Nanotech arms race worries: all smoke and no fire?
Jim Logajan
In another thread, Chris Phoenix wrote:
> The stability of an arms race depends on the technology involved.
Since nanotechnology will make irrelevant many of the motivations that
drive national antagonisms, the more fundamental question is "Are nanotech
arms races ever likely to arise?" - not "Are they unstable?"
Furthermore, an objective list would have included those aspects of
nanotechnology that lent stability to any ensuing arms race as well as
those that caused instability. As a result, the list appears subjective,
making it an inaccurate assessment of probable futures, and therefore of
little value in determining policy. It needs to be redone with more
objectivity, IMHO.
> MNT races would be a lot less stable than nuclear arms races, for many
> reasons. In no particular order:
> 1) Cheaper to develop and test
That is an odd claim to make since history has already invalidated it: An
understanding of the physical laws needed to develop nuclear technology,
microtechnology, and nanotechnology were all in place at the end of the
1930s. Nuclear reactors and bombs now exist, as do microelectronic devices,
yet no MNT device yet exists. And Feynman spoke of MNT-like capabilities
and their great promise back in 1959 - and yet they still don't exist.
Therefore I simply can't reconcile your claim with reality.
Furthermore, even when the first MNT assembler or nanofactory arrives on
the scene, the design and development problems do not go away. The
technology will be in virgin territory and there will be teething problems
in the design of products and in each generation of device. Each of these
problems will takes months and possibly even years to work out.
And of course, it isn't clear why this makes a nanotech arms race
"unstable". The "stability" of said race eventually rests on the psychology
and motivations of the participants. If the intent of one side is to use
the arms once they believe they have superiority, then a subsequent arms
race is potentially unstable - but the technology involved is irrelevant.
> 2) Less horrifying; less political pressure against use
> 3) Less collateral and post-attack damage (more controllable)
(Note: these two points appear to be interdependent and therefore seem to
be only one point.)
Assassination happens to match these criteria. And it it available today.
Is there an arms race for assassins?
> 4) Much faster obsolescence (orders of magnitude)
This is closely related to point 1, which I've already commented on.
> 5) Much cheaper to build
So? Technological or cost _inequities_ in an arms race do not cause an arms
race to be unstable - the instability is either there from the start or it
is not, as I claim above. Also, this point, along with point 7, concern
proliferation which is a subject different from arms races.
> 6) Far more diverse weaponry
I fail to see how this leads to instability in an arms race. It also
falsely implies that there are no difficulties involved in designing,
building, testing, and deploying a diverse set of weapons. (It might be
more effective to stick with one class of weapons after all.)
> 7) Almost everything is dual-use
This is an important point on the futility of attempting non-proliferation,
but again, it does not seem to me to be a destabilizing factor on its own
or in conjunction with any of the other points.
> Nukes are easier to stockpile than to use;
U.S. nukes have a design lifespan of 20 to 25 years. They have to be
heavily guarded. Their delivery systems (missiles and bombers) require
periodic maintenance and replacement. From a cost perspective they are NOT
"easy" to stockpile. Your statement makes sense only when comparing the
moral and political aspects - in which case I agree.
> MNT-built weapons are easier to use than to stockpile.
Again, one has to read this as a statement on the political or moral costs,
since it doesn't make any sense from a financial cost basis. I presume that
this is a conclusion from points 2 and 3: it is easier to find a moral
justification for killing a few rather than millions. It also presumes that
killing a few will accomplish the intended goal. But targeted killings of
political or military leaders of enemy countries don't seem to work the way
the perpetrators intend. The futility of targeting a few people and places
will simply increase, not decrease, as nanotechnology makes its way into
human life.
John S. Novak, III
In article <cccqo...@enews3.newsguy.com>, Jim Logajan wrote:
> In another thread, Chris Phoenix wrote:
>> The stability of an arms race depends on the technology involved.
> Since nanotechnology will make irrelevant many of the motivations that
> drive national antagonisms, the more fundamental question is "Are nanotech
> arms races ever likely to arise?" - not "Are they unstable?"
Or are you being ironic?
> Furthermore, an objective list would have included those aspects of
> nanotechnology that lent stability to any ensuing arms race as well as
> those that caused instability. As a result, the list appears subjective,
> making it an inaccurate assessment of probable futures, and therefore of
> little value in determining policy. It needs to be redone with more
> objectivity, IMHO.
Stability is a concept amenable to mathematical treatment, actually.
Until I see a mathematical treatment behind the claim, I will regard
it as an unfounded assertion.
(That is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition.)
>> MNT races would be a lot less stable than nuclear arms races, for many
>> reasons. In no particular order:
>> 1) Cheaper to develop and test
> Furthermore, even when the first MNT assembler or nanofactory arrives on
> the scene, the design and development problems do not go away. The
> technology will be in virgin territory and there will be teething problems
> in the design of products and in each generation of device. Each of these
> problems will takes months and possibly even years to work out.
This is quite, quite true.
Far too many nanotech enthusiasts, and even a number of self-appointed
experts are running around with the notion that once we have
nanotechnology, we will automagically solve not only production
problems, but design problems as well.
Of course, one need only look at every single past technology
revolution to know that neither of these claims are true. New
technoogies do not "solve" design problems; they render some design
problems obsolete, ameliorate others, and introduce still other new
design problems. LIkewise, they do not "solve" production problems,
they merely shift the economics a bit.
> And of course, it isn't clear why this makes a nanotech arms race
> "unstable".
