Chapter topic list for Engines of Creation 2001
from the please-comment dept.
It's been fifteen years since Engines of Creation (or see free online version) came out — time for a new book looking at coming technologies. Read More for an initial chapter topic list, target readership, and a list of specific items requested from those wishing to help with the book. Comment by posting here on nanodot in the usual way, or you can use Foresight's annotation tool Crit.org to insert comments at specific locations in the text.
Nanoshock (was: Engines of Creation 2001)
title/subtitle ideas are welcome
Paper version vs online version: in the long term, we expect the online
version to grow far beyond the paper version both in content and
importance. In the short term, we'll be focusing on extracting a paper
version from the material collected online.
Target readership: average intelligent general reader, assuming no
science background since high school
Style: informal. Online version can link to references.
Goal: to be as reassuring as possible while honestly presenting coming
powerful changes in technology, focusing on nanotechnology
Specific items requested: examples and analogies (from history, art,
literature, science, technology, business, fiction, science fiction);
illustrations (graphics, charts, etc.)
How to contribute: make suggestions as comments to book-related item on
nanodot.org, post a new book-related item on nanodot, or annotate the
draft using Crit.org. (If you must, send email to the author directly,
but then it will not be in the visible draft development, thereby
missing public credit). We expect the online material to eventually be
merged into a larger data structure of ideas, accessible via a good
user interface.
Table of Contents
Note: these are chapter topics, not chapter titles
Chapter 1: Technological Change, good and bad
Examples of both kinds
Trying to stop technological change has unexpected side effects
(abortion ban, drug ban, cloning ban). Some bans are worth doing
anyway (murder ban)
Chapter 2: Nanotechnology
Chapter 3: Life Extension, biotech, human modification
Concerns about biotech are temporary
Chapter 4: Space
Who "inherits" the Earth?
Chapter 5: Openness, transparency, surveillance
End of violent crime as we know it
Chapter 6: Earth's environment
the end of rage and despair
Example: end of oil as fuel
Chapter 7: AI
Chapter 8: Software reliability and security
Chapter 9: Intellectual property
The social cost of controlling bitstreams into and out of people's
computers outweighs the proposed benefits
Chapter 10: Nanodefense, immune system
Chapter 11: Social software, personal action
Acknowledgements
Further reading
Glossary
Index
Themes throughout book:
traditional/evolved human values
(e.g. human scale traditional Mediterranean lifestyle)
(quote from, e.g., Hernando de Soto)
human need to be able to make personal plans
freedom [i.e. freedom from coercion vs freedom from
misfortune (consequences of one's actions,
ancestor's actions, lack of money);
division/boundary is "where your fist meets my nose"]
evolution
openness
power, avoiding abuse of
old problems go away, new problems arrive
what the free market doesn't provide
thinking vs feeling, role of each
war, government, politicians
Amish as "canary in coal mine" indicator of freedom/stability
science fiction, usefulness of
continual redistribution as economic and environmental
problem, no stewardship
policy DAG (directed acyclic graph of escalating policy
coerciveness)
principles to aim for, to protect values we care for (i.e. cold
rules with warm human effects)
role of "local knowledge"
globalization vs local control, depends on topic area
OK to be more restrictive locally than over wider area
cost of policy errors (need non-dollar measure that shows
human cost, i.e. one Ivy League education)
you already have the mental tools, and probably some
valuable capital, to deal with what's coming
how to explain these ideas
May 22nd, 2001 at 8:48 PM
So, where is this going?
EoC was the work of one author, and hardly free of personal bias and opinion, yet it strived to maintain at least the appearance of fair-minded balance. It had important news for the world about the potentials of technology, particularly nanotechnology (then unheard-of) and artificial intelligence. The book was mostly about delivering that news, and sketching the most important issues that arose from it. The latter was done in a way that was at times almost irritating in its scrupulous acknowledgement of a wide variety of viewpoints, while still voicing substantive judgements (not all of which I agreed with).
By contrast, this outline suggests more a tone of urgency about arguing particular positions. I sense a backing-off from your earlier proposal to attempt a distillation of input from "the Foresight community."
To begin with, you define the
Whoa…! I thought we had some things to worry about here. I thought there were some pretty troubling and some pretty scary issues being raised. I must go further: I categorically reject the stance that it is desirable to be "reassuring" as we face the issues raised by advanced technology; this is a stance that says, "Relax, nothing needs to be done, just let it all happen." So then, what is the point of even asking whether some developments are good and should be encouraged, while others may be bad and should be prevented? Apparently we have skipped that part of the agenda, and are now on to simple boosterism.
Sure a ban can have unexpected side effects. What can't? But this sounds like soft-speak for "don't try to stop technology." So what, if I support a ban on human cloning, that means I'm in the same league with anti-abortion and anti-drug fanatics? And anyway, what do drugs and abortion have to do with technolgical change? People have been using intoxicants and inducing abortions for many thousands of years. These are social issues.
Right, but again, what does this have to do with technology? Is there not one example of a significant, recent technology which you can see the case for banning, or at least regulating?
If you mean the "frankenfood" nonsense, I agree that this will pass, but biotechnology raises a lot of issues that won't go away, not the least of which is "human modification." These issues deserve a serious examination, or at least not casual dismissal.
If your answer is "the meek," while "the bold" will venture into the cosmos, you are stacking the deck in favor of those who argue that space resources belong to those who get there first. Such a position sets the stage for a chaotic rush to claim property and establish military means for the defense of property in space. It is a recipe for disaster, as I thought Eric recognized in EoC when he proposed (impractically) a day of division.
You sure? Is the reason for the persistence of violent crime in modern societies, especially those with highly unequal distributions of wealth and especially among the poor, really a matter of lack of technology? Of course, the rich today can live in gated communities with security systems wired to private cops, which makes them fairly immune to violence from without. But then again, the rich have always been able to live in relative security, while the poor are exposed to the depredations of crime as much as of nature.
If you want to describe potential beneficial uses of nanotechnology for clean industry, clean energy, and environmental remediation, that's great. But who is being accused of "rage and despair"?
Umm, so fifteen years and zero papers later, we are still arguing that "active shields" are the answer? At least in EoC Eric discussed very eloquently the immense danger of a nanotechnic arms race. You could argue that this was coming from the Cold War context, but then again, so was Reagan's star wars, the obvious inspiration for "active shields." Sure, we will need some kind of nano-immune systems, still to be described in any level of detail. But this is only the easy part of the problem. The hard part is that we are headed into the nanotechnic revolution with the U.S. and a half-dozen or more potential competitors still committed to the idea of sovereign self-defense and maximal exploitation of any and all technologies for military superiority. The new regime in Washington dismisses arms control as "irrelevant" and "unnecessary," while the military funding agencies aggressively stake their claims to the nanotechnology of twenty years from now, and the Pentagon ever more boldly asserts the inevitability of space weaponization. If the Foresight Institute can't foresee and call attention to the dangers of this course, who can?
Is this to be a book on nanotechnology and other future technology and its implications, from a wide range of viewpoints, or is it to be a Libertarian ideological tract? Please, what exactly is so bad about the idea that as a society we should strive for "freedom from misfortune"? I note that you shift from the generic "misfortune," which includes lots of things you wouldn't blame anybody for, to a list of three examples all of which are typically held to be an individual's fault (or her "ancestor's"). How about freedom from finding out you have a catastrophic illness and not being able to get treatment because your dot-com folded two months ago and you haven't been able to find work (and health insurance)? I know the Libs have an answer to that, but okay, so, is that what this is all about, then?
Force is only to be used in the defense of property, right?
May 22nd, 2001 at 10:02 PM
Mixed reactions
This sounds very much like a book I'd want to read and, I expect, to pass around to friends and co-workers, but it doesn't sound like an update to Engines of Creation. In particular, the outline here seems more overtly political than Engines was.
