Anti-Technology Movement Targets Nanotechnology
from the The-gods-themselves-contend-in-vain dept.
An article on an emerging global anti-technology movement appears on the web site of Reason Magazine ("Rebels Against the Future: Witnessing the birth of the global anti-technology movement," 28 February 2001). Reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey reports on the International Forum on Globalization's "Teach-In on Technology and Globalization," held in New York City in late February.
According to Bailey, "If it's new, they hate it. What they fear and loathe most is biotechnology, but now some are beginning to train their sights on nanotechnology as well."
After detailing the presentations of what he describes as "an all-star cast of technophobes and other rebels against the future, featuring proud self-declared luddites," Bailey concludes, "The hopeful future of humanity freed from disease, disability, hunger, ignorance, poverty, and inequity depends on beating back the forces of know-nothing reaction such as those assembled at this weekend's Teach-In. The struggle for the future begins now."
March 19th, 2001 at 2:33 PM
It Can't Happen
I hate to break it to these anti-technology people, but there is absolutely no way to stop Nanotechnology and the other technologies of the future. They can bitch, gripe, and moan all they want; it's not going to change anything. The only way to stop these technologies from emerging is to destroy the entire human race completely – and that is something many people do not have the balls to do even if they have the weapons to do so.
Therefore, it is safe to say that most people are cowards and idiots, so not matter what happens, Nanotechnology, Picotechnology, and even Techyon will come into existence no matter what anyone does about.
March 19th, 2001 at 5:18 PM
Re:It Can't Happen
Not only that, but what real influence do these people have beyond their unreadable books, small-circulation left-wing journals, and occasional appearances on low-rated Pacifica radio talkshows?
March 20th, 2001 at 12:42 AM
Question is Who Do You Fear Most?
Yeah, I first saw this link over at the Virginia Postrel site. She's a conservative with very interesting ideas and I'm sure she's more prone to pointing out the loony fringe left rather than the empowered Christian Republican Right, now in a position to do real damage of course.
Of course, the loony left has no real power. They're ignored by the Dems and despised by the Republicans. Furthermore, they probably don't have a website, an email list or even an egroup. Even those Turning Point folks had a website. Until he gets a website, I'm just not going to be afraid of Kirkpatrick Sale.
On the other hand, the Bush administration, with its friendly relationship to fossil fuel technologies and its refusal to utter the word "renewables" with any real sincerity, has shown a real distinct hatred of new economy technologies. The Bush administration is also openly talking about getting rid of a very modest technology fund. Meanwhile, there's about a $10 billion subsidy for fossil fuel economies in the Murkowski energy bill.
We can also conclude that the Drexler Nan Vision of endless wealth and prosperity doesn't coincide with the Republican Dream.
I guess its a question of who you fear the most.
Some luddites at a get together in New York or the folks who propose cutting the New Technology Fund?
Who should I fear the most: Kirkpatrick Sale, who doesn't have a website or an administration completely devoted to fossil fuels?
Personally, I find Spence Abraham to be a more chilling figure. (By the way, here are those Salon links: This is the Salon link about cutting off funding to the technology fund.
http://www.salon.com/tech/wire/2001/03/16/tech_fund/index.html
Long Salon piece about Bush bias toward old economies like fossil fuels and banking and against new technology and ideas.
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/03/16/schwartz/index.html)
Philip Shropshire
http://www.threerivertechreview.com
http://www.majic12.com
March 20th, 2001 at 6:52 AM
Re:Question is Who Do You Fear Most?
That's a good point about the Republicans – but you shouldn't worry yourself over it, considering the United States is living on a very short life-span; with it's current infrastructure, it can only last another decade before it falls flat on its ass for good.
Also, even if the technology fund is greatly reduced or obliterated completely, technologies of the future will still emerge from the depths – considering the United States is not the center of the Universe like so many Americans like to believe it is. In fact, most of the greatest minds in the 20th-21st century are now in Sri Lanka doing cloning, genetic engineering, and even primitive Nanotech…so regardless of what happens in the pathetic US, the groundbreaking technologies will still be born.