That's probably because we haven't defined instability as it pertains
to an arms race. I don't see a definition or a mathematical treatment
given on crnano.org, either. Perhaps I missed it, but my impression is
that it's a scare-adjective.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
The Humblest Man on the Net
Jim Logajan
j...@panix.com (John S. Novak, III) wrote:
> In article <cccqo...@enews3.newsguy.com>, Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Since nanotechnology will make irrelevant many of the motivations
>> that drive national antagonisms, the more fundamental question is
>> "Are nanotech arms races ever likely to arise?" - not "Are they
>> unstable?"
>
> Are you serious?
> Or are you being ironic?
Of course I'm serious - if I wasn't, I'd have written it so it was dripping
with irony, or bracketed it with nerdish pseudo-tags like <irony></irony>.
Just to be clear: I do not consider arms construction per se to constitute an
"arms race" - so if militaries upgrade their arms with nanotech-built
equipment, I don't consider such actions sufficient to label an "arms
race".
And the principal origin of the nuclear arms race was economic: if by some
historical accident the Russian February Revolution had resulted in a
democratic Russian government, a polarized set of competing economic
systems would not have resulted decades later. Tensions existed long before
nuclear weapons came on the scene. (And of course the Russian revolutions
took place precisely BECAUSE of inequitable economic conditions.)
Likewise, terrorism is founded on economic inequites as well a clash of
cultures - and the latter would be reduced if the economies of the cultures
involved were less interdependent. If there is any technological solution
to economic scarcity, reduction of inequities and economic interdependence,
then nanotechnology seems to be that solution.
>> Furthermore, an objective list would have included those aspects of
>> nanotechnology that lent stability to any ensuing arms race as well
>> as those that caused instability. As a result, the list appears
>> subjective, making it an inaccurate assessment of probable futures,
>> and therefore of little value in determining policy. It needs to be
>> redone with more objectivity, IMHO.
>
> Stability is a concept amenable to mathematical treatment, actually.
> Until I see a mathematical treatment behind the claim, I will regard
> it as an unfounded assertion.
>
> (That is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition.)
I'm pretty sure Chris is using "stable" in a colloquial sense - and so am
I. There are, after all, gobs of real-world physics and engineering
problems that can never be solved, except approximately. And that assumes
one can even model the problems exactly - which one generally can't. No one
can even predict the weather 2 weeks from now - good luck finding a half
way reliable model for arms races!
>> And of course, it isn't clear why this makes a nanotech arms race
>> "unstable".
>
> That's probably because we haven't defined instability as it pertains
> to an arms race. I don't see a definition or a mathematical treatment
> given on crnano.org, either. Perhaps I missed it, but my impression
> is that it's a scare-adjective.
Here's a web site loaded with equations that purport to determine the
instability of an arms race:
http://www.dean.usma.edu/departments/math/pubs/mmm99/DDS1.HTM
I started disagreeing with it by the second sentence. ;-) A contrary
opinion to some of the assumptions in the model can be found in:
Warren Okuma
"John S. Novak, III" <j...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cceho...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> In article <cccqo...@enews3.newsguy.com>, Jim Logajan wrote:
>
> > In another thread, Chris Phoenix wrote:
> >> The stability of an arms race depends on the technology involved.
>
> > Since nanotechnology will make irrelevant many of the motivations that
> > drive national antagonisms, the more fundamental question is "Are
nanotech
> > arms races ever likely to arise?" - not "Are they unstable?"
>
> Are you serious?
> Or are you being ironic?
Irrelevant? Jihads? Sociopaths? Terrorists? Insane folks? Blackmailers?
Criminals? Jilted lovers? Ooops? With an assembler more people than ever
can be players, and not just countries.
>
> > Furthermore, an objective list would have included those aspects of
> > nanotechnology that lent stability to any ensuing arms race as well as
> > those that caused instability. As a result, the list appears subjective,
> > making it an inaccurate assessment of probable futures, and therefore of
> > little value in determining policy. It needs to be redone with more
> > objectivity, IMHO.
>
> Stability is a concept amenable to mathematical treatment, actually.
> Until I see a mathematical treatment behind the claim, I will regard
> it as an unfounded assertion.
>
> (That is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition.)
Stability in this world? Not anytime soon.
>
> >> MNT races would be a lot less stable than nuclear arms races, for many
> >> reasons. In no particular order:
> >> 1) Cheaper to develop and test
>
> > Furthermore, even when the first MNT assembler or nanofactory arrives on
> > the scene, the design and development problems do not go away. The
> > technology will be in virgin territory and there will be teething
problems
> > in the design of products and in each generation of device. Each of
these
> > problems will takes months and possibly even years to work out.
>
> This is quite, quite true.
>
> Far too many nanotech enthusiasts, and even a number of self-appointed
> experts are running around with the notion that once we have
> nanotechnology, we will automagically solve not only production
> problems, but design problems as well.
>
> Of course, one need only look at every single past technology
> revolution to know that neither of these claims are true. New
> technoogies do not "solve" design problems; they render some design
> problems obsolete, ameliorate others, and introduce still other new
> design problems. LIkewise, they do not "solve" production problems,
> they merely shift the economics a bit.
Sigh. Yeah...
>
> > And of course, it isn't clear why this makes a nanotech arms race
> > "unstable".
>
> That's probably because we haven't defined instability as it pertains
> to an arms race. I don't see a definition or a mathematical treatment
> given on crnano.org, either. Perhaps I missed it, but my impression is
> that it's a scare-adjective.
>
Has there ever been a stable arms race?
Jim Logajan
Warren Okuma wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Since nanotechnology will make irrelevant many of the motivations
>> that drive national antagonisms, the more fundamental question is
>> "Are nanotech arms races ever likely to arise?" - not "Are they
>> unstable?"
>
> Blackmailers? Criminals? Jilted lovers? Ooops? With an assembler
> more people than ever can be players, and not just countries.