I share Mark Gubrud's reaction that this does not feel so much like a distillation of the input from the greater Foresight community as something with a particular point of view, not withstanding the fact that it's a point of view that I largely share. This is not to say that you shouldn't follow your muse. It may be that the book that's struggling to get out here is actually Chris Peterson Explains The Future For You. I'd buy that book too.
I think part of the difficulty here is that Engines was concerned, to a large degree, with making the case that certain things were probably going to happen and then talking about what some of the consequences were. There was some talk about what to do about it, but the big idea was "Hey: Nanotechnology!". In 1986 very few people had any clue about this stuff. Now the temper of the times is different and so is the mission. Now the emphasis is less on technological prognostication and more on proposing coping strategies. This is going to more subjective and more controversial — you are shifting from talking about what will be to talking about what should be. This is necessarily more directly value laden, so it is worth taking care to make sure that if you step on somebody's toes, you are doing so deliberately.
The goal statement says, "be as reassuring as possible". I don't think that's actually right. I don't think the goal is so much to reassure people as to encourage them to react constructively. In other words, DON'T PANIC. Part of this is giving them a heads up on what is coming down the road, part of this is teaching some basic thinking and coping skills, and part of this is advocating ideas that many readers may not entirely agree with or be comfortable with. The latter, however, needs to be metered out with great care. I guess what I'm saying is, choose your battles. You don't need to cram in every idea or policy position that you think needs advocacy.
(I'll add some more substantive comments on the actual content of the outline in a separate comment.)
May 23rd, 2001 at 5:02 AM
Biotech, Lifespan extension, Space & Environment
Here are a number of points I'd like to see made.
May 23rd, 2001 at 7:25 AM
technology bans
>>Some bans are worth doing anyway (murder ban)
I think there is an example of such a technology (or at least a development method): The atmospheric testing of nuclear explosives.
This example also has some other nice features:
I think this is a good model for the sorts of bans that make sense. I approve of the parts of the Foresight guidelines which are intended to avoid runaway replicator accidents. Like the fission products concerns wrt nuclear tests, this is a clear, reasonably uncontroversial, bounded concern, addressed by a limited restriction.
May 23rd, 2001 at 10:38 AM
A Suggestion for Multiple Opinion Essays
I agree with Chip that a difficulty for this proposed book is that much of the agenda necessarily shifts from "what is nanotechnology and why is this idea plausible?" to "given [molecular] nanotechnology appears to be coming, what should we do about it?" One rhetorical strategy I like is to focus on the characteristics of various possibilities, summarizing arguments for and against, while avoiding taking sides in the argument.
While I think that approach is the best for the main text of this book, I would like to suggest an additional technique. That is to invite essays of frank opinion from various people on key policy issues. Organizationally, I would put these in sidebars scattered near appropriate main-text discussions throughout the book. Some example topics (with authors you might invite) include:
The best approach to start would be to invite authors, let them choose their key theme, and then invite specific themes to fill in any obvious gaps in the opinion space. My suggested topics above are in dichotomies only because they were easier to come up with off the top of my head that way, but several important issues should have more than two perspectives, and many essays may address more than one key issue. The point is not to solve these issues, but to make them explicit, and to show where they really are reflections of other concerns. Also, opinion essays will allow some airing of topics that push the envelope. For focus, the essays need to limit discussion of concerns well beyond MNT to cited material. So a typical essay might read
May 23rd, 2001 at 2:18 PM
Re:Biotech, Lifespan extension, Space & Environmen
Excellent stuff.
But I don't think it's an 'unresolved problem' that humans are naturally untrustable, meaning we need to find a way to 'make' humans trustable, rather I think it's more like 'the way it is' that humans are untrustable, and we need to come to terms with it. Instead of trying to make humans trustable, we should put effort into finding ways to make that NOT matter. Then we can be safe. I think.
May 24th, 2001 at 3:19 AM
Re:Biotech, Lifespan extension, Space & Environmen
Lets say you find a way to distribute the resources of the solar system equally between the conscious entities (humans & potentially AIs). If you only have ~1010 such entities to deal with, that gives each entity a 30 km diameter hunk of material and about 1016 W ( 10 petawatts) of energy. I've got my doubts as to what defenses might be feasible, if someone with a loose screw decides to take half of their rock and hurl it at you at high velocity. Maybe you can disassemble yourself into utility fog that lets the rock go right through you. I'd need to see some concrete proposals about the feasibility of that before I'd agree that nothing anyone can do threatens you and you don't have to worry about whether those around you are "trustworthy".
May 25th, 2001 at 1:16 AM
chuck the lot
start again from scratch 1) start with a survey of current and reasonably possible technology (specifically quantum technology). You dont know where you are going until you know where you are. 2) come back then
May 29th, 2001 at 4:55 AM
Comment on EoC2 submitted via nanodot
Waldemar perez submitted these comments to the general nanodot queue, but it makes more sense to post them here. He writes " After finishing a literature research on the feasibility of nanotechnology for my project, I would like to suggest some ideas that may help people understand what molecular nanotech is all about and to help answer those "experts" FAQ questions in nanotech in the coming release of Engines of Creation 2.
1. Creation of a "Chronology of Events" in Nanotech table to help readers track the progress of nanotech during the last decade and before, and how the idea was born and who are the major players.
2. I believe there is a need to talk in more detail (easy to understand) about some natural nano-bio-machines like the ATP Synthase rotary motor. New knowledge and schematics (drawings) on the structure of this protein exits today due to recent experiments from Berkeley, CA (see Reverse Engineering a Protein: The Mechanochemistry of ATP synthase by George Oster) that will help people picture real nanomachines at work. For the online version of the book, the .avi available at Cornell University's Nanobiotechnology Center web site on the hybrid (organic/inorganic) nanomotor, could be included as part of the book or as a reference.
3. List the latest experiments and achievements in a format like Ed Regis uses in his book. It could include the ATP Synthase Hybrid nanomachine built at Cornell last year, or the highly sucessful single molecule construction chemistry experiments by Wilson Ho and Hyojune Lee from Cornell too and the single molecule STM chemistry at the university of Berlin last year.
4. IBM experiments, like the one posted on their web site, showing Scanning Tunneling Microscopes (STM) pictures of their molecular wheels rotating in a dry environment with the purpose of showing actual nanobearings at work! Or the carbon nanotubes linear bearings built and published in Mechanical Engineering Magazine last month.
5. I strongly believe that any book on molecular nanotech should have a FAQ for those "experts" with different opinions that are not quite convinced yet about nanomachines. We can't give up on this task! At the beginning of my literature research for my project, I encountered a lot of questions from my co-workers on the subjects of Brownian Motion, the Maxwell Demon (second law of thermodynamics) and the Heisemberg uncertainty principle. The only web site on the internet that I know that provided me with easy to find, easy to follow, information and calculations on these matters is at Rutgers University. They have a FAQ section that was very useful. Nanosystems is too technical for some folks and Engines of Creation addresses these subjets very well in an easy to read format but we must remember that the web is an excellent medium to spread information. Any update to Foresights websites should incorporate a FAQ questions section on the technical feasibilities of nanotech. Engines of Creation 2 should continue mentioning and talking about these very important questions and pointing to Nanosystems as a reference with detailed information on these subjects. The web will continue to be a "first strike" way of catching people's attention and answering inmediate questions on the subject and spreading the message. This is a shared opinion with other senior associates.
6. Tables with near term and long term objectives of molecular nanotech. Some breakthroughs are around the corner, but others will require more development time. It will be helpful to follow a Ray Kurzweil's Age of Spiritual Machines type of layout on the expected time-frames for the arrival of molecular nanotechnology.
7. EoC 2 should also include (personal opinion) more quotations ( name of scientist and documented achievements) to help give it additional credibility among a wide variety of people and a wider audience this time.
Thanks"
May 29th, 2001 at 5:27 PM
Re: chapter one
We need to get away from the idea that technology is good or bad. It is both good and bad.