That is, of course, if all the pollution caused by inferior technology doesn't kill us first.
March 20th, 2001 at 8:46 PM
watching the global fringe
I think we're seeing the emergence of a right-wing anti-anti-technology front in defense of the fringy right-wing technology cult that has developed over the past decade or two.
The link between Reason and the Extropian cult was recorded long ago in articles by Virginia Postrel arguing, crucially, in favor of the maximal project of Hans Moravec, Ray Kurzweil and Max More: "uploading", the technological apotheosis, ascendance to a heaven of posthuman simulated existence. Whatever the hell that means. Postrel explicitly bought the nightmare wholesale in using it as the escape route from Bill Joy's broad critique of super-technology.
Now we have Reason "science correspondent" Ronald Bailey ridiculing the sometimes befuddled "technophobes" who have begun to take notice of Radical Tech and the extreme, unbalanced statements of some of its enthusiasts.
I wish I had known about the "Teach In" he describes; it sounds like the people behind it are confused about some technical points and could use some help, but it also sounds as if they have a lot of concerns, not always well-formulated, which are dead-on with regard to the fundamental issues raised by "singular" technology.
Unfortunately, articles like this one and George Gilder's piece in American Spectator suggest a circling of the wagons against "luddite" heathens, i.e. anyone who even suggests that new technology may pose dangers and will need to be regulated and may imply a need for structural change. You're either pro or anti-technology, in this worldview; orthogonal axes for the dispersion of political positions do not exist.
You tell me who is the crazy unreasonable extremist.
March 21st, 2001 at 6:52 AM
Re:watching the global fringe
I don't share your sentiments. But if I did, I'd be even more unhappy that the critique of advanced technology is being led by the likes of Jeremy Rifkin and Kirkpatrick Sale. Their demonstrated opportunism, dishonesty, and intellectual incompetence immediately discredit the whole enterprise. If one wanted to prevent a meaningful critique of nanotechnology, there would be few better ways to do so than to rev up that crowd to oppose it.
March 21st, 2001 at 10:44 AM
O what the hippie has spawned!
Reading this just makes me ill…
What really kills me is how these people who should be forward thinking allies have it all wrong.
Technology doesn't truly allow "greater corporate control." In fact, technology can be a great liberator. The interenet and the flexibility of computer software has allowed for the greatest free speech movement ever! Assuming Windows XP-like software and oppressive (ie French) goverments don't get their way…freedom of speech and the press will only continue to improve.
Nanotechnology would allow "open source" development to be taken to a whole new level…the manufacture of basic requirements like food, shelter and clothing.
These people are morons. They scare me…and not because I don't understand them. I understand them perfectly. This is why I can't be persuaded to vote for people like Nader (whom otherwise I like). With the exploding population problem, the answer lies in MORE technology, not less! Unless your idea of the "solution" is to kill off 3/4 ths of the population, which I am convinced is what these arseholes desire.
When was the last time something like that happened? The Black Plague…the Dark Ages! Wasn't that fun? Are you going to let these people take us along for a repeat of history? Do the world a favor…kick a hippie today (or worse)!
PS – I'm a VERY liberal democrat, so don't even think of flaming me for being a right-winger.
March 21st, 2001 at 12:45 PM
Re:O what the hippie has spawned!
Well, I have a hard time understanding these people myself – but they are nothing to be afraid of, considering they have no power and never will. I can see where they are coming from in a way…but they have to realize that it's INDUSTRIALIZATION that is the enemy, not technology.
Industrialization, Democracy, and Money Systems are the enemies of the present and future, and very few people realize this.
March 22nd, 2001 at 4:52 AM
Realistic problem
The schism the article is talking about seems to me a realistic problem that we'll have to face in the (near) future. Just calling the anti-tech group a bunch of ninkanpoops will not solve this. Certainly they are entitled to their own ideas (however strange those may seem to us).