Individuals don't engage in arms races with each other - which is what this
thread was about. In fact damn few countries engage in arms races. That
said, most of the players you mention wont BE players when nanotech is
developed to the point where it can be used to reek havoc, since it will
then also be a cornucopia of wealth and health:
> Jihads? Terrorists?
I believe the ultimate origins of these are economic inequities. The
following may or may not be a useful backgrounder:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/9-11_commission/030709-sageman.htm
> Sociopaths? Insane folks?
I'm not crazy - I know these may be the most dangerous groups in a nanotech
enabled world. Satisfying material wants (including want of weapons) is
easier than solving mental problems.
> Blackmailers? Criminals?
So you have this desktop device that will manufacture a wide variety of
goods - pretty much everything you need. So instead of making whatever it
is you desire, you have it make some diabolical weapon and you go on a
crime spree? I think you'd be classified under the insane folks.
> Jilted lovers?
Okay, this one might be a small problem: "*SOB* My heart is broken - life
isn't worth living since s/he dumped me. Oh how I wish the world would end!
Oh wait, maybe I CAN make it end: I have a Mr. Assembler - I bet I can have
it build some grey goo...."
> Has there ever been a stable arms race?
For sure. For a historical briefing on the subject, see:
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/ml_003300_armsrace.htm
"...Many onlookers, and some participants, have claimed that the likelihood
of war increases as the accumulation of arms proceeds apace.
A close examination of the historical evidence reveals a different
picture...."
Warren Okuma
"Jim Logajan" <Jam...@lugoj.com> wrote in message
news:ccijn...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
> Warren Okuma wrote:
> > Jim Logajan wrote:
> >> Since nanotechnology will make irrelevant many of the motivations
> >> that drive national antagonisms, the more fundamental question is
> >> "Are nanotech arms races ever likely to arise?" - not "Are they
> >> unstable?"
> >
> > Irrelevant? Jihads? Sociopaths? Terrorists? Insane folks?
> > Blackmailers? Criminals? Jilted lovers? Ooops? With an assembler
> > more people than ever can be players, and not just countries.
>
> Individuals don't engage in arms races with each other - which is what
this
> thread was about. In fact damn few countries engage in arms races. That
> said, most of the players you mention wont BE players when nanotech is
> developed to the point where it can be used to reek havoc, since it will
> then also be a cornucopia of wealth and health:
Though criminals do engage in arms races against the police...
>
> > Jihads? Terrorists?
>
> I believe the ultimate origins of these are economic inequities. The
> following may or may not be a useful backgrounder:
>
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/9-11_commission/030709-sageman.htm
The problem with that is the jihadis have a Fatwa declaring a Jihad against
the US. Poverty is one facet of this problem, but Extreme Islam plays a
bigger role.
> > Sociopaths? Insane folks?
>
> I'm not crazy - I know these may be the most dangerous groups in a
nanotech
> enabled world. Satisfying material wants (including want of weapons) is
> easier than solving mental problems.
Agreed. It might be an arms race against civillian potential manufacturing
capabilities.
>
> > Blackmailers? Criminals?
>
> So you have this desktop device that will manufacture a wide variety of
> goods - pretty much everything you need. So instead of making whatever it
> is you desire, you have it make some diabolical weapon and you go on a
> crime spree? I think you'd be classified under the insane folks.
There are things that you would not want the assemblers to make. Drugs,
weapons, power over others, replicating snuff films, mind control implants,
etc... and ways to defend yourself if the cops come. Overthrowing
countries. Land. Greed will still exist.
>
> > Jilted lovers?
>
> Okay, this one might be a small problem: "*SOB* My heart is broken - life
> isn't worth living since s/he dumped me. Oh how I wish the world would
end!
> Oh wait, maybe I CAN make it end: I have a Mr. Assembler - I bet I can
have
> it build some grey goo...."
Yup.
>
> > Has there ever been a stable arms race?
>
> For sure. For a historical briefing on the subject, see:
>
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/ml_003300_armsrace.htm
Fair.
Randall Randall
"Warren Okuma" <wok...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:<ccnks...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
> > goods - pretty much everything you need. So instead of making whatever it
> > is you desire, you have it make some diabolical weapon and you go on a
> > crime spree? I think you'd be classified under the insane folks.
>
> There are things that you would not want the assemblers to make. Drugs,
> weapons, power over others, replicating snuff films, mind control implants,
> etc... and ways to defend yourself if the cops come. Overthrowing
> countries. Land. Greed will still exist.
This is exactly why political control of assemblers is so worrying, and
why some of us have a kneejerk response in favor of no involuntary
regulation. You've listed as undesirable the possibilities for freedom
or escape from tyranny, scattered among other things I would agree are
undesirable.
--
Randall Randall <ran...@randallsquared.com>
Property law should use #'EQ , not #'EQUAL .
Richard Steven Hack
On 10 Jul 2004 02:39:12 GMT, "Warren Okuma" <wok...@lava.net> wrote:
>"Jim Logajan" <Jam...@lugoj.com> wrote in message
>news:ccijn...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>>
>> I believe the ultimate origins of these are economic inequities. The
>> following may or may not be a useful backgrounder:
>>
>http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/9-11_commission/030709-sageman.htm
>
>The problem with that is the jihadis have a Fatwa declaring a Jihad against
>the US. Poverty is one facet of this problem, but Extreme Islam plays a
>bigger role.
Extreme Islam wouldn't exist without poverty - or at least certainly
not to the degree that it does. Does the United States have the same
degree of "extreme Chistianity" that it did in the early settler's
years? Certainly we have 65 million fundamentalists - and most of
them correlate with the less affluent and educated elements of the US
demographics.
>There are things that you would not want the assemblers to make. Drugs,
>weapons, power over others, replicating snuff films, mind control implants,
>etc... and ways to defend yourself if the cops come. Overthrowing
>countries. Land. Greed will still exist.