What is important about nanotechnology is that it is very powerful. Thus nanotechnology will have profound consequences that are both good and bad for us.
Hopefully we can find some way to weigh the relative benifits and costs to alternative strategies for developing and controlling nanotechnology.
May 29th, 2001 at 5:39 PM
What SHOULD we do with Nanotechnolgy?
At some point values need to become the center of the debate. Nanotechnogy will greatly expand our ablities to do things, thus making the question "What SHOULD we do?" the most important question we need to answer.
May 30th, 2001 at 1:26 PM
comments from Waldemar Perez
Received from Waldemar Perez just before this chapter topic list was posted:
Waldemar Perez writes "I was just wandering when Engines of Creation 2 will be released. After been involved with literature research on the feasibility of nanotechnology for my project in the Navy, I would like suggest some ideas that may help people to understand what molecular nanotech is all about and also may help to answer those "experts" FAQ questions in nanotech. 1. Creation of a "Chronology of Events" in Nanotech table to help readers track the progress of nano and how the idea was born and who are the major players. 2. To talk in more detail (easy to understand) about some nano-bio-machines like the ATP Synthase rotary motor. New schematics exits today due to recent experiments from Berkeley, CA (see Reverse Engineering a Protein: The Mechanochemistry of ATP synthase by George Oster) that will help people see real nanomachines at work. 3. List the latest experiments and achievements in a format like Ed Regis uses in his book. It could include the ATP Synthase Hybrid nanomachine built at Cornell last year, or the highly sucessful single molecule construction chemistry experiments by Wilson Ho and Hyojune Lee from Cornell too and the single molecule STM chemistry at the university of Berlin this year. 4. IBM experiments like the one posted on their web site showing STM pictures of their molecular wheels rotating in a dry environment. Or the carbon nanotubes linear bearings built and published in Mechanical Engineering Magazine last month. 5. I strongly believe that any book on molecular nanotech should have a FAQ for those "experts" with differents opinions that are not quite convinced yet about nanomachines. At the beginning of my research, I encountered a lot of questions from my co-workers on the subjects of Brownian Motion, the Maxwell Demon (second law of thermo) and the Heisemberg uncertainty principle. The only web site on the internet that I know that provided me with easy to find, easy to follow, information and calculations on these matters is at Rutgers University. They have a FAQ section that was very useful. Nanosystems is too technical for some folks and Engines of Creation addresses these subjets in an easy to read format but we must remember that the web is an excellent medium to spread information. Any update to Foresights websites should incorporate a FAQ questions section on the technical feasibilities of nanotech. Engines of Creation 2 should continue mentioning and talking about these very important questions and pointing to Nanosystems as a reference with detailed information on these subjects. The web will continue to be a "first strike" way of catching people's attention and answering inmediate questions on the subject and spreading the message. This is a shared opinion with other senior associates. 6. Tables with near term and long term objectives of molecular nanotech. Some breakthroughs are around the corner, but others will require more development time. 7. Ec2 should also include (personal opinion) more quotations, name of scientist and documented achievements to help give it additional credibility among a wide variety of people and a wider audience this time. I hope my suggestions may help you in your project Engines of Creation 2. Best wishes. Sincerely, Waldemar Perez Wilmington, DE"
May 30th, 2001 at 7:03 PM
Re:So, where is this going?
Outline Item: Some bans are worth doing anyway (murder ban)
Mark Gubrud: Right, but again, what does this have to do with technology? Is there not one example of a significant, recent technology which you can see the case for banning, or at least regulating?
I feel this is a useful question to consider. Machines need not be intelligent to enforce a ban. I could argue the case either way on intelligence, but they are likely to require mobility, communication capability, the means to either record infractions or actually enforce them, and should be flexible enough to be reprogrammed when necessary. If we don't take some time to examine what our criteria are for what actions should be prohibited, then we are not preparing well for technology that we can see coming. Transparency is winning, and we will need new strategies on many fronts. Technology continues to advance, and perhaps even ethical questions may be considered systems design. I'd like to see where Chris will be going with this.
June 7th, 2001 at 1:07 PM
comment from Michael Mestre
I fully agree with Mark concerning several points : -> especially the "Goal : be as reassuring as possible" thing. So, put differently, the whole point of this book is to warn people about dangers while telling them that everything is going to be alright and they can carry on living their lives ? To me it sounds like a Discovery Planet TV show… or maybe a governement report, like the ones that were issued in the UK about the BSE crisis. so here comes my question : did Foresight clearly define what was the actual point of this new book ; if yes, is it to be "reassuring as possible while warning about…" ? Then i think some points have been missed, for instance the need to explain why the changes to come are in essence different from what happened before since stone age ; or (more important maybe) that those changes are not to be considered in terms of good or bad. Surprises me that you scientists at Foresight forgot that a tool or a succession of events is not charged with moral content. Remember that as this overview puts it, the targeted reader is "average intelligent general reader" (is an intelligent person to be considered average ?), not the "average american / west-european christian/muslim TV-watching reader" ; to say it another way, try not to culturally focus your readership. The impact of the book will be much greater if you don't. -> Why is nanotechnology confined to chapter 2 while it is supposed to affect the whole thing, and thereby the whole book ? Nanotech is not one specific technology, it is a tool just like information technology, enabling other revolutions like mass production did. (ie. life extension and biotechnoly..) -> nothing to add to what Mark said about Space. fully agree with him. -> What is chapter 5 about ? Private Information ownership or deliberate life suppression ? I don't get that. -> Chapter 9, though, seems to deal intelligently with important issues. Overall impression : while EOC was trying to give tips to intelligent readership about what could happen (basically, it gave readers the tools to understand and build their own comprehension of the thing), this draft seems to be trying to assert ideas and predictions, such as "violent crime will end" or "the end of rage and despair". To me, it goes against the principle (that scientists are supposed to support) of exposing facts and speculating in an un-biaised way. Other people react please ! ————————— — Michael Mestre fitter. happier. more productive. *****
June 12th, 2001 at 3:17 PM
Reply to Mark Gubrud
EoC was the work of one author, and hardly free of personal bias and opinion, yet it strived to maintain at least the appearance of fair-minded balance. It had important news for the world about the potentials of technology, particularly nanotechnology (then unheard-of) and artificial intelligence. The book was mostly about delivering that news, and sketching the most important issues that arose from it. The latter was done in a way that was at times almost irritating in its scrupulous acknowledgement of a wide variety of viewpoints, while still voicing substantive judgements (not all of which I agreed with). By contrast, this outline suggests more a tone of urgency about arguing particular positions.
This is an artifact of the outline format. I hope and expect that the positive aspects of EoC you mention will be carried forward in this book.
I sense a backing-off from your earlier proposal to attempt a distillation of input from "the Foresight community."
This is still the goal, but we've been working on this distillation for 15 years. Some parts of it are pretty clear at this point.
To begin with, you define the Goal: to be as reassuring as possible… Whoa…! I thought we had some things to worry about here. I thought there were some pretty troubling and some pretty scary issues being raised. I must go further: I categorically reject the stance that it is desirable to be "reassuring" as we face the issues raised by advanced technology; this is a stance that says, "Relax, nothing needs to be done, just let it all happen." So then, what is the point of even asking whether some developments are good and should be encouraged, while others may be bad and should be prevented? Apparently we have skipped that part of the agenda, and are now on to simple boosterism.
Again, this is an artifact of the outline format. "As reassuring as possible" may not be very reassuring. However, we are trying to stimulate thoughtful discussion, not panic, so some reassurance is appropriate.
Trying to stop technological change has unexpected side effects (abortion ban, drug ban, cloning ban). Sure a ban can have unexpected side effects. What can't? But this sounds like soft-speak for "don't try to stop technology."
Again, this is a side effect of the compressed outline format. You'll have to wait and see if the text comes out sounding that way or not. We do need to look at the downsides of trying to stop technology.
