Irresponsible Nanotechnology
MIKE TREDER
Nanotechnology, I would like to clarify that "gray goo" is not at the
top of our list of concerns. Certainly it could be a hazard, but as
others have pointed out, the dangers of gray goo have been overblown by
SF enthusiasts for dramatic purposes. Much more pressing issues include
the potential for unstable arms races, economic upheavals, and attempted
programs of regulation that cause far more harm than they prevent. CRN
is dedicated to a sober and thorough review of all the risks as well as
the benefits, a careful analysis of proposed modes for regulation, and a
comprehensive presentation of a plan for effective administration of
advanced nanotechnology.=20
See you in the future!
Mike Treder, President
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN)
http://www.CRNano.org/
Malcolm McMahon
On 1 Feb 2003 16:22:13 GMT, "MIKE TREDER" <iph...@msn.com> wrote:
>Much more pressing issues include
>the potential for unstable arms races, economic upheavals, and attempted
>programs of regulation that cause far more harm than they prevent.
Any significant technological progress necessarilly involves economic
upheaval, that's practically a definition of significance when it comes
to technological progress. So I don't think economic upheaval is so much
something to be guarded against, as planned for.
I agree though that both an arms race, and illconsidered regulation are
dangers.
erincss
>MIKE TREDER"
>In response to a few recent postings about the Center for Responsible
>Nanotechnology, I would like to clarify that "gray goo" is not at the
>top of our list of concerns.
Infact I was thinking of one possible way that simple nanotechnology could be
used as an abuse. Imagine a limited nearer term assembler like system able to
mass-assemble unlimited-length fullerene nanotubes. A braided tube of this sort
would be extremely strong and thin, and could slice through materials with
ease, not to mention human and animal flesh.
Now picture criminals stringing this across walk-ways and connecting weights to
the end and using it as a whip and such (concepts played with in various forms
of science fiction).
At the same time, the same basic tech would have wondrous positive uses.
Imagine cutting cancer cells out with surgical tools made of this material,
attached to say microsurgical robots. And more.
Ideas? Critics?
Malcolm McMahon
On 3 Feb 2003 05:37:51 GMT, eri...@aol.com (erincss) wrote:
>Now picture criminals stringing this across walk-ways and connecting weights to
>the end and using it as a whip and such (concepts played with in various forms
>of science fiction).
A weapon which, to my mind, would be scarcely less dangerous to the
weilder than to the target, without the kind of intense martial arts
training which, if focused on a more conventional fighting skill, would
make the weapon unnecessary in the first place.
Occasions such as the Boxer Rebelion in China demonstrated, more that
adequately, the futility of martial arts and fancy hand to hand weapons
in a world of guns.
Steve O'Hara-Smith
On 3 Feb 2003 05:37:51 GMT
E> A braided tube of this sort
E> would be extremely strong and thin, and could slice through materials
E> with ease, not to mention human and animal flesh.
E>
E> Now picture criminals stringing this across walk-ways and connecting
E> weights to the end and using it as a whip and such (concepts played
E> with in various forms of science fiction).
There are many many simple ways to make equally unpleasant things
happen with currently available technology - the Molotov Cocktail is a
fine example. Sure nanotech expands the possibilities but there are
already so many possibilities available to make it clear that the rate
of such events is determined by other factors than the ease of making them
happen.
Nanotech may well make the risk of a practical joke going out
of control greater - it should also expand the options for containment
and recovery when such a thing does happen.
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirrors
The computer obeys and wins. |A Better Way To Focus The Sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licenses available - see:
| http://www.sohara.org/
Chris Phoenix
I have wondered whether a buckytube cable would be able to cut steel. A
lot of security these days depends on the fact that metals are hard to
cut. I think we can expect that even if buckytubes were able to cut a
deadbolt with a single slice, it would be quite a few years before a
significant fraction of today's locks were replaced with (e.g.)
buckytube-reinforced versions.
Anyone who doubts this should think about the number of PCs out there
running Windows and Outlook with no firewall or anti-virus program.
Also, a significant physical security problem was just recently brought
to light. A lot of buildings have many locks with many different keys
and one master key that can open all of them. The master key must be
carefully guarded, of course! But apparently it's possible to make a
new master key from any single-lock key plus a few blanks. According to
the article, some locksmiths claim to have known about this for years,
*and* it has come as quite a shock to the security community.
This question is one of many examples of uneven use of nanotech. It is
often argued that those of us who worry about gray goo make the false
assumption that only the bad guys will have nanotech. Aside from the
possibility of nanotech being overly restricted by environmental
movements or military concerns, it seems clear that the technology will
advance so quickly in so many areas (once we build the first assembler)
that some attacks will surely be ready before the corresponding defenses
are developed and deployed.