These discussions are mostly pointless because we have no way of
knowing how development of nanotech will progress at this point -
neither which development technology will ultimately prevail (or even
if a specific approach will) or when or by whom.
If someone comes out with a fully developed assembler tomorrow, the
issue might be how long it would be before it was developed into a
weapon versus how long it would take for the technology to be used to
complete the mapping of the human body and brain and genetics and then
modify same to not produce psychopathy. Presumably the former would
be quicker than the latter.
However, the probability of a fully developed assembler technology
occurring in the next decade or two is quite unlikely. It is much
more likely that nanotech applications to the biological sciences will
progress at a pace even with nanotech development - as is the case
with most technologies - applications follow development - with the
result that nanotech will be applied more often to solving mental
health and other biological programs (not to mention aging - the fear
of death is the root of all evil) and by larger and better equipped
organizations than those who would use it for negative purposes.
If the technology develops over the next thirty years, at what point
will it be useful as a weapon versus useful as a behavior modification
technology or even defensive device? Who knows?
Speculation about whether nanotech will be more used as a weapon than
as a technology for human development is poorly thought out.
There are two time frames: the one before we have fully developed
nanotech and the one after. The one before is where any possible
threats may develop. The one after will see the transformation of the
human species into something else - something rational enough and not
bound to biological bases for things like psychopathy, greed or even
the simple primate emotional needs currently afflicting the species.
In the earlier time frame, the issue is no different than any other
technology - nuclear, biological or nanotech. In other words, those
who are developing the tech will be far more advanced at it than those
who are expropriating it for criminal or other negative purposes. We
might have the nanotech equivalent of "crackers" but to extrapolate
from that they will have fully developed nanotech and be able to wreak
havoc on the world (or even much more than locally) is simply
scare-mongering.
I am a radical Transhumanist. If anybody would be interested in
appropriating nanotech and using it to trash most of present human
society, it would be me. And I don't see it happening for another two
or three decades. And nothing that has been said here or elsewhere -
by Bill Joy or anyone else - convinces me that anyone else has any
more special insight into the issues involved. It's either moralistic
hand-wringing to cover up fear of the unknown or wooly-minded
speculation.
--
Richard Steven Hack
"Whatever does not kill me makes me stronger" -
and YOU have not killed me!
John S. Novak, III
In article <ccg08...@enews4.newsguy.com>, Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Are you serious?
>> Or are you being ironic?
> historical accident the Russian February Revolution had resulted in a
> democratic Russian government, a polarized set of competing economic
> systems would not have resulted decades later. Tensions existed long before
> nuclear weapons came on the scene. (And of course the Russian revolutions
> took place precisely BECAUSE of inequitable economic conditions.)
> Likewise, terrorism is founded on economic inequites as well a clash of
> cultures - and the latter would be reduced if the economies of the cultures
> involved were less interdependent. If there is any technological solution
> to economic scarcity, reduction of inequities and economic interdependence,
> then nanotechnology seems to be that solution.
Suffice to say I think your analysis is naive: The principle origin
of the economic disparities during the Cold War resulted from a
politics promoting individual choice (and thus a market economy) in
the West and a politics destroying individual choice (and thus
creating a command economy) in the East.
The principle origin of the economic problems of much of Islam are a
combination of kleptocratic dictatorships and quasi-dictatorships
combined with a particularly narrow and inflexible view of a religion
teaching total submission to religious authority. (And I don't know
what you're talking about in terms of economic interdependence--
the alternative to economic interdependence is isolationism which has
never been good for a region's economic or social outlook.)
Economics plays a role, certainly, but there are forces which shape
economics, as well, and it's difficult to posit that those forces will
disappear with the wave of the nanotechnology wand any more than they
disappeared with the wave of the electronics wand, the steam engine
wand, the water wheel wand, or the iron wand.
> I'm pretty sure Chris is using "stable" in a colloquial sense - and so am
> I. There are, after all, gobs of real-world physics and engineering
> problems that can never be solved, except approximately. And that assumes
> one can even model the problems exactly - which one generally can't. No one
> can even predict the weather 2 weeks from now - good luck finding a half
> way reliable model for arms races!
I'm pretty sure that he's using it colloquially, too, which is
precisely the problem. I don't know what an unstable arms race is, or
how it differs from a stable one. I know many people who would claim
that there is no such thing as a stable arms race to begin with.
I most especially don't know if you and Chris even mean the same thing
by the term.
>> That's probably because we haven't defined instability as it pertains
>> to an arms race. I don't see a definition or a mathematical treatment
>> given on crnano.org, either. Perhaps I missed it, but my impression
>> is that it's a scare-adjective.
> Here's a web site loaded with equations that purport to determine the
> instability of an arms race:
> http://www.dean.usma.edu/departments/math/pubs/mmm99/DDS1.HTM
> I started disagreeing with it by the second sentence. ;-) A contrary
> opinion to some of the assumptions in the model can be found in:
> http://www.twq.com/01autumn/tertrais.pdf
At least you *can* sensibly agree or disagree, since they define their
terms.
Matthias Sohr
> In another thread, Chris Phoenix wrote:
>
>>The stability of an arms race depends on the technology involved.
>
>
> Since nanotechnology will make irrelevant many of the motivations that
> drive national antagonisms, the more fundamental question is "Are nanotech
> arms races ever likely to arise?" - not "Are they unstable?"
Nanotechnology will also remove most of the reasons NOT to go to war,
including international (material) trade dependencies and military
protection dependencies. Motivation for war between humans might never
disappear, unless humans disappear (no, I don't advocate the latter
happening, it's just a fact). If you say, MNT will abolish many reasons
for war and thus arms races (note: many, maybe most, but not all), then
the remaining reasons will be the tougher ones to get rid of, right?