So what, if I support a ban on human cloning, that means I'm in the same league with anti-abortion and anti-drug fanatics?
I'm pretty sure that's not in this outline. Let's try to focus on what's there — that's hard enough!
And anyway, what do drugs and abortion have to do with technolgical change? People have been using intoxicants and inducing abortions for many thousands of years. These are social issues.
Both drug and abortion technology are changing and will change lots more, and those changes alter what we regard as socially acceptable.
Some bans are worth doing anyway (murder ban) Right, but again, what does this have to do with technology? Good point. That part of the outline needs work. Is there not one example of a significant, recent technology which you can see the case for banning, or at least regulating?
It's easy to think of technologies that need regulating. Harder to think of bans that worked or are likely to work. But it's useful to try. Can you propose a technology ban that worked well?
If you mean the "frankenfood" nonsense, I agree that this will pass, but biotechnology raises a lot of issues that won't go away, not the least of which is "human modification."
I would (will) argue that they in effect do go away once nanotech arrives, given its greater abilities, including reversing human modifications.
These issues deserve a serious examination, or at least not casual dismissal.
The appearance of casual dismissal is, once again, an artifact of the condensed outline format.
Space — Who "inherits" the Earth? If your answer is "the meek," while "the bold" will venture into the cosmos, you are stacking the deck in favor of those who argue that space resources belong to those who get there first. Such a position sets the stage for a chaotic rush to claim property and establish military means for the defense of property in space. It is a recipe for disaster, as I thought Eric recognized in EoC when he proposed (impractically) a day of division.
Since my answer isn't "the meek", the above point is moot.
End of violent crime as we know it You sure? Is the reason for the persistence of violent crime in modern societies, especially those with highly unequal distributions of wealth and especially among the poor, really a matter of lack of technology? Of course, the rich today can live in gated communities with security systems wired to private cops, which makes them fairly immune to violence from without. But then again, the rich have always been able to live in relative security, while the poor are exposed to the depredations of crime as much as of nature.
The end of violent crime as we know it is expected from inexpensive ubiquitous surveillance (which is expected whether we like it or not).
Earth's environment — the end of rage and despair If you want to describe potential beneficial uses of nanotechnology for clean industry, clean energy, and environmental remediation, that's great. But who is being accused of "rage and despair"?
I proudly attribute rage and despair to those who care greatly about the environment, e.g. myself.
Nanodefense, immune system Umm, so fifteen years and zero papers later, we are still arguing that "active shields" are the answer?
They will be discussed, but I don't recall putting in the outline that they are "the answer".
At least in EoC Eric discussed very eloquently the immense danger of a nanotechnic arms race. You could argue that this was coming from the Cold War context, but then again, so was Reagan's star wars, the obvious inspiration for "active shields." Sure, we will need some kind of nano-immune systems, still to be described in any level of detail. But this is only the easy part of the problem. The hard part is that we are headed into the nanotechnic revolution with the U.S. and a half-dozen or more potential competitors still committed to the idea of sovereign self-defense and maximal exploitation of any and all technologies for military superiority. The new regime in Washington dismisses arms control as "irrelevant" and "unnecessary," while the military funding agencies aggressively stake their claims to the nanotechnology of twenty years from now, and the Pentagon ever more boldly asserts the inevitability of space weaponization.
Yup, it's a tough one all right.
If the Foresight Institute can't foresee and call attention to the dangers of this course, who can?
I guess anyone can, in theory, but I agree we should keep doing this. I'll interpret the above as a suggestion that this be added to the outline.
freedom [i.e. freedom from coercion vs freedom from misfortune (consequences of one's actions, ancestor's actions, lack of money) Is this to be a book on nanotechnology and other future technology and its implications, from a wide range of viewpoints, or is it to be a Libertarian ideological tract? Please, what exactly is so bad about the idea that as a society we should strive for "freedom from misfortune"? I note that you shift from the generic "misfortune," which includes lots of things you wouldn't blame anybody for, to a list of three examples all of which are typically held to be an individual's fault (or her "ancestor's"). How about freedom from finding out you have a catastrophic illness and not being able to get treatment because your dot-com folded two months ago and you haven't been able to find work (and health insurance)? I know the Libs have an answer to that, but okay, so, is that what this is all about, then?
The distinction between the two uses of the word "freedom" is a useful one. I don't recall saying in the outline that we shouldn't strive to minimize misfortune.
division/boundary is "where your fist meets my nose" Force is only to be used in the defense of property, right?
Now I'm really confused. Are you saying the nasal organ should be regarded as property?
June 12th, 2001 at 3:20 PM
Re:technology bans
Thanks, Jeff, for that example. To be persuasive, we'll need good examples to back up all our key points, even ones that seem obvious to us.
June 12th, 2001 at 3:30 PM
reply to Michael Mestre
I fully agree with Mark concerning several points : -> especially the "Goal : be as reassuring as possible" thing. So, put differently, the whole point of this book is to warn people about dangers while telling them that everything is going to be alright and they can carry on living their lives ? To me it sounds like a Discovery Planet TV show… or maybe a governement report, like the ones that were issued in the UK about the BSE crisis. so here comes my question : did Foresight clearly define what was the actual point of this new book ; if yes, is it to be "reassuring as possible while warning about…" ? Then i think some points have been missed, for instance the need to explain why the changes to come are in essence different from what happened before since stone age ; or (more important maybe) that those changes are not to be considered in terms of good or bad.
See answer to Mark Gubrud.
Surprises me that you scientists at Foresight forgot that a tool or a succession of events is not charged with moral content.
I don't see why you think we have forgotten this. I myself work fulltime on this.
Remember that as this overview puts it, the targeted reader is "average intelligent general reader" (is an intelligent person to be considered average ?),
I wouldn't touch that one with a ten-foot pole! ;^)
not the "average american / west-european christian/muslim TV-watching reader" ; to say it another way, try not to culturally focus your readership. The impact of the book will be much greater if you don't.
This is a good goal, thanks for emphasizing it. It's a big challenge to accomplish; I hope our reviewers will help catch problems in this area.
-> Why is nanotechnology confined to chapter 2 while it is supposed to affect the whole thing, and thereby the whole book ? Nanotech is not one specific technology, it is a tool just like information technology, enabling other revolutions like mass production did. (ie. life extension and biotechnoly..)
Nanotechnology will not be confined to one chapter. It's early in the book so that it can diffuse throughout the rest of it.
-> What is chapter 5 about ? Private Information ownership or deliberate life suppression ? I don't get that.
More the former.
-> Chapter 9, though, seems to deal intelligently with important issues.
Thanks!
Overall impression : while EOC was trying to give tips to intelligent readership about what could happen (basically, it gave readers the tools to understand and build their own comprehension of the thing), this draft seems to be trying to assert ideas and predictions, such as "violent crime will end" or "the end of rage and despair". To me, it goes against the principle (that scientists are supposed to support) of exposing facts and speculating in an un-biaised way.
I think this reaction is based on the overcompression of the outline format.
June 12th, 2001 at 3:39 PM
Re:Mixed reactions
This sounds very much like a book I'd want to read and, I expect, to pass around to friends and co-workers, but it doesn't sound like an update to Engines of Creation. In particular, the outline here seems more overtly political than Engines was.
This may be true, or it may be an artifact of the outline format. All the qualifiers, the "on the other hands", are not in yet.
I share Mark Gubrud's reaction that this does not feel so much like a distillation of the input from the greater Foresight community as something with a particular point of view, not withstanding the fact that it's a point of view that I largely share. This is not to say that you shouldn't follow your muse. It may be that the book that's struggling to get out here is actually Chris Peterson Explains The Future For You. I'd buy that book too.
Close to none of the ideas that will be going into this book are mine — they're all from the Foresight community, which has been chewing this stuff over for 15 years and continues to do so. Ideally, the book will represent a rough consensus of the Foresight community, to the extent that's possible.
