral pursuit of nanotechnic military capability by the US:
I would be able to agree with all of these comments, if they were made in the context of a strong warning about the dangers of a nanotech arms race and the need for an approach that includes all potential nanotechnic powers in the creation of an integrated global security system under international law (as opposed to US hegemony). Ralph's failure to include or even address that message, and his pretending that the only concerns about nanotech are that replicators will get out of control or terrorists create a superbug, makes him, in practice, an arms race hawk.
January 27th, 2001 at 11:46 AM
The Nobel Peace Prize
In the article, Is the Future Nano, published on Chembytes Ezine at: http://www.chemsoc.org/chembytes/ezine/2000/rouvray_dec00.htm the author Dennis Rouvray states:
"From the early 1980s to the present, another MIT engineer, K. Eric Drexler, has also energetically advocated nanotechnology. In addition to publishing some key works5,6 on the subject, he set up the Foresight Institute, Palo Alto, California, in 1986 – an organisation devoted to 'the coming ability to build materials and products with atomic precision'. The organisation is still regarded by many nanotechnology enthusiasts as their world headquarters."
Some of my thoughts:
Dr. K. Eric Drexler should be nominated to receive the Nobel Peace Prize for his pioneering effort of establishing The Foresight Institute. The Foresight Institute has a twofold mission: (1) Plan ahead to minimize, mitigate, and ameliorate risk associated with development and implementation of powerful nano technologies, and (2) maximize benefits of advanced technology.
Dr. Drexlers pioneering work in establishing The Foresight Institute created a social climate conducive to investment of money for testing new ideas by institutions involved in scientific research. Dr. Drexlers pioneering work of establishing The Foresight Institute precipitated highly important scientific discoveries including the Scanning Tunneling Probe Microscope, nanotubes, and buckyballs. Nanotubes have amazing chemical and physical properties, which may eventually transform the electronic industry.
Nanotechnology may eventually provide better tools for peacekeepers to do their job. Nomination of Dr. Drexler for the Nobel Peace Prize is a statement Nanotechnology is a tool intended for peaceful purposes
No peacekeeper can guarantee a specific outcome. The struggle for equality by women, various minorities, and labor unions are examples of peaceful social movements that may potentially erupt in civil unrest. Risk in life is unavoidable.
Nanotechnology may better equip society to become an advanced civilization. An advanced civilization is better equipped to
(1) Provide social justice for the poor. Advance technology may help us escape harsh laws of economics that pressure people to remain in a regimented restricted lifestyles.
(2) Create an environment conducive to individual creativity allowing individuals more flexibility to create an unique lifestyle of his or her choice. People are not economically pigeon holed into a niche they, as individuals must fill.
(3) Provide opportunity and more time for religious freedom. Near the end of the 21st century or in the first half of the 22nd century entire planets may be designated for shrines, mosques, and cathedrals where individuals may go to pilgrimage to worship God, as he or she knows God.
(4) Restoration of family – An advanced civilization can provide more time for important things in life including child rearing, relationship building activities. A better means of communication when family members are distant from one another can potentially strengthen and build bonds between family members,
(5) Better new improved consumer products at less cost. How else can we produce better products at less cost without abuse of our work force? Conventional manufacturing methods allow only marginal room for improvement. Atomically precise manufacturing methods ( http://www.foresight.org ) provide vast room for improvement of consumer products and services. An individual citizen who spends a significant amount of his or her life paying for expensive consumer products is forced into idolatry. Molecules provide an abundance of interchangeable parts that can potentially be used for self-repair.
Nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize may not be desirable because it may politicize the goals of science and technology and be more of a hindrance than a help to the overall mission of The Foresight Institute. On the other hand, The Nobel Peace prize may help The Foresight Institute continue to play a vital role in guidance of new emerging technology for peaceful constructive purposes.
January 28th, 2001 at 10:39 AM
Smart dust – the solution to abuse?
The smart dust application would make people who are a global threat, such as Osama Bin Laden (one of the founding fathers of the modern Jihad movement), obsolete as soon as it is operationl: with supporting synergetic technologies such as virtualized reality, combined with existing intelligence sources, the US would finally be able to reach such people, and enforce world peace.