That is evolution. To you, MNT may be a kind of immune system against
war, but no immune system is perfect. No technology imaginable (except
things like mind control) will ever abolish religion or ideology, which
have provided enough reason for the most gruesome wars and genocides in
history. Even if you say "Hitler and/or the Crusades were mostly about
geopolitics, power and money", then, even if true, there exist more than
enough people that REALLY buy into this pretext of religious extremism
and genocide-ideology and would incorporate it as their way of dealing
with the world, if they could. I do not find this extremely unlikely.
Do also not forget the possibility of pre-emptive attacks that are due
to the very fact or (equally sufficient) the strong suspicion that
someone is no more than close to developing MNT. It's not arms race,
technically, but a possible new source of conflict, caused by no more
than the very process of developing MNT. The A-Bomb was developed mainly
because leading US-scientists (among them Einstein) believed Nazi
Germany was about to develop the Bomb, even though nothing could have
been farther from the truth. Had WW2 in Europe not been over by the time
it was ready, the Bomb might as well have fallen on a German city
because of fear, uncertainty, and, not to forget, the will to put the
new gadget to the ultimate test.
>>MNT races would be a lot less stable than nuclear arms races, for many
>>reasons. In no particular order:
>>1) Cheaper to develop and test
>
>
> That is an odd claim to make since history has already invalidated it: An
> understanding of the physical laws needed to develop nuclear technology,
> microtechnology, and nanotechnology were all in place at the end of the
> 1930s. Nuclear reactors and bombs now exist, as do microelectronic devices,
> yet no MNT device yet exists. And Feynman spoke of MNT-like capabilities
> and their great promise back in 1959 - and yet they still don't exist.
> Therefore I simply can't reconcile your claim with reality.
The assumption obviously is access to MNT capability, otherwise it
wouldnt't be "MNT arms race". Once you have a factory, you can churn out
and thus test any number of prototypes of any design you want, with
almost the same output rate and cost per piece as a fully fledged mass
production. How can this not be cheaper and easier to test?
> Furthermore, even when the first MNT assembler or nanofactory arrives on
> the scene, the design and development problems do not go away. The
> technology will be in virgin territory and there will be teething problems
> in the design of products and in each generation of device. Each of these
> problems will takes months and possibly even years to work out.
This is true, and it probably will be no small factor to weigh in, but
again, the virgin territory problem is no dilemma, because rapid
prototyping will speed up experimental (in-)validation of theories about
"how stuff works out" at the macroscale. As experience grows,
development times will shrink, which in turn will speed up experience
growth. Along the way, useful, not necessarily perfect designs (for good
or for bad) will be created, which can be put to use almost immediately.
Computer simulation and design programs will also not stop evolving, not
even considering the eventual massive increase in computing power and
memory storage capacity provided by MNT.
> And of course, it isn't clear why this makes a nanotech arms race
> "unstable". The "stability" of said race eventually rests on the psychology
> and motivations of the participants. If the intent of one side is to use
> the arms once they believe they have superiority, then a subsequent arms
> race is potentially unstable - but the technology involved is irrelevant.
The stability of previous arms races always rested at least partially on
the fact that competing countries (like the Warsaw Pact and NATO in the
Cold War) had *about* the same level of technology. There was MAD by
nukes, and in conventional weapon technology the NATO had in general
technically more advanced weaponry while the USSR had numerical and
production cost advantages. In contrast, "no MNT" vs. "mature MNT" will
not equel "MiG-21 jet" vs. "F-16 jet", but rather "farmers with
pitch-forks" vs. "Mechanized Infantry Division". Now if someone with
such MNT would have any reason at all bothering about someone without
MNT, then it would be a pretty short arms "race", thus as unstable as
one can imagine, if it cannot be resolved by politics.
Now a country/alliance having MNT has at least one advantage over a
non-MNT opponent: vastly superior production capacity at reduced costs.
You can replace heavy structural materials, like steel, with diamondoid
materials, like CNT compunds or whatever, losing weigth while gaining
strength. It presumably doesnt need much (when compared to building a
working nanofactory) to copy & paste the detailed blueprints of a
fighter plane, a tank or whatever into a nanofac-readable format,
replace most of the unnecessary material with said CNT compounds and
start churning them out at a bargain. The simple, quantitative advantage
a country can gain, will make it easy to crush an opponent, especially
one without nukes.
And if the MNT power has access to more advanced MNT, like small
programmable drones, a country could infiltrate any nuke site and
disable every single nuke (if it does limit itself to the nukes) and
reduce the attacked country to a non-nuclear one. Result: see above.
>>2) Less horrifying; less political pressure against use
>>3) Less collateral and post-attack damage (more controllable)
>
>
> (Note: these two points appear to be interdependent and therefore seem to
> be only one point.)
>
> Assassination happens to match these criteria. And it it available today.
> Is there an arms race for assassins?
If an assasination is no longer obviously recognizable as one (cruise
missiles, helicopter attack, shooting), it will be less unacceptable and
outraging. What keeps you from disassembling any unprotected person you
don't like, never to be heard or seen of again? No more nasty mass
graves, to cover up massacres. Of course all that is more than possible
with today's technology, but so is, say, colonisation of space or
replacing fossil fuels with "renewable" energy sources. It's all a
question of economics and politics, which in turn both mainly are
questions of technology.
>>5) Much cheaper to build
>
>
> So? Technological or cost _inequities_ in an arms race do not cause an arms
> race to be unstable - the instability is either there from the start or it
> is not, as I claim above. Also, this point, along with point 7, concern
> proliferation which is a subject different from arms races.