I think part of the difficulty here is that Engines was concerned, to a large degree, with making the case that certain things were probably going to happen and then talking about what some of the consequences were. There was some talk about what to do about it, but the big idea was "Hey: Nanotechnology!". In 1986 very few people had any clue about this stuff. Now the temper of the times is different and so is the mission. Now the emphasis is less on technological prognostication and more on proposing coping strategies. This is going to more subjective and more controversial — you are shifting from talking about what will be to talking about what should be. This is necessarily more directly value laden, so it is worth taking care to make sure that if you step on somebody's toes, you are doing so deliberately.
Excellent point. Lots of unecessary things will need taking out. I'm hoping the reviewers will help here, as they did on the original book.
The goal statement says, "be as reassuring as possible". I don't think that's actually right. I don't think the goal is so much to reassure people as to encourage them to react constructively. In other words, DON'T PANIC.
Exactly.
Part of this is giving them a heads up on what is coming down the road, part of this is teaching some basic thinking and coping skills, and part of this is advocating ideas that many readers may not entirely agree with or be comfortable with. The latter, however, needs to be metered out with great care. I guess what I'm saying is, choose your battles. You don't need to cram in every idea or policy position that you think needs advocacy.
Great point, and I'll be looking for suggestions on what can be deleted.
June 12th, 2001 at 3:45 PM
Re:A Suggestion for Multiple Opinion Essays
This is a great idea for a book, and is similar to one that Glenn Reynolds is interested in editing. It's on hold at the moment due to our knowledge that this type of multi-author edited book is hard to sell to publishers. There's some hope that it might be easier to sell once Bill Joy's book comes out. If someone has a publisher contact who might be interested, let Glenn know.
June 12th, 2001 at 4:08 PM
Re:Biotech, Lifespan extension, Space & Environmen
Biotech is to a large degree molecular nanotechnology. Nature is filled with self-replicating systems and parasites that cause humanity an immense amount of hardship. We already have a DNA "goo" problem and the history of medicine is one of gradually subduing it. We also already have or in the near term will develop the biotechnologies to have most of the benefits MNT allows and most of the hazards as well.
Good points, worth covering.
Most people are totally unaware of the impact that lifespan extension will have on society or how rapidly it is going to arrive. If they did, they would be preparing for it now (from an savings/investment standpoint). The implementation of biotech driven interventions in aging allows virtually everyone to eventually become wealthy and that significantly changes the nature of society. This situation however does require robust biotechnology or MNT to mitigate the population increases this will cause.
The lifespan increase to be expected prior to nanotechnology is indeed substantial. I'm not sure how much of that we'll cover, only due to space limitations, and our expectation that nanotech may be along fairly soon…
The issue of the militarization of space is significant. Governments need to realize it simply isn't going to work unless it is totalitarian (i.e. they have to control the entire solar system). I don't think that will work unless you have AIs or lots of clones to play local policemen. Long delay times means you would have to have ubiquitous local authority. Once nanotechnology enables personal access to space and independent space colonies (enclaves) the traditional national/government mindsets fall apart. The nation-state falls apart even sooner given the fact that nanotech (perhaps even biotech) enables yacht or even island building!
We'll need to thrash this out as the book develops. The above depends on who controls nanotechnology.
(I don't see any chapter on how the evolution of political systems and/or governments must occur.)
I'm not sure I'm up to covering how it must occur. One might sketch some scenarios…
Biotech and nanotech significantly increase the carrying capacity of the planet (to a number much larger than what most people think the limits are). Furthermore, the population is supported sustainably! MNT allows us to go up instead of sprawling out all over the planet, so the human footprint is significantly reduced. This raises the sticky issue of "What exactly is the agenda of the environmentalists?" (Who "inherits" the Earth?). To be logically consistent, I think the point needs to be made that everyone must leave the planet if you want it to be natural.
It's true that the carrying capacity goes up a lot, but we may not want to use that. Personally, I'd like to see Earth be mostly a wildlife preserve. If enough people agree, we can make it happen, by buying up land for that purpose. Would get quite expensive.
What happens when designer drugs and or neural implants become available to "make" people happy? (Or can prevent criminals from committing 'criminal' acts?)
Why, Robert, that "sounds like science fiction"!! Seriously, we could address these issues, but they may have been addressed better already in sf. The book may be overloaded already without these. Or maybe they should be squeezed in…let's see how it plays out.
What about uploads? I realize the details have not been fully worked out but I've gone far enough with it to make strong arguments that "The Matrix" like human-machine interconnects seem pretty feasible.
That should be in the AI chapter.
I think there needs to be a very strong emphasis that humans are going to have to learn to overcome their genetic heritage of "tribalism" and embrace a philosophy that embraces diversity.
I wouldn't want to count on that. We might want to think about infrastructures in which tribalism isn't so dangerous.
An unresolved problem that I think needs to be discussed is that of "How do you make humans inherently trustable?". That seems to me to be an essential component of personal security in the MNT era.
I don't think the humans themselves can be inherently trustable. An inherently trustable entity doesn't sound human. Let's try to find a way to deal with untrustedness.
June 12th, 2001 at 4:18 PM
Re:chuck the lot
One could do this, but other books already cover these topics. Also, sadly, most of our readers will not want to read such a survey. However, we can insert examples of current and near-term technologies throughout the book as appropriate.
June 12th, 2001 at 4:23 PM
Re:Comment on EoC2 submitted via nanodot
These are all good ideas, but most of them are too technical for this book as currently envisioned. Dan Shafer is working on a more technical nanotech book, and he might like to include these ideas in his book.
November 12th, 2001 at 11:55 PM
Other directions…
Is this topic still active? Anyhow. EoC still stands up pretty well. Why not just publish a slim "EoC Revisited", that includes a few technical updates, progress reports, "I told you so's", and "oops's". Getting EoC reprinted with an "update" should be relatively easy. Perhaps use the added perspective of ~15 years since EoC to create a new past and future development timeline, with more specific milestones – not just "and here a self-assembling nanomachine comes into existence", but more of a map of some likely development paths and innovations along the way. A new book is needed – but should aim at different objectives than EoC. EoC raised many interesting questions – but provided few solid answers. Raise more questions, and more firmly suggest some answers – take a position on what an reasonable post-nano society should be like, for example. Avoid sugary visions of "how things ought to be", in favor of "how things are likely to turn out if we do nothing, and how we can realistically make things more tolerable for everyone." E.g it's likely that post-nano, the owners and innovators and manipulators will be sitting pretty, while conservatively clinging to and enforcing traditional human modes of existence. But what about the renters and consumers and powerless, who will own little beyond their bodies, and find themselves seeking to get beyond mere survival in a glutted human-services market? What should be the aim of those who would change the world, with regard to those who just "deal with whatever comes along"? Bread and circuses? Socialization via "therapy"? Minimal-cost maintenance as a collectively valuable gene pool? Gradual reduction to a smaller population of happy, healthy semi-savages, treading lightly on a restored Earth and subtly kept in their zoo-place? Mass nano-biochemical enlightenment to join in a new level of humanity? What? What mind-sets are likely to dominate in a post-nano era? One will almost certainly be the "Green-world Restorationists". Then there will be the "Conservative Humanists" – opposing anything that would significantly change the definition of 'human'. There will be the "eager transhumanists" – but somehow I suspect they will be in a minority, as most people seek security. Given how we're currently trying to deal with terrorism (which is likely to be about as effective as the War on Drugs), we'll probably still be living in the shadow of terrorists 20 years from now – so the "security mindset" may be a major subculture. Just a few ideas on other directions you could take the book(s).
December 13th, 2001 at 12:23 PM
topics / the book
This is 2nd edition of Engines of Creation. So the structure of the first book should be followed (as is apparent from the proposed outline). Other books/websites can be written for other needs.