This is why CRN is concerned with regulating the technology. I think
that for minimal safety, we need at least a decade between the first
flexible nanofactory and the first unrestricted nanofactory.
Chris
--
Chris Phoenix cpho...@best.com http://xenophilia.org
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (co-founder) http://CRNano.org
erincss
>Chris Phoenix
> I think we can expect that even if buckytubes were able to cut a
>deadbolt with a single slice, it would be quite a few years before a
>significant fraction of today's locks were replaced with (e.g.)
>buckytube-reinforced versions.
This is a VERY good point. What it would mean, is not a pretty thought. Say a
method was developed, to where buckytubes could be produced in large amounts,
and structured along the edge of a tool, say a set of shears, a knife, or
something more ingenius. Criminals would be able to easilly carve through
existing locks, walls, bars, and other bulk technology-based security measures,
and commit crimes ranging from thievery to murder.
Malcolm McMahon
On 4 Feb 2003 01:54:38 GMT, Chris Phoenix <cpho...@best.com> wrote:
>This is why CRN is concerned with regulating the technology. I think
>that for minimal safety, we need at least a decade between the first
>flexible nanofactory and the first unrestricted nanofactory.
The fundamental problem is that it's almost invariably easier to attack
than to defend - you've got entropy on your side. The attacker need
succeed only once, the defender must succeed every single time.
The problem isn't going to diminish with time and increasing
sophistication. Rather it's going to be a permanent arms race. You ward
your door lock with diamondiod armour, so the burgler gets a molecular
chain saw.
And the regulation approach is
a) Insecure: Only the good guys obey the rules
b) Corrupting: The regulators have real power over peoples lives. They
are inevitably going to be influenced, at least, by their own political
agenda and are very likely subject to bribery.
Chris Phoenix
Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> And the regulation approach is
>
> a) Insecure: Only the good guys obey the rules
Many restrictions can be built into the technology. Then everyone obeys
the rules, except for the few people who are 1) bad or irresponsible, 2)
smarter than the designers, 3) have significant resources. Or anyone
they choose to share the "cracked" technology with: and this is a
serious concern with self-contained factories, and means that we have to
be very careful to make them very difficult to crack, and to remove most
incentive to do so.
> b) Corrupting: The regulators have real power over peoples lives. They
> are inevitably going to be influenced, at least, by their own political
> agenda and are very likely subject to bribery.
We're working on proposals where most of the regulation doesn't require
any human regulation, and most of the human regulation is
value-neutral. For example, it should be possible to approve or
disapprove large classes of products instead of individual designs, by
regulating at the level of building blocks (and simple combinations of
building blocks) instead of the finished design.
Transparency also helps. By separating the regulatory process from the
details of the nanofactory security process, the regulatory part can be
made transparent except for a few national security concerns. (Of
course, much of the security process should also be transparent, but
that's a separate argument.)
Chris
Scott T. Jensen
To have an arms race, you first need an enemy that can also develop the
technology at about the same rate as you are. And let's not do sophomoric
debating here and just assume there will be such an enemy. Seriously. Who
will be that enemy? Or enemy of any country capable of developing weapon
nanotechnology and being able to develop nanotechnology at relatively the
same pace.
Possible current candidates would be ... hmmm ... would be who? Look at the
world right now. Look how it has been evolving. Thanks to nuclear weapons,
there hasn't been a major war since the end of WWII. Thanks to
international corporations, we're becoming more and more inter-dependent.
We're also becoming more and more aware that "them" is not so different than
"us". The internet's greatest contribution to mankind might be just this.
Barriers are coming down more than they are going up. Totalitarian nations
are having a harder and harder time controlling their populations and are
crumbling ... if not already crumbled. Think what the world will be like in
ten to twenty years when nanotechnology MIGHT be able to develop to the
point of nanite weapons.
If CRN is actually advocating the possibility of an arms race, it must first
identify enemy states, give a reason why they'd attack, and, most
importantly, be able to develop weapon nanotechnology at least as fast as
the US and its allies. For if you fall too far behind in an arms race, you
are in an inferior position where you really don't pose much of a threat.
You attack and you know the superior force will wipe you out.
And, no, I will not give into sophomoric debating and continue this line of
discussion by first assuming that there is or will be such an enemy. The
burden of proof is on CRN.
> ...economic upheavals...
And this is bad for what reason?
It appears that CRN is rather anti-capitalism ... or at the very least
rather ignorant of the history of business and industry.
> ...and attempted programs of regulation that cause far
> more harm than they prevent.
We exist in a world not ruled by one government. This alone makes this "bad
regulation" concern meaningless. There are over 200 nations in this world.