>>6) Far more diverse weaponry
>
>
> I fail to see how this leads to instability in an arms race. It also
> falsely implies that there are no difficulties involved in designing,
> building, testing, and deploying a diverse set of weapons. (It might be
> more effective to stick with one class of weapons after all.)
Diversity in weaponry (which can be achieved by robotics as well, as
opposed to human operation) has the advantage of one's enemy not knowing
what to defend against, thus a) increasing the confidence on the
attacker's side when estimating his chance of a successful attack and b)
increasing the uncertainty on the defender's side what to defend
against, thus increasing the incentive to strike first, given he even
knows there might be an attack, and by whom. But with uncertainty
increasing, suspicion of and actual knowledge about an impending attack
rapidly converge, so it might not even matter if there really will be an
attacker in the near future. Again, almost inexhaustible production
capability add another great deal of uncertainty. The main questions are
indeed political and diplomatic, but as Winston Churchill put it,
"Diplomacy means calming a wild dog until you find a large enough
stick", something to that effect. Be it morally valid or not, if enough
people adopt this stance, it will be reality.
>>7) Almost everything is dual-use
>
>
> This is an important point on the futility of attempting non-proliferation,
> but again, it does not seem to me to be a destabilizing factor on its own
> or in conjunction with any of the other points.
See previous paragraph. Technology influences politics and policies, it
always has. Why shoudn't it in the future?
Joe
this area since it was already knee-deep into it anyway. The post that
Joe is replying to is mine (Jim Logajan). I will try to determine if it is
possible to reply such that said reply remains topical! -JimL ]
>
> Likewise, terrorism is founded on economic inequites as well a clash of
> cultures -
So, people flew planes into the World Trade Center, for example, because of
"economic inequities" or because of a "clash" of cultures? ROTFL!
Nonsense.
and the latter would be reduced if the economies of the cultures
> involved were less interdependent.
The latter would be reduced if the countries like the U.S. cut out the
bloody imperialism and stopped trying to rule the world.
If there is any technological solution
> to economic scarcity, reduction of inequities and economic
interdependence,
> then nanotechnology seems to be that solution.
The problem isn't "economic scarcity", rather, it's insatiable greed and
lust for power, and the injustice that results.
Bootstrap Bill
"Joe" <jpsmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cd2ir...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> [ Moderator's note: I suspected this thread might eventually drift into
> this area since it was already knee-deep into it anyway. The post that
> Joe is replying to is mine (Jim Logajan). I will try to determine if it
is
> possible to reply such that said reply remains topical! -JimL ]
We need a forum to discuss these issues. How about sci.nanotech.misc? Make
it a moderated group. Anything remotely related to Nanotechnology would be
approved.
Robert V Hill
"Joe" <jpsmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cd2ir...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> [ Moderator's note: I suspected this thread might eventually drift into
> this area since it was already knee-deep into it anyway. The post that
> Joe is replying to is mine (Jim Logajan). I will try to determine if it
is
> possible to reply such that said reply remains topical! -JimL ]
>
> >
> > Likewise, terrorism is founded on economic inequites as well a clash of
> > cultures -
>
> So, people flew planes into the World Trade Center, for example, because
of
> "economic inequities" or because of a "clash" of cultures? ROTFL!
> Nonsense.
>
> and the latter would be reduced if the economies of the cultures
> > involved were less interdependent.
>
> The latter would be reduced if the countries like the U.S. cut out the
> bloody imperialism and stopped trying to rule the world.
>
I would say it was US Consumerism and/or commercialism that lead to the 9/11
attacks. The US has been eroding cultures around the world through the use
of Movies, TV, Internet, and music, some cultures resent this. Technology
can have unseen affects on cultural stability. In the end who can say what
cultural affects Nanotech will have on what Cultures.
> If there is any technological solution
> > to economic scarcity, reduction of inequities and economic
> interdependence,
> > then nanotechnology seems to be that solution.
nanotechnology will solution some problems, but it will Create others.
>
> The problem isn't "economic scarcity", rather, it's insatiable greed and
> lust for power, and the injustice that results.
>
I agreee with this and nanotechnology will not solve these problems
Jim Logajan
Matthias Sohr <marode...@compuserve.de> wrote:
> Nanotechnology will also remove most of the reasons NOT to go to war,
> including international (material) trade dependencies and military
> protection dependencies.
Would it be accurate to say, then, that you believe that absent some
restraint, nations yearn to go to war?
> Motivation for war between humans might never
> disappear, unless humans disappear (no, I don't advocate the latter
> happening, it's just a fact). If you say, MNT will abolish many
> reasons for war and thus arms races (note: many, maybe most, but not
> all), then the remaining reasons will be the tougher ones to get rid
> of, right?
No - it will be easier to tackle the remaining motivations because the
_human_ resources will become more readily available to deal with the
problem. There will be more people living a more comfortable, peaceful life
who will be both motivated and free to act in altruistic ways that they
might not have been able to.
> [...]there exist more than enough people that REALLY buy into
> this pretext of religious extremism and genocide-ideology and would
> incorporate it as their way of dealing with the world, if they could.
> I do not find this extremely unlikely.
No argument: the probability of conflict does not go to zero. MNT would not
eradicate irrational acts.
> Now if
> someone with such MNT would have any reason at all bothering about
> someone without MNT, then it would be a pretty short arms "race", thus
> as unstable as one can imagine, if it cannot be resolved by politics.
Those with MNT would have little to gain by attacking those without MNT,
but they might have more to gain by giving the technology away. Those
without MNT would have little chance of success and would better use their
resources and talents either simply asking the MNT holders for the
technology or develop it themselves! Neither side seems to have much to
gain (and more to lose) by acting against the other side.