Refer more advanced people to other books /sites in one chapter or intro.
I am unconvinced about the complete end of rage and despair.
-tribalism will require a solution beyond nanotech (Israel / Arab issues.)
-people with sore loser view of history (violent islam)
Under-rated issues
Moving people from undeveloped world to nano world.
And the flip side – not allowing or trying to slow development that would save the lives of millions every year. (starvation, disease etc…)
Need to balance not just the developed worlds concerns with other peoples. How much does policies being advocated in the developed world not jibe with fairness for everyone.
Current dangers & balance of power shifts
When considering the new dangers of nanotech, people should try to have a better assessment of what the current danger levels are.
-deaths from smoking
-deaths from driving
-death from starvation
-death from poverty
-death from disease
(but not just death but real hardship levels)
Mass destruction
-already possible
Chemical, Bio, Nuclear, Conventional
What is really different when nanotech is added to the equation ?
Improvements/Progress
What is really different and possible when nanotech is added to the equation ?
ie. Computers a million times more powerful
That will happen anyway. (Advanced lithography etc…). But computers a billion times or more ?
MEMS will also delivery a lot.
Life extension by ten years or anywhere up to 120.
That is happening anyway.
Getting life extension happening in Asia and south america nearly keeping pace with Japan, Europe and N America also likely to happen with or without nanotech.
How much of the changes that will happen anyway (which are important) should be discussed ? They are more likely, because there are tens of tech and other paths to making them happen.
What are the real differences of nano scenarios ?
It is what a real interstellar civilization will need. People don't understand what that will mean. They think star trek. It is the leap from the caveman to the modern world and beyond.
Without nanotech:
We will eventually be able to do cheaper near earth orbit, interplanetary stuff without it. All the ways to sail the solar wind (M2P2 etc… See the NAIC site.) We can even send some probes to other systems (but taking decades) and make very good telescope arrays. (Dark ages to the Renaissance)
Orders of magnitude life extension.
It is not just what will happen in the 5-30 yrs. It is the impact of all of current tech printing press, combustion engine, telescope, flight, biotech, industrial manufacturing etc… all extremely improved. It is the enablement of what would not be possible otherwise or the rapid acceleration of what would be possible.
One reason why the downside can be partially discounted: The bad stuff can happen anyway without nanotech. We don't want to make it any easier and if possible we want to make it better. But just because it won't be perfect right off, does not mean we should not progress.
Reassurance: It does not raise a lot of the risks that much.
Concern: Do you really know how bad it is now and how bad it could be ?
Reassurance: There really are more good guys and neutral guys than bad guys. We have to keep to the job of not accepting or allowing bad guys to do things.
Issue: So what do we have to do to ensure that the good scenarios happen.
February 7th, 2002 at 8:13 PM
blind belief in technology as a moral force, Hayek
"Chapter 3: Life Extension, biotech, human modification
Concerns about biotech are temporary"
Where do you get this idea?
It just seems part of a mindless pro-technology boosterism. There are lots of people who believe otherwise. There is far less known about genes and proteins, and certainly far less about the epigenetic process, than non-biologists think. For instance "genes" are not physically real but rather an approximate concept based on SNPs (base pair segments) and observed expression of certain bits of chromosomes (physically real bundles of DNA). Gene hacking amounts to no more than viral infection of existing genomes using more physical methods (e.g. smearing DNA all over gold BBs and *SHOOTING THEM* into DNA fragments to bind *WHEREVER*). It is nothing like a real science.
The other mindless optimism inherent in Foresight official positions, e.g. "open source everything, no need to reintegrate improvements as in the GPL" all seems symptomatic of a general attitude of laissez-faire faith in technology itself as a moral force.
Which has, sadly, been typical of Foresight since Chris Peterson has gained more and more influence.
Perhaps someone who *doesn't* believe Hayek was the greatest figure of all history should do the editing job?
This seems very politically tainted in its present form. I don't think I would read it, but I think I would recommend that Green friends read it, it might alarm them to awakening!
February 7th, 2002 at 8:31 PM
mathematics is not as objective as you think
Reviews of Lakoff, Nunez "Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics Into Being" seem to establish that there are no fundamental objections to their answer to "how can advanced mathematical ideas be built up using the basic mechanisms of conceptual structure: image-schemas, frames, metaphors, and conceptual blends?" "[the authors] in particular, have been able to solve three difficult cases: (1) the grounding of arithmetic, set theory and formal logic in the brain and body. (2) The cognitive structure of actual infinity (infinity as a "thing") for a wide variety of cases: the infinite set of natural numbers, points at infinity, mathematic induction, infinite decimals and the reals, limits and least upper bounds, infinitesimals and the hypereals, and tranfinite numbers. (3) The conceptual structure characterizing the meaning of e-to-the-power-ix, allowing us to characterize in cognitive terms what Euler's equation e-to-the-power-[pi]i + 1 = 0 actually means and why it is true on the basis of what it means. The result is an extended start on an embodied theory of mathematical ideas growing out of, and consistent with, contemporary cognitive science."
Among other things this helps to resolve why the universe seems to fit anthropic constraints not only well, but nearly perfectly and why the scale of our bodies is about as much larger than what we can observe as the observable universe is relative to us.
All of this points towards a cognitive science of mathematics that is more specific to humans or to the anthropoid body-form (which we share with the Great Apes and other hominids including past and future ones), and trusting mathematics less to make what amount to moral decisions.
If the universe is less radically autonomous than previously thought, and mathematics less objective and more an extension of the human body image and other senses, then we simply may not have the tools to assess any risk to the biosphere and may only be groping blindly at this kind or scale of analysis.
In which case the "Singularity Cultists", while wrong to greedily seek the Apocalypse, would be right that we would be lucky to protect anything worth protecting through the changes to come. I think this all points to a much more careful look at ethics, and perhaps a lull in technology work.
Even if that must be arranged by coercive means…
February 7th, 2002 at 8:38 PM
if it's not "technical", what is "Nanoshock" about
The many assumptions about economics, politics and technology that seem assumed in that outline do not seem to rise from the actual characteristics of the mechanochemistry itself.
If you are going to assume an ontochemistry that is compatible with that mechanochemistry, you are best off to outline where the ontology and the mechanics are isomorphic, and where you have to make assumptions based on assumed timelines of development or feasibilities, i.e. where you must fall back on analogy, metaphor, and even guessing.
Or, rather, "wishing".
I'd like to know where you think Hayek's concept of economics, which to my mind is only three-fifths of ecology and deals poorly with resources and waste by definition, has influenced the book.
If it's not "technical", what is "Nanoshock" about? Is it an attempt to impose a regulatory or ethical framework, or rather, to avoid one?
February 7th, 2002 at 9:11 PM
it was Greenpeace that made this ban so "obvious"
Your example raises the question of activism and its role in the process of achieving ethical and social controls over the development of dangerous technologies.
It may be obvious to us today that in-atmosphere nuclear testing is a bad idea. However, it was the Rainbow Warrior sailing into French nuclear test zones, and Greenpeace (the organization that grew from that effort) growing to oppose the imposition of human technologies and priorities on the wild life of the planet, that forced us to that conclusion. It was not obvious at the time.
In fact, propaganda films of the time "proved" that atmospheric testing "could do no harm" due to dissipation of long-lived radiation in the upper reaches of the atmosphere.
It was Greenpeace that made this ban so "obvious" by putting themselves in harms way those years ago.
Accordingly, we probably owe our best participation when that same organization (Greenpeace) asks questions about artificial life or new molecules or transparency of ethics or etiquette or even just degrees and nature of anoynimity.
If you have arguments against a ban of some new technology that impacts the natural world in a quite basic way, presumably you should go first to those who are least likely to accept your arguments, to both refine those arguments and to encounter your own bad assumptions.
It is simply dishonest to assert that atmospheric nuclear testing is "obviously wrong", and then to dodge debate with those who proved that very thing those many years ago, at risk to themselves.