Personally, I'm all for an active role for the US in world affairs, including covert involvement, assuming DARPA (The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is indeed the first to get to smart dust. With a bit of luck, the days of super-villains the likes of Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are almost over.
I hope…
January 29th, 2001 at 2:49 AM
US-only Smart Dust – Not Such a Smart Idea…
> the US would finally be able to reach such
> people, and enforce world peace.
(shudder)
Was that a slip of the keyboard? Surely you meant to say something along the lines of "a future cross-national, democratically-appointed enforcement body would finally be able to reach such people…". Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-US at all (I'm Australian, BTW) – but I believe that any single country having sole access to this sort of power (that is, internationally-deployed smart dust or similar) would be A Bad Thing.
>Personally, I'm all for an active role for the
>US in world affairs, including covert involvement,
>assuming DARPA (The Defense Advanced Research Projects
>Agency) is indeed the first to get to smart dust.
So only if the US is first? What makes the US so uniquely qualified to be the smart-dust-toting world police force? Believe it or not, there are other democracies on the planet. Some of these democracies may yet beat the US to smart dust (or some other mega-powerful nanotech application).
Imagine what life would be like if, say, Australia (heheh) got there first and, overnight, became the planet's impossible-to-avoid law enforcer. Or Germany. Japan. India. Canada. Whoever. The mind boggles. Don't wish any nano-tech powers on the US that you wouldn't be happy to see some other democracy wield instead.
Personally, I'm all in favour of the US, and every(?) other nation, taking an active role regardless of who is first to get smart dust. Such a potentially totalitarian-supporting technology needs to be in the hands of more than one country. I'm not saying I have the answers for how to get from here to there, but I beleive that the US being the planet's all-powerful, omni-present police force is not a good idea – which seems to be what you are suggesting.
>With a bit of luck, the days of super-villains the
>likes of Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are almost over.
"Super-villains"?! That's a tad comic-book, isn't it?
Will the smart dust DARPA people be wearing capes?
January 29th, 2001 at 5:18 AM
Re:US-only Smart Dust – Not Such a Smart Idea…
>a future cross-national, democratically-appointed enforcement body would finally be able to reach such people
Yeah sure I'd like to see that – and the UN and EU are definitely headed that way. But I think the time scale in question would not allow for coalitions with equal memberships. The fruition of the R&D in question might happen rather soon – DARPA projects typically take 3-5 years to execute, and making this technology operational can take about half that. Since US agencies (I'm not from the states either) are already the most active in co-ordinating terrorist fighting worldwide (e.g. they took the time to write the Global Trends 2015 paper that was linked to by Nanodot last week), I don't see why they would not want to extend their reach to include these exciting new technologies. Little can be done IMHO to change the fact the US is going to get to smart dust first, so we might as well talk about it.
>"Super-villains"?! That's a tad comic-book, isn't it?
First, let me state that comic books and SF were the previous medium through which cultural discussions about the future took place. Books were always more profound in this regards, of course, but comics also played some role.
With regard to super-villains – surely you admit that some individuals play a larger role than others in changing reality for worse. In many instances it is simply poverty that keeps countries backward (the poorer half of India, for example), or religion (Haredi Jews in Israel, or the Islam flavor prevalent in Pakistan), and in some the fault lies with a handful of people. Such people don't have easy lives, and countries (democratic or otherwise) often try to make them pay for what they cause. When the technological leap I mentioned is operational, it would be in turn combined with existing intelligence sources and help track such people down. At least to me it seems evident that this would happen – because agencies worldwide already engage in this kind of activity.
Your thoughts?
January 29th, 2001 at 6:28 PM
Nano-(Wo)Man To The Rescue!
>Yeah sure I'd like to see that – and the UN and EU are
>definitely headed that way. But I think the time scale
>in question would not allow for coalitions with equal
>memberships.
Agreed, but this time scale problem ("it's all coming much sooner than many people think, and when it comes it going to be FAST") shouldn't lead us to merely accept the fact that some nations (or a single nation) will get there first and decide everything for the rest of the planet. We should at least try to come up with solutions as to what do to about this inequality. Altruism aside, we should do this for no other reason than to avoid the likely problems the about-to-be-nanotech countries will face (eg, a new wave of terrorism) when other nations realise they are about to be left behind in a big way.