And in a way I can understand a bit of their anxiety: technology does seem a sort of out-of-control force that dictates larger and larger portions of our lives. Indeed it is realistic to think that the further technology develops, the larger opposition will be.
So what do we do about it: just ignore them? Live together in (dis)harmony? Try to convince them? A study in the UK (sorry, no ref) seems to suggest that giving people more information (on biotech) increases their opposition to it. So should we keep quiet and live in our own nano-focused world?
March 22nd, 2001 at 11:08 AM
Re:Realistic problem
As I said before, it's Industrialization which is the enemy – NOT technology. Technology, in itself, is probably the best thing that has ever happened to mankind – the only problem is, mankind is using that technology for the wrong reasons (i.e. mass industrialization) and the bi-product of that industrialization is pollution on a global scale – and if it continues at its current pace, not only will the human race be obliterated from its ignorance, but the entire world will perish, as well.
The thing you have to ask yourself is, do people really not all of their junk? Do people really need toys, cars, immense houses, and a new computer every year? No, they don't. And if they don't begin to realize that they are fools and that they have been their own executioner all along, then the entire world will suffer in the future.
March 22nd, 2001 at 3:26 PM
Re:It Can't Happen
They can make folks more aware of what is coming. I figure any publicity is good publicity at this point.
March 22nd, 2001 at 11:30 PM
These folks aren't stupid;they'll listen to reason
Once most of these people realize what hard MNT entails, especially voluntary freedom from work, they'll probably reverse their position. If most are just learning about MNT, they are likely not near solidifying their position. It's not clear how anti-MNT these folks are really (in the long run).
The position that they're coming from is based on a mistrust of the motives of institutions with power. Similarly informative, the claim of 'luddite' should be more thoroughly examined. The Luddites reacted to technology that put them out of work. They didn't go after machines that didn't compete with there ability to make livings for themselves. It was an act of desperation against a system in which their skills had been rendered obsolete, thus also their use as persons. These types of concerns have the acute attention of the anti-globalization activists, who are all too aware of the increasing trend towards heightening inequality.
It has been said, and is evident throughout policy, that the ideology of capitalistic America is that human beings have value exactly insofar as there ability to contribute towards the accumulation of capital. Now with this framework extended to a future where the ruling class has the wealth of MNT at it's fingertips, the majority of the population is extraneous to the privileged's power. This is the type of intentional misuse of MNT that we are all concerned about, but coming from (to these luddies) the most obvious source. These are legitimate fears and can only be assuaged by a strong democracy, which this crowd sees as something a long way off. We here and those in the article mentioned have the same interests, and those are ones of survival and freedom.
IMHO there will never be enough cross talk between these two groups.
March 23rd, 2001 at 5:51 AM
Neo-Luddites and the Web
Who should I fear the most: Kirkpatrick Sale, who doesn't have a website… Not to start a flame war, but you're surprised that the Luddite doesn't have a website? Consider the source. As entertaining and (dis)informative as the Web can be, it's not the be all and end all of information and idea sharing. I don't have exact figures, but the number of people who rely primarily on the Web for their news and information is still relatively small. Besides, he may not have his own website but there are websites created by his followers with papers he's published, and espousements of his viewpoint. History has proven time and again that you don't have to be right to get the herd to panic and attack something they don't really understand, just look at genemod foods in Europe.
March 24th, 2001 at 6:50 PM
Re:Neo-Luddites and the Web
I'm not saying that good old fashioned door to door stuff and talking to people won't change things, I'm just saying that its not likely to lead to constructive and massive changes very quickly. Actually, we just had that debate during the last election campaign. Remember, Ralph Nader's plea to the people to organize and talk amongst themselves and rise up against the powerful monied two-party interests? That really didn't work. And I don't think any movement that really wants to change how technology is legislated can do so without using technology.
Furthermore, there are more articulate leftists out there. I'm much more frightened by the Turning Point efforts than by this group, even if there's some overlap between both groups. I'm certain that Jeremy Rifkin is a part of both organizations. If that Reason writer wasn't blinded by his ideology, then he would be be taking a look at the current administration. They have a lot more to say about what tech gets into our hands and what tech doesn't. Again, I find the whole Cheney, Abraham fossil fuels clan to be much scarier and they have real power.