Technology bans are now commonly discussed on television. It is long past time to engage the people who advocate bans and environmental ethics (such as the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays principle) which would slow down technology's "progress" – such as that is. If we are not activists here, then we are just promoters. I do not think that is what we want to be. Activists engage each other by choice, not only when they are forced to by conflicts.
Do so!
February 8th, 2002 at 1:51 PM
On EoC 2001 ToC: My Comments
Humm…I'm new here, but I've been researching nanotech from a non-college grad, non-scientist, non-specialist veiw point, so while I'd probably catagorize myself as an above average intellegence reader, I'm probably close to being your target audience.
That being the case, here are my comments. Please bear in mind they are my opinions, and as such, may not be shared by everyone. I tend to be open minded and rather liberal compared to most of the people I talk to. And I rarely bother to consider religious beliefs in discussions on technology, because they tend to cloud the issues.
Nanoshock (was: Engines of Creation 2001)
title/subtitle ideas are welcome
Honestly, I'd say EoC 200X may be a better choice. Nanoshock sounds entirely too much like a tabloid headline. If your intent is to get the Jerry Springer crowd to read it… which honestly may not be a bad idea… I'd say stay away from a flashy title.
Goal: to be as reassuring as possible while honestly presenting coming
powerful changes in technology, focusing on nanotechnology
Mrs. Peterson, there is no way to be reassuring *and* honest about nanotech. If you want reassuring, you can't be honest about it, and vice versa.
I've tried having conversations with people on nanotech, and it tends to be akin to a religious debate. "It's playing god" or worse. I've actually had one person tell me that nanotech wouldn't happen because Gene Rodenberry didn't write about it.
I want to see nanotech benefit everyone, not just the rich or the government, or the intellectual; but the common person has been filled with the horror of "Virtuosity", or similar movies, that show nanotech in a bad light. To see nanotech succeed for everyone, you've got to find a means of being honest, even above being reassuring, while still showing the advantages of nanotech.
That's not going to be easy, because many of the things I've noticed you and Mr. Drexler seem concerned with preventing are things that many many people will see as advantages. This may simply be my interpretations of "Unbounding" and "EoC" and other articles I've read, but it does seem to be the case. You need to see what people really want, then tell them how it can be accomplished.
And you'll need to avoid the concept of "proper use." The law of unintended consequences ensures there will always be ways technology can be used that differs from it's creators intention. And never forget that one mans evil is another mans good.
Chapter 1: Technological Change, good and bad
Examples of both kinds
Trying to stop technological change has unexpected side effects
(abortion ban, drug ban, cloning ban). Some bans are worth doing
anyway (murder ban)
This is something I've actually written a few essays on, which is where I came up with the Law of Unintended Consequences. I have no idea if it's a concept that I read somewhere and adopted or just a phrase I thought sounded good, but my pesonal interpretation has always been this:
Any technology will have effects and uses beyond those envisioned by the creator.
I firmly believe if Alexander Graham Bell had forseen what the telephone would become, he would have destroyed his invention, and spent the rest of his life hunting down and discouraging anyone else who tried to create it.
Why? Because the technology hasn't been put to the uses he envisoned. It's been put to them… and then some. The human race used it, and found new way to use it, and created technologies that use it, until you can't live without it anymore. It's essential to life as we know it. Our economy depends on telephones. Our kids would sugically attach them to their ears if they could. Business itself would cease without phones.
Is it a good thing? Do you enjoy telemarketers calling you during dinner? Do you like having the phone ring at all hours of the day and night?
Is it a bad thing? Do you like being able to call up the internet? Do you like being able to talk to your friends without having to drive over to see them?
Technology is. It is neither good nor bad, it simply exists. There is no such thing as good technological changes, or bad ones, they just exist. My opinions of whether it's good or bad are just that, opinions.
For every technological change, I can give you positives and negatives. Do the positives outweigh the negatives? That's a matter of opinion, not fact. It can be debated from here to the heat death of the universe, and it will still only be an opinion.
Nanotechnology is a science. It has been portrayed as a science and at every turn it has been defended as a science. That being the case, a discussion of good and bad is pointless. Science deals with facts. Anything else is a article of faith. And like any other form of technology, ethical or moral debate over its uses is not only pointless, but dangerous. Regardless of what you may or may not want, their will be others out there who do. It's always best to work for the best case, but plan for the worst.
It's predicting what the worst may be that's hard. And you have to think logically, not emotionally. The grey goo is a real danger, but is cloning? Not in a moral or ethical sese, but in fact? Morals and ethics can't be considerations in the development of Nanotech or it will blind people to what both the possible is, and what the dangers are.
Don't get me wrong, please. From what I've read, you and Mr. Drexler both are people I'd consider extremely trustworthy upstanding people, but not everyone is, and it is those people you MUST think like to develop effective defenses.
And if I sound like I'm preaching to the chorus, my apologies, but I felt I must state my posistion on this. There are several things Mr. Drexler has indicated he veiws as undesireable that I believe many people will see as prime selling points for supporting Nanotech research.
Chapter 2: Nanotechnology
By this chapter heading, I'm assuming this will be an overview of nanotechnology, definitions, and clarification of exactly what Molecular Nanotechnology and mechanosynthesis is. As such, it's fairly straight forward. No need to comment.
Chapter 3: Life Extension, biotech, human modification
Concerns about biotech are temporary
Here's where you get into one of the first areas I think you and I may veiw radically differently. If I am wrong, please forgive me, but statements made by Mr Drexler in EoC lead me to think he is against modifications beyond very minimal points.
But I will agree with you that concerns over biotech will be very short lived.
On the subject of human modification, I have this to say: It is not the role of Science to dictate how far modifications should go. Any attempt to set limits on this is completely arbitrary and based on moral or ethical beliefs.
To illustrate. Look online. Take a random sampling of ten million people from different chat rooms, mucks, moos, muds, newsgroups, bulliten boards, etc. Check their online persona verses their real life self.
Many of them won't be "Human" online. They'll be elves, centaurs, Klingons, dragons, cyborgs, etc.
Very many of them, given a chance, would jump at a technology that would allow them to BE what they are online. It's one of the things I see as a major selling point of Virtual Reality.
Nanotech can make that real. For that matter, creative microtech, utilizing MEM social robots could do it.
Is it wrong? Many people might think they're strange, but to the people who would opt for such radical modifications would see it as a godsend.
It's not my place to judge what makes them happy. So long as it doesn't hurt anyone, I could careless what they do. It's no worse than plastic surgery.
But statements Mr. Drexler has made previously in EoC lead me to think that these uses are veiwed as "Misuses".
It's technology… there is no misuse, just a use other than what the creator envisioned.
There's no point to attempting to stop it or even thwart it. People are vain, and asking for altruism rarely works. If you really want to drum up support, appeal to their desires and their vanity. Hollywood alone might give you enough funding if you stressed this aspect of Nanotechnology. Why spend a fortune paying a thousand computer animators or cosmeticians when you can rebuild the actor into any appearance you want?
Bottom line is that reshaping the human body is a feature of nanotech that exists, because we are constructed of atoms. The complete understanding of DNA sequencing is inevitable, and so is a computer program that models what different DNA chains will produce. It is inevitable that the human race will begin restructuring itself, life off Earth pretty much requires it. We will make ourselves tougher, stronger, smarter, and immortal. Changing the body design is insignifigant.
We're eventually going to modify it to the point of leaving organic structures behind forever anyway… it's a fairly pointless debate.
And that's why I think fears about biotech are short lived. I don't think we're going to still be biology based a century from now.
Chapter 4: Space
Who "inherits" the Earth?
There's far more to space than just what to do with the earth when we move out into the universe.
Subjects such as nanotech terraforming, planet construction from asteroid debris feilds, gas giant mining, space habitats, space ships, and even adaptation to life in space should be addressed.