> If an assasination is no longer obviously recognizable as one (cruise
> missiles, helicopter attack, shooting), it will be less unacceptable
> and outraging. What keeps you from disassembling any unprotected
> person you don't like, never to be heard or seen of again?
So? It is possible in the present to commit murder and get away with it,
given enough planning. The technology doesn't change the moral equation -
people aren't being restrained from committing murder and mayhem simply
because they don't have the technology to get away with it!
> Technology influences politics and policies,
> it always has. Why shoudn't it in the future?
Here's what I believe: People aren't chomping at the bit to commit murder
and mayhem - but they do want to live comfortable lives to pursue peaceful
activities. The best way to insure that nanotechnology ends up in the hands
of bad people before good people have a chance to prepare defenses is by
promoting policies that centralize any aspect of nanotechnology
development.
Bootstrap Bill
"Jim Logajan" <Jam...@lugoj.com> wrote in message
news:ccijn...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> Okay, this one might be a small problem: "*SOB* My heart is broken - life
> isn't worth living since s/he dumped me. Oh how I wish the world would
end!
> Oh wait, maybe I CAN make it end: I have a Mr. Assembler - I bet I can
have
> it build some grey goo...."
Or you infect him/her with a nano virus that will seek out and modify
certain memories. We might not have a clue as to how it would be done, but
I'll bet it will be less than a days work for someone with their own AI
computer.
Richard Steven Hack
On 15 Jul 2004 03:33:45 GMT, "Robert V Hill" <t.bla...@comcast.net>
wrote:
>> The problem isn't "economic scarcity", rather, it's insatiable greed and
>> lust for power, and the injustice that results.
>>
>I agreee with this and nanotechnology will not solve these problems
Yes, it will, in due time, by eliminating human nature and producing
Transhumans unaffected by primitive primate biochemical emotional
needs.
Who will either transmogrify the remaining humans, or eliminate them,
or simply move on and let them exterminate themselves - or more
likely, all three.
I tend to favor elimination, but that's just my own primitive primate
emotional need.
Matthias Sohr
>>Nanotechnology will also remove most of the reasons NOT to go to war,
>>including international (material) trade dependencies and military
>>protection dependencies.
>
> Would it be accurate to say, then, that you believe that absent some
> restraint, nations yearn to go to war?
No, it wouldnt. The capability to wage war (that includes lack of
constraints, even 'soft' constraints like trade dependencies) is
necessary, not sufficient. Lack of constraints *causes* war no more than
holding a sharp kitchen knife causes the urge to stab your neighbor. If,
however, there is unresolved conflict that runs deep enough to be reason
for war, then considerations of going to war or not might be greatly
influenced in favor of war if it becomes more affordable, which will
clearly be the case for MNT.
> No - it will be easier to tackle the remaining motivations because the
> _human_ resources will become more readily available to deal with the
> problem. There will be more people living a more comfortable, peaceful life
> who will be both motivated and free to act in altruistic ways that they
> might not have been able to.
How do you imagine tackling hate ideologies and the hate aspects of some
of the world religions, even with MNT? There is no defined problem to
attack like "provide adequate food, water, housing, and medical supply
to every person on the planet". *That* is the kind of problem MNT will
be able to solve.
I could even imagine a world with digital control of matter that even
*emphasizes* religion and ideology as a way to be different, since
gaining material wealth will probably lose attractivity as an objective
in life. Look at the USA: A high-tech nation, highly industrialized,
but, as an example among many, there is an actual conflict about whether
or not to favor Creationism over Evolution in school. No number of
nanofactories could solve such problems.
>>[...]there exist more than enough people that REALLY buy into
>>this pretext of religious extremism and genocide-ideology and would
>>incorporate it as their way of dealing with the world, if they could.
>>I do not find this extremely unlikely.
>
>
> No argument: the probability of conflict does not go to zero. MNT would not
> eradicate irrational acts.
Argument insofar as such people will have an easier time fulfilling
their fantasies. Put a lunatic (or 'obstinate person', if youre into
euphemisms) into power, which is nothing that hasnt happened before or
will never happen again, and you have a problem.
>>Now if
>>someone with such MNT would have any reason at all bothering about
>>someone without MNT, then it would be a pretty short arms "race", thus
>>as unstable as one can imagine, if it cannot be resolved by politics.
>
>
> Those with MNT would have little to gain by attacking those without MNT,
> but they might have more to gain by giving the technology away.
I think this wouldnt be worst way to go, for the good of everybody.
But, baring the fact it wouldnt be probable to happen under todays
mind set, wouldnt it be pretty much run contrary to the control freak
approach you promote below? Plus, the good of everybody is usually
pretty low on the priority list of someone who believes it may
significantly decrease his own good.
Politicians will have quite an easy time selling this meme to their
people if they can artificially maintain todays politics of scarcity.
This approach wont work forever, of course, but that never stopped them
from trying. Many politicians are pretty good at conserving and slowing
things down.
> Those
> without MNT would have little chance of success and would better use their
> resources and talents either simply asking the MNT holders for the
> technology or develop it themselves! Neither side seems to have much to
> gain (and more to lose) by acting against the other side.
Does a company give away their secret formula that nets them great
material wealth, if only you ask them politely? Would they stand by and
watch while you develop an equally capable product or would they, if
they see any chance of you succeeding, try everything they can to hinder
you? The motivations for blocking someone eless access to MNT can be
quite high (regardless if its right or wrong), thus the actions deemed
necessary to achieve this might be quite extreme, up to the maximum
capabilities. For todays nuclear and tomorrows MNT powers, the
capabilities are almost limitless.
> It is possible in the present to commit murder and get away with it,
> given enough planning. The technology doesn't change the moral equation -
> people aren't being restrained from committing murder and mayhem simply
> because they don't have the technology to get away with it!