March 24th, 2001 at 6:56 PM
Help SteelyDan Out at the http://www.space.com msboard
I find your lack of patriotism to be quite refreshing. I could use your help at the US Expansion into Space post topic, at Missions and Launches, over at http://www.space.com. I'm writing under the moniker Steely Dan. I think I'm the only person in the bunch who thinks critically about the US over there. You would be a welcome addition to the fight. My argument is that the United States wouldn't create a very good space society, or at least a space that I would want to live in.
March 26th, 2001 at 7:16 PM
Re:watching the global fringe
I'd like to see a citation for this, since I've never written anything of the sort: "The link between Reason and the Extropian cult was recorded long ago in articles by Virginia Postrel arguing, crucially, in favor of the maximal project of Hans Moravec, Ray Kurzweil and Max More: "uploading", the technological apotheosis, ascendance to a heaven of posthuman simulated existence. Whatever the hell that means. Postrel explicitly bought the nightmare wholesale in using it as the escape route from Bill Joy's broad critique of super-technology." I've never written *anything* in favor of uploading, which I find both too way-out for my rather mundane mind (sorry Max et al.) and not all that appealing. My response to Joy put an emphasis on such "escape routes" as improving the Centers for Disease Control's ability to react to biological threats (which I believe pose real, near-term, understandable threats that can only be countered by *more* knowledge, not less). Virginia Postrel http://www.dynamist.com
March 26th, 2001 at 7:25 PM
Re:Question is Who Do You Fear Most?
If you actually read my work, instead of making assumptions, you would know that I frequently write critically about people on the right and that, in fact, one of my central themes is that "left" and "right" are not helpful in characterizing the alliances on some of the most important issues of the day, including many involving technology. (You would also know that, Kirkpatrick Sale aside, many of these people do have websites, to which I provided some links.) A bit more research would also find that I am frequently criticized by people on the right and am a particular bete noire of certain neoconservative intellectuals who are greatly concerned about the threat they believe biotechnology poses to what it means to be human.
But you're right about one thing: I don't consider fossil fuels inherently evil. And I don't think that cutting off government funding of energy boondoggles is the equivalent to trying to shut down all biotechnology.
Virginia Postrel
dynamist.com
March 28th, 2001 at 6:45 AM
Re: Postrel Rebut
Oh my look whoís here. The Big C-Span Media Darling has come down to the message board gutters to mix it up with us proles. Well, according to your thesis, and Iíll be quoting you a lot, dynamismówhich sounds distractingly L. Ron Hubbardish I might noteóis all about allowing criticism, or as you write: ìCriticism is at the very heart of the dynamic processî.
Gosh then. Let me do my best to add to the evolutionary ìdynamistî process.
First, let me register the disappointment I felt when you started your flame with an ad hominem attack upon me. Of course I suppose that would be easier than addressing my argument that the left is powerless in this country and that right-wing stasists not only have the ear of the presidency, but may in fact be the presidencyóempty headed, inarticulate and doltish as it may be. When I go to your website I expect an even handed attack upon the evil stasists. Not just liberal stasists or environmental stasists, but those stasists that want to eliminate a womanís right to choose or tie us to the noose of fossil fuels. If youíre just going to be a corporate media styled web hackócut purely in the Noam Chomsky mold of freely being able to criticize government but can never seem to find a single corporate wrong despite Bhopals and Nigerian executions and South American death squads screaming for your ìpressî attentionówho, quite coincidently Iím sure, canít be openly critical of the very dangerous stasists in the Republican Party who my dweebish looking boss at Forbes openly courted during the last election cycle, then just tell me. Just say ìI, Virginia Postrel, represent a very narrow viewpoint of my own ideology. Guvmint is bad and free enterprise is good no matter how much random misery, death, poisoning, destruction and/or 40 percent energy cost increases it may bring.î
That would clear it right up for me.