Who inherits the earth is a philosopy question more than a science question.
Chapter 5: Openness, transparency, surveillance
End of violent crime as we know it
Nice dream. Won't happen.
Human nature is too secretive to allow it. For every way you come up with to monitor "everything" some creative person with something to hide will find a way to curcumvent it. You can make it work on some levels, but no where near the levels you propose.
And I want you to think for a second really about violent crime. Do you really think that it'll end? When you're immortal? Regenerative? and if you actually are made nonfunctional, you can be rebuilt?
No. I think violence in such a situation is far *more* likely… not less. Humans are a reckless lot.
Don't believe me, explain extreme sports and football.
No, under those conditions, I think the average human is likely to be more bloodthirsty, not less. And I think the WWF illustrates that all too well…
Chapter 6: Earth's environment
the end of rage and despair
Example: end of oil as fuel
Here's a subject where I have had many arguments… particularly with Greenies.
Here, I'll actually give you what you're probably looking for more than what I've given so far… visions and examples… but I'll warn you, they may be more frightening in ways than reassuring.
Imagine if you will a world where most of the visible signs of humanity are cloaked in green. A city with giant buildings and gardens of plants, flowers and trees. Homes built underground or in trees or on the ground that are as natural and harmonious as their environment. Oceans filled with whales again. Islands where dodos once more roam.
Imagine cities floating on the sea, in the air, in space. Imagine cars that alter their shape to fly through water as easily as the air, or space. Imagine people able to move all over the world in minutes via underground railroads, trans atmospheric planes or other methods. Imagine a world with a green moon, and two green stars in it's sky.
Welcome to a world where nanotech is real.
Houses can be grown from seeds. You plant it and it will release it's first load of nanomachines to collect material. These will be used to create specialized machines to process raw material into walls, floors, ceilings, then begin burrowing down to tap into the local water table and provide water. The central seed will evolve into the houses brain, and main computer. It will co-ordinate millions of micromachines that will cultivate the local plantlife to grow over parts of the house and move the earth that it will use for insulation. They will survey the local landscape and engineer the aboveground portions of the house for minimal environmental intrusion, integrating doors and windows into natural seeming outcrops. Sunflowers, part machine, mostly plant will track the sun and store power for the houses consumption.
Inside the house, a cloud of micromachines such as utility fog will enable the interior to assume any form or dimension, limited only by it's occupants desires. In this mix of virtual and real, the inside of the house could seem far larger than it's outside, so the actual space needed for the occupant need not be outrageous. Entire communities could be pleasant woodlands with elegant pathways where the occupants could walk without fear of being run over, save by hordes of children. Quiet aircars would need no paved roads, and between the sunflower beds and the power created by the houses manufacturing plant, there is little need for power lines defacing the country side.
In the cities, micromachine maintained gardens would grace quiet conveyor walkways. The glass walled towers will drink in the sunlight, using the abundant resource to power themselves and feed excess into the national grid. Utility fog can maintain the climates at comfortable levels year round, making even the harshest winter warm and cozy within the cities perimeter.
And for the people? With the complete control of matter came complete control of themselves. Human, elves, aliens, anthropomorphs, they all coexist. Skin color ceased to be an issue when it could be changed as easily as clothes. So did personal appearance.
With the mental control of utility fog also came the comfort of shaping the world to your desires, at least with in limits. Control of the fog requires concentration to maintain if someone else has the same access. Pranks would be quite common as individuals strive to show their creativity through their foglets. Making ones chair vanish when you're not thinking about it would likely be the top prank of all.
It's not a world most people would recognize anymore, but it's one possible future, one that doesn't require any curbs on technological development or use. Just the use of technology to maintain a balance.
And it doesen't require any of the drastic measures of population control or de-urbanization proposed by the Eco-paranoids.
It's not a perfect world, there is still violence, but it's less damaging, there's still strife, but no reason for massive wars. There's even likely to be massively dangerous sports, but when death is reversable, so what? Humanity can't trive in a sterile, danger free environment. If we have no natural enemies, we create our own. Utopia leads only to stagnation, and extinction.
Chapter 7: AI
One of my favorite topics. The future of AI seems to be fraught with terror that our creations will out evolve us and replace us.
Here's my answer to that.
They will.
Face it. So long as mankind is shakled to the notion that he's perfect and unchangable, and cannot be altered or upgraded in any way, it's inevitable. A.I. will out evolve man.
SO LONG AS MAN CHOOSES NOT TO EVOLVE!
I really do hope and pray that I'm not the only one who sees the patheticness and genocidal nature of this way of thinking.
For every advance we can make in A.I. we can apply it to the human race. Improvements in the way an A.I.s brain is structured? Why wouldn't they be applicable to humanity?
Minsky has already proposed that the human mind can be transferred to a sufficiently complex computer, and with nanotech, we can replace the brain one cell at a time with much faster, hardier, and more efficient analogs without losing any of the data that makes individuals themselves. We can make our selves faster, increase our intellegence and eventually even transfer our consciousness entirely to the realm of electronics, without losing any of the advantages of a biological systems. We can engineer ourselves to become our own replacements and accelerate evolution by billions of years.
We'll only become pets if we allow ourselves to be.
A.I. is a misnomer. It should be Artificial Evolution. Do we evolve, or die?
Chapter 8: Software reliability and security
This, I don't know enough about to comment on.
Chapter 9: Intellectual property
The social cost of controlling bitstreams into and out of people's
computers outweighs the proposed benefits
Again, this is not something I know enough about to comment on.
Chapter 10: Nanodefense, immune system
Some thoughts on the concept of an immune system. In EoC, Mr. Drexler advanced the notion that small computers could be placed into cells to allow monitoring and repair of the DNA of it's owner. This is the basis of most of my thinking on the immune system based on that concept.
By increasing the intellegence of the cell based units and enabling them to communicate with all other cell comps, it is possible to create an active immune system that will deal with invaders from the point of entry. Any cells which do not share the owners DNA are automatically destroyed. To prevent the introduction of engineered stealth viruses, it may be neccessary to create a means for the computer to do both a DNA check and a software check to ensure the cell is indeed part of the cellular structure of it's host.
With a further increase in sophistication, this cell system can also communicate directly with it's host, and can pass unresolvable issues up to a virtual interface the host can use to control their own immune system. Additionally, with advances in mind machine interfaces, it can also allow the host to modify themselves at will, utilizing engineered abilities to herd cells to consciously fix damage, or even shift their physical appearance.
Additionally, with linkages to a WWW like matrix, the immune system can send information on virus threats to a universal address and download "antiviruses" automatically. This enables more than just one immune system to combat viral of cellular level threats.
Adding to this, if a record of the synaptic pathways is constantly updated, in the event of catastrophic events that may result in total loss of the brain, the synaptic map can be used to rebuild a memory and personality intact copy.
Or, if the synaptic map is electronicly based, awareness can be maintained while the consciousness is transferred to a copy.
This ensures that even in the event of a virulent destructive nanomachine plague that reduces everything to component atoms, the consciousness of it's victims can be transferred to new bodies and not die. This is particularly true if the network is not entirely planet based, but is spread over multiple planets and space habitats.
And once this network is multisolarsytem wide, the likely hood of total extinction is reduced enormously. If means can be found to use Bells theorum to create a communications device that allows realtime communication over any distance, than even supernovas need not destroy people beyond recovery.
Death, in any form, will cease to exist.
Chapter 11: Social software, personal action
Again, not a subject I know enough about to discuss.
Acknowledgements
Further reading
Glossary
Index
Humm. That's my two cents worth. I apologize if I misconstrued anyones intentions or statements, any such errors are my own fault. Also, I cannot attribute most of the concepts I discussed to anyone source, as I have read far too many books, papers and discussions on these subjects. Some may belong to other people, some may be my own based on ideas I read. I wouldn't be able to tell you.
I simply felt it worth while to add my opinion…