Like with war, mentioned above, MNT will not be the cause in itself, but
it will remove or alleviate some of the restraints, which might be
enough to tip the balance for some towards committing murder. Not to
speak of further encouraging people that already commit murder without
particular moral trouble. Think of organized crime or terrorists.
>>Technology influences politics and policies,
>>it always has. Why shoudn't it in the future?
>
> Here's what I believe: People aren't chomping at the bit to commit murder
> and mayhem - but they do want to live comfortable lives to pursue peaceful
> activities.
Thats exactly what I strongly believe too, and I would want to believe
that its enough for looking brightly into the future. But on the other
hand I also believe in the power of propaganda, which can turn a nation
of millions into (at least temporary) supporters of even unjust war,
because people in general are prone to manipulation. That is exactly
what is happening today and what has happened for millenia. I fail to
see why people would change in that respect, just because of MNT.
I would even as far as to say that manipulation techniques will have a
stronger relative impact with MNT, because lazy, controllable people
wont be any different with MNT, possibly worse. Any determined
populist, though, will be happily using the new capabilities at his
disposal.
A world based on trust and the simple commandment "do not unto
others..." is a classical utopia. Human nature simply speaks against its
realization, though, so it is in my opinion that either the utopia will
remain exactly that, or that human nature changes profoundly. MNT and
transhumanism might do the latter, but it remains to be seen whether
that is desirable at all.
> The best way to insure that nanotechnology ends up in the hands
> of bad people before good people have a chance to prepare defenses is by
> promoting policies that centralize any aspect of nanotechnology
> development.
And who would be in charge? Would you give it to islamic extremists?
Well, if, according to you, 'economic inequities' is what really drives
them, then they will be even more pissed if you dont, wont they?
So what about christian extremists? I have a gut feeling that MNT in the
hands of a certain superpower - who shall remain unnamed - would pretty
much be disaster for the rest of the world, because it would go to
*great* lengths trying to preserve its hegemony. Add to that the fact
that for this power, allies and international treaties are only seen as
useful as long as every other nation accepts the leading role of that
power and as long as its god-given 'right' to ignore any currently
inconvenient agreement at a moments notice remains unquestioned.
But even if you gave MNT to a perfectly acceptable, responsible country
thats neutral to the point of invisibility (the Swiss might be such a
candidate), then there remains another argument against strong
centralisation: Considering 'matter as software', I could easily imagine
the real-world equivalent of crackers and, worse, script kiddies. The
longer you try to stay in exclusive control, the more likely will you
lose it eventually, and the more severe the consequences will be in that
case, because of fixed and monolithic structures that are hard to modify
in one fell swoop.
An open source (i.e. bottom up) approach would be the logical opposite
to a 'control freak' (top down) approach, and the MS Windows vs Linux
example might show which approach is more likely to succeed in the long run:
Of all people that work on computer operating systems, the vast majority
works on open source that made the various flavours of Linux so
comparably safe and reliable, and the minority of them work at Microsoft
whose closed source approach made Windows comparably unsafe and
unreliable. Bottom-up safety might be more vulnerable in the very
beginning and it always provides the possibility for a few bad guys
outsmarting the many good guys because both have access to the code, but
in the long run I think its the way to go. I believe so because Im
convinced that vastly more man-years will go into doing good than into
doing harm. And exactly that will be vital, because subtly defending
*everything* is so much harder to achieve than viciously and
successfully attacking *something*.
Jim Logajan
Matthias Sohr <marode...@compuserve.de> wrote:
[ Big snip ]
>> The best way to insure that nanotechnology ends up in the hands
>> of bad people before good people have a chance to prepare defenses is
>> by promoting policies that centralize any aspect of nanotechnology
>> development.
>
> And who would be in charge?
Matthias, perhaps it was the way I worded my sentence. Perhaps it is
because I too often write run-on sentences. Whatever the cause, I think if
you re-read may sentence you'll see that I was attempting to advocate
precisely what you advocate:
> An open source (i.e. bottom up) approach would be the logical opposite
> to a 'control freak' (top down) approach, and the MS Windows vs Linux
> example might show which approach is more likely to succeed in the
> long run:
>
> Of all people that work on computer operating systems, the vast
> majority works on open source that made the various flavours of Linux
> so comparably safe and reliable, and the minority of them work at
> Microsoft whose closed source approach made Windows comparably unsafe
> and unreliable. Bottom-up safety might be more vulnerable in the very
> beginning and it always provides the possibility for a few bad guys
> outsmarting the many good guys because both have access to the code,
> but in the long run I think its the way to go. I believe so because Im
> convinced that vastly more man-years will go into doing good than into
> doing harm. And exactly that will be vital, because subtly defending
> *everything* is so much harder to achieve than viciously and
> successfully attacking *something*.
All well said: a policy that puts no constraints on nanotech research -
make sure as many eyes and minds are working on it as possible. It is,
IMHO, more philosophically sound in any case since it places the decision
(and responsibility) on the trade-off of liberty versus safety where it
belongs: at the individual level, not taken by force and handed to some
proxy.
Matthias Sohr
Jim Logajan wrote:
> Matthias Sohr <marode...@compuserve.de> wrote:
> [ Big snip ]
>
>>>The best way to insure that nanotechnology ends up in the hands
>>>of bad people before good people have a chance to prepare defenses is
>>>by promoting policies that centralize any aspect of nanotechnology
>>>development.
>>
>>And who would be in charge?
>
> [ Bigger snip ]
>
> Matthias, perhaps it was the way I worded my sentence. Perhaps it is
> because I too often write run-on sentences. Whatever the cause, I think if
> you re-read may sentence you'll see that I was attempting to advocate
> precisely what you advocate:
My apologies. I dint read it carefully enough.