My only other conclusion is that youíre dumb and that you donít know about what the right-wing, uh, forgive me, the stasist wing is doing. You know, the ones that have real power to change laws, legislate boondoggles to their Big Money pals and god knows what other evil. You know, the ones that actually have the power to stop Nan if they wanted to. Clue me in on how you balance what you think is newsworthy. At Forbes, that capitalist tool, I could understand their bias. The reason I tune into your site is that Iím assuming you can be a more independent spirit. That means when the administration defends in court a bill that would censor library speech at the expense of billions of dollars in funding then I would expect you to throw out a line about the evils of government bureaucracy. Whereís your free speech outrage there? Iím not saying that you should ignore the news about David Horowitz (And what do you care anyway: according to you private companies are Gods unto ThemselvesÖWho needs seatbelts or the EPA. Private enterprise will do the right thing, right?) Iím just trying to figure out how one act is more important than the other. Seems to me if youíre offering the objective dynamist position both bits of news would enter your radar. Ditto, I might add, for the choice issue. Whoís more dangerous: stasist prolifers who routinely murder to push their agenda or stasist environmentalists who destroy experimentation and shrubbery? You have apparently chosen shrubbery over the Hot War against a womanís right to choose. Iím not saying destroying experimentation is not important, but donít both issues deserve some mention on your website? I canít think of anything more intrusive than telling a woman what she can do with her own body. Isnít the pro-life movement a Big Time stasist movement? You ask, contrasting the stasist view against the dynamist view: ìDoes progress depend on puritanical repression or a playful spiritî? Well, stasist pro lifers sound pretty much like puritanical repression to me. Whereís your dignified eloquent outrage? Shouldnít there be a post or a link? On the front page of your site, not buried in footnotes or a digression in one of your speeches? Canít you give us something on RU-486? Just a jot about the evil federal bureaucracy? Throw us a bone. Show us that youíre not one of these fuckiní pathetic corporate media hacks whose perspectives serendipitously resembles that of their publishing patrons. The reason why Chomsky sells all those books is people like you keep validating his proofs. Let me guess: youíre all hot and bothered about Cheneyís proposal to bring back nuclear energy? I hope they plant all those nuke plants right by your home in TexasÖ
As for your comments on biotechnology and fossil fuels, I find them fairly predictable considering the Radical Free Market Source. And again, and you have me scratching my head here at your sense of perspective, the biotech market is fine and well. Donít worry, your rich Big Pharma friends have bought off both parties. Not to worry. And Global Warming, as you know, is a big green eyed conspiracy. Despite science against the fictional notion of warming, environmental wackos like the industrial heads of BP and ALCOA, that tree devastatiní bomb thrower Christine Todd Whitman and the entirety of Europe push the ìglobal warmingî myth. Bravo to coal and oil you must cheer. I can only say that since you are now a resident of Texas I wholeheartedly encourage you to take many deep breaths of that fine Texas air and drink many gallons of that fine tap water. What thatís taste and smell you ask in a choking and gasping fit later? Thatís the wondrous Invisible Hand at work…Or as you say: ìthe party of lifeî.
Philip Shropshire
http://www.threerivertechreview.com
http://www.majic12.com
March 28th, 2001 at 4:29 PM
Re:watching the global fringe
To be fair, taken out of context this does not sound like quite a ringing endorsement of the ascension to cyberspace scenario, but it does imply a willingness to entertain the notion of "uploading our consciousness" and "enhancing our intelligence," whereas Bill Joy is implicated as narrow-minded for equating this vision of cybersimulated superpeople to a nightmare instead of really exploring Kurzweil's scenario.
Taken in context, this open-mindedness toward the transhumanist project is more significant, because this is exactly the escape route typically advanced by hard-core cybogizers in response to the concerns Postrel summarized in her previous paragraph:
This is a very good statement of what it seems to me Bill Joy advanced as the central concern of his article. As we discuss the creation of humanoid and superhuman robots and AI systems, we face the question, are we creating a competitor that will destroy us?