Each one wants its economy to grow. Each one knows that technology is key
to this. So what if one nation hampers the development of or even outlaws
nanotechnology. They really don't matter ... not even if that Luddite
nation was the US. Nanotechnology is a world movement and not the sole
domain of any single nation. Those that don't jump on the nanotechnology
bandwagon will trail behind the others. Once this is noticed, most nations
will panic, reduce the regulation, and hope it isn't too late to catch up
with the pack.
Now if CRN has any positive contribution to nanotechnology, it MIGHT be in
this one regards. However, from what I've read and heard about CRN, it
won't be in a good way. CRN seems to want to advocate regulation and not
work to abolish it. It appears to want to be a restraining force on the
development of nanotechnology. If it does this, it will very likely hamper
any nation that actually listens to it.
On the other hand, if CRN were to work to abolish regulation of
nanotechnology, it could be a positive force for nanotechnology. It could
appear before governments thinking of regulating the development of
nanotechnology in their country and simply make those governments aware of
the risks of doing so. How doing so may hamper the development of
nanotechnology in their country in comparison to other countries that have
less regulation. How pointless such regulation is when viewed from a global
perspective. It's closing argument could be simply explaining how hard
nanotechnology will be to regulate and thus how meaningless such efforts
will be in the end.
>CRN is dedicated to a sober and thorough review of all
> the risks as well as the benefits, a careful analysis of
> proposed modes for regulation, and a comprehensive
> presentation of a plan for effective administration of
> advanced nanotechnology.
Unfortunately, by the above statement, CRN appears to be a potential
negative force in the development of nanotechnology. The key phrase being
"effective administration". Think Big Brother. An obsolete concept. That
and CRN sounds like a group of Chicken Littles getting together to warn the
world that the sky is falling.
Scott Jensen
--
Like a cure for A.I.D.S, Alzheimer, Parkinson, & Mad Cow Disease?
Volunteer your computer for folding-protein research for when it's idle.
Go to http://www.distributedfolding.org/ to sign up your computer.
Malcolm McMahon
On 6 Feb 2003 02:46:45 GMT, Chris Phoenix <cpho...@best.com> wrote:
>Many restrictions can be built into the technology. Then everyone obeys
>the rules, except for the few people who are 1) bad or irresponsible, 2)
>smarter than the designers, 3) have significant resources.
The dilema here is that people will always outsmart a fixed set of
rules. If you prevent people making any from a list of explosive
substances, or drugs, then people will come up with new explosive
formulations, or things which act like explosives (e.g. flywheel bombs),
things that act like drugs. (If we're still stuck with the disaterous
absurdity of drug prohibition)
Conversely there will be a constant stream of people demonstrating that
they could make this or that truely beneficial product if it weren't for
this or that restriction.
The only effective way of preventing people from making things you
consider immoral or dangerous would be to allow only liscenced products,
which, of course, means big profits for whoever issues the liscenses and
endless potential for corruption.
You can make laws, but ultimately it's people who have to decide if
they've been broken.
Matthias Braun
Scott T. Jensen wrote:
> "MIKE TREDER" <iph...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>Much more pressing issues include the potential for
>>unstable arms races...
> To have an arms race, you first need an enemy that can also develop the
> technology at about the same rate as you are.
No, the first reason is, that at least you think you need this kind of
weapon. But up to now, I never saw any "advantages" compared to
ABC-weapon technology. You can annihilate menkind without it, so whats
the point?
> Thanks to
> international corporations, we're becoming more and more inter-dependent.
> We're also becoming more and more aware that "them" is not so different than
> "us".
And top research work is done more and more by international comunities
rather than secret labs.
As a final Point, i suggest instead of reading grey goo stories ect. we
should read Stanislav Lem, and how nanotechnology is one way to
immortillity :-)
mfg matthias
Tom Hofstedt
A couple of thoughts on this discussion;
This guy named Albert Einstein wrote a letter to the president of the US,
stating that the work of certain scientists opened up certain disturbing
possibilities in regard to weaponry. He was, of course, talking about nuclear
bombs.
If we can imagine for a moment that atomic fission was to the humans in 1944
what "nanotechnology" is to us currently, this may help to give a broader
perspective on the issues at stake.
Has the "terror" of nuclear weapons disappeared? No, not in the least. Read
your newspaper. Have we benefited enormously from the discoveries that opened
up as a result of these sciences? Of course we have.
If there is such a thing as the future, we will look back on our discoveries as
stepping stones to the present, not as "the thing" that changed it all.
It seems to me that it's not what we invent, it's how we choose to use it. As
long as we humans want to control other humans, we will abuse whatever is set
before us. Whether gunpowder or nanotech makes no difference.
No wonder ET doesn't want to talk to us...
Tom
MIKE TREDER
Thanks, Scott, for your excellent challenge. Chris Phoenix will respond to
your points in greater detail. Let me just make some brief remarks.