(I suspect we agree on this?)
>The fruition of the R&D in question might
>happen rather soon. Since US agencies (I'm not from
>the states either) are already the most active in
>co-ordinating terrorist fighting worldwide
Hmmm – coordinating? They take quite a bit of unilateral action too (often with much justification I'm sure – no rabid anti-US sentiments intended here). It's that unilateral attitude that bothers me in the nanotech context.
>(e.g. they
>took the time to write the Global Trends 2015 paper
>that was linked to by Nanodot last week),
Other countries write similar papers – though I will concede that what I read of the US one was (by government writing standards) remarkably forward-looking and not overly US-centric.
>I don't see
>why they would not want to extend their reach to include
>these exciting new technologies.
Agreed – I just happen to believe that this is a bad thing.
>Little can be done IMHO
>to change the fact the US is going to get to smart dust
>first,
Well now, we just might get a surprise there. I thought that one of the defining policy characteristics of nanotech-related research is that it is (relatively) inexpensive and (relatively) easier for developed nations to catch up to the state of the art (or very close to it).
For example, I'm sure that with a bit of leadership and a decent injection of cash, Australia could catch up to the US and Japan in nanotech research in a couple of years. To my non-specialist eye Australia seems pretty capable in some related areas, such as biotech. Alas, I don't believe this is likely to happen in Australia, mainly for political and cultural reasons. I'd love to be contradicted on this.
>so we might as well talk about it.
Sure! Preventing it would be good too!
>>"Super-villains"?! That's a tad comic-book, isn't it?
>First, let me state that comic books and SF were the
>previous
And current!
>medium through which cultural discussions
>about the future took place. Books were always more
>profound in this regards, of course, but comics also
>played some role.
Well, some comic books, maybe, but the only comic books I remember that had "super-villains" in them were, it must be said, pretty silly and contained very little useful "discussions about the future". There are many worthy and serious graphic novels out there, but in the context of this discussion, none of them contained super-villains.
>With regard to super-villains – surely you admit that
>some individuals play a larger role than others in
>changing reality for worse.
Sure, but they aren't super-villains, any more than those that oppose them are super-heroes. I don't find these terms useful – and by using the term "super-villains" I think you are kind of implying that the people on the "other side" are "super-heroes". If you hesitate to call any actual person (let alone a government body) a super-hero, why call anyone a super-villain?
I'm not anti-comic books, just anti those terms. The closest I've ever seen to a super-hero in real life are those voluntary people who wear orange overalls and fight bush fires, often at great personal risk. They do this without capes or super powers too.
>When the technological leap I mentioned is operational, it
>would be in turn combined with existing intelligence sources
>and help track such people down. At least to me it seems
>evident that this would happen – because agencies worldwide
>already engage in this kind of activity.
Yes they are engaged in this activity, some of which is quite illegal, some of which is quite immoral (IMHO), and much of which is sadly necessary.
Where do we draw the line? Who defines who is a super-villain? What if a democratically-elected Prime Minister of newly-nanotech country XYZ decides to spread smart-dust everywhere and take over the role of planetary law enforcement? Would the democratically elected President of newly-nanotech-country ABC regard this Prime Minister XYZ as a super-villain and oppose him/her? Would the Prime Minister XYZ regard President ABC as a super-villain and oppose him/her? Who would be right?
>Your thoughts?
We need international democratic systems for sharing technology that has rapid global effects. No single country should be allowed to take unilateral action, if this can possibly be avoided. When individual countries make unilateral interventions in other countries now, it's very unfortunate. When it happens in a nanotech world, well, words fail me.
At the risk of being boring – apart from the use of the term "super-villains", I think we largely agree?
January 30th, 2001 at 6:38 AM
Re:The Nobel Peace Prize
Yeah, and my Boomer father believed Timothy Leary deserved the Nobel Prize for medicine for unlocking the tools that would usher in an era of peace and understanding.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:37 PM
ask dr drexler what he knows about xalibur