The soothing answer is, we can merge with technology. Postrel here suggests this may be a valid route.
There are many egregious errors and falsehoods in Postrel's article, and if she would like to invite a response of perhaps 1,000 words, to appear in her magazine, I would be willing to write one.
March 29th, 2001 at 10:50 AM
Take a less dismissive attitude; I'm one of them
As a senior associate for the past 6 years and someone with college level genetics and chemistry education, I consider myself to have a resonable understanding of nanotechnology. I've read Drexler's Nanosystems, and many papers on nanotechnology.
I also consider myself a neo-luddite and I'm one of the people working to build the anti- technology movement. I've been working on it for about 2 years now. I can tell you that it's very unlikely that any of the anti-technology people will reverse their position.
I'd encourage the people reading nanodot to take a less dismissive attitude, and review some of the movement's writings.
There are a growing number of educated people developing views similar to those expressed by the anti-globelization movement. Emergence of these feelings in the mainstream culture can even be seen through movies like Fight Club (which had a regressionist anarchist plot). People do not necessarily need to be hard core leftist neo-luddite anarchists to hold, at some level, anti-technology sentiments. For example, the common man with limited anti-tech feelings can discourage, or vote down representatives supporting, funding and research initiatives for NASA there by cooling some of the misplaced enthusiasm for nanotechnology and other sciences. In fact, we have a letter writing campaign in place to try and reduce NASA's research funding which has received not insignificant support.
If anyone would like to discuss this, please email me privately. I do not read nanodot very often.
March 29th, 2001 at 11:26 PM
Re:Take a less dismissive attitude; I'm one of the
Well, unfortunately, you don't seem to have made available a email address to reach you by. If this is intentional, I'd invite you to email me, for I would like to discuss this with you, otherwise, modify your user info.
March 30th, 2001 at 5:45 AM
Re: Opps…
vab@cryptnet.net
March 31st, 2001 at 5:29 PM
A Few Questions For One of "Them"
First, let me say that I consider myself a Leftist, but I don't fear technology and look forward to the future. Actually, I'm kind of hoping that you might join me in my debate against Virginia Postrel. She thinks that left eco terrorists "stasists" (Her term. You have to read some of her stuff.) don't have anywhere near the power of right wing pro life "stasists". But I actually just had a couple of questions that I'm hoping that you might answer for me…
1) Why are you against space exploration and why is that necessarily a "left" position to be against exploration and curiosity? If it turns out that we destroy the world via global warming or the gray goo doesn't it make sense to develop the technology to allow us to go somewhere else?
If the worst happens, Mars might become more of a necessity than a whim. Also, does your jihad against space exploration include the entire world? If you succeeded in convincing the United States political apparatus that exploring space is a bad thing does that mean that the European Union, India, Japan, and China will all fall into line? If not, would you use force to stop them? And would that in fact take a very large space program in order to do that?
2.) To touch upon that last point, if you and your very clever allies in the anti tech movement succeed in putting the Foresight Institute and Zyvex and the computer chip industry out of business, will you make sure that assembler research is also stopped by the European Union, India, Japan and China? Or is the goal to make sure that only North Korea and Iraq have perfected assembler technology?
By the way, I'm against both the NAFTA and the WTO agreements not because I'm necessarily against free trade, but because many of their key decisions are not open to the public which to me seems to be an invitation to graft and corruption…To me, the left should always for democracy, freedom and the right to be curious about the world around us. Please tell me what you think it means…
April 2nd, 2001 at 12:02 PM
Re:A Few Questions For One of "Them"
I'm not on a "jihad" or any such thing. I'm just expressing my view that this course of action may not be the best one. While I'm also helping other express similar views, I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything or trying to stop anyone from doing what they want to do. I'm just putting my position out there. If my position has merit, is based in sound logic, and is compelling, others will pick it up. I'd much rather see Foresight put some serious thought into what I'm saying, and what the anti-technology movement is saying, than see them "put out of business".