>...unstable arms races...
I agree with you that the burden of proof is on CRN. If we are to advocate
regulations of any type on nanotechnology, we must present serious, reasoned
arguments in favor of such, preferably endorsed by other authorities. We
will do that.
>...economic upheavals...
As has been stated earlier in this thread, every technological advance
generates an amount of economic upheaval. What CRN is concerned about with
MNT is a transformation of the world economy equal to or greater than the
Industrial Revolution, but occurring over the space of months rather than
decades. Now is the time to start considering this possibility, its likely
impacts, and potential ameliorating steps.
>...and attempted programs of regulation...
CRN is about fairness, openness, and rational consideration of potential
problems and proposed solutions. We are striving to keep our process
transparent so that you and anyone else can contribute and critique. Please
read our papers (http://www.crnano.org/papers.htm) and continue challenging
us. It is greatly appreciated.
See you in the future!
Mike Treder
President, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology - http://CRNano.org
Director, World Transhumanist Association - http://transhumanism.org
Founder, Incipient Posthuman Website - http://incipientposthuman.com
KurzweilAI "Big Thinker" - http://kurzweilai.net/bios/frame.html
Interests: acting, architecture, art, baseball, bicycling, cosmology, film,
futurism, hiking, history, music, nanotech, people, science fiction,
writing, & more
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Warren Okuma
"Chris Phoenix" <cpho...@best.com> wrote in message
news:b1sia...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Unfortunately we'll see the samething happening about nanofactory security
as we see about the internet security. Then someone will produce a 3D
"Napster" printer that is security free. Next thing you'll see is the
Anarchist's Cookbook for Dummies circulated on the net, included within is
the recipe for nuclear pox (human IL-4 added to small pox).
Always,
Warren
Chris Phoenix
Scott, you ask some very good questions. Please continue. You will
either strengthen my arguments or change my position; I'm happy with
either outcome. Please keep in mind, as you read my responses, that I
often have a lot of thought behind my assertions and speculations. If a
point needs more support, the discussion will be more productive if you
simply ask for it instead of assuming I don't have it.
"Scott T. Jensen" wrote:
>
> "MIKE TREDER" <iph...@msn.com> wrote:
> > Much more pressing issues include the potential for
> > unstable arms races...
>
> To have an arms race, you first need an enemy that can also develop the
> technology at about the same rate as you are. And let's not do sophomoric
> debating here and just assume there will be such an enemy.
It won't necessarily be a current enemy. I'll break up the question
into several sub-claims and then sketch a defense of them.
1) There are several countries in the world that will have the
capability to launch an assembler project in the next ten years.
2) A nanofactory project is not much harder than an assembler project.
3) A nanofactory makes it easy to rapidly develop many powerful weapons
and produce many copies; it could shift military balances of power.
4) Owning a temporary nanotech advantage tempts the rapid use of that
advantage (to preserve it), and such use would be intrusive and
disabling to other countries.
5) Nanotech programs may be nearly simultaneous in several countries.
6) If the above is true, even non-enemies have a strong incentive to
out-compete the other in nanotech military development, and such a
situation is unstable.
The tech is rapidly becoming more accessible. Today it might take an
Apollo Project or Space Shuttle program. A few years from now, probably
doable with a Manhattan Project. Once one nation starts, others will
have strong incentive to compete. Espionage and public research will
combine to make it fairly easy to keep up.
There'll probably be a political delay in starting the first project,
thanks to those who say today that it's impossible. Such a delay will
make it even easier to do once the project starts. The speed of success
of the project depends heavily on how it's managed, and also on how much
money is thrown at it. A nation that suspects it's falling behind will
work harder; and they'll never know if they're behind or not, because
success will not be directly proportional to work but will depend on a
combination of many factors including luck.
Once an assembler is developed, a flexible, CAD-driven, human-scale
manufacturing capability can be developed and deployed within months.
Such a system would be quite capable of producing powerful weapons.
Unless the nations are cooperative *and open* or otherwise trustworthy,
a nation that believes it may be attacked by advanced nanotech weaponry
in a month has a strong incentive to attack now. The attack may not
involve much damage in a military sense, but would certainly have to
neuter the other nation's sovereignty. I think this puts the burden of
discourse back on you, to describe a way in which the US, China, Japan,
India, the EU, and possibly Israel and a Muslim collaboration can all
trust each other enough that they won't feel a temptation to settle the
matter preemptively. CRN is working on this; it does not look easy.
> Possible current candidates would be ... hmmm ... would be who? Look at the
> world right now. Look how it has been evolving. Thanks to nuclear weapons,
> there hasn't been a major war since the end of WWII.
Have you read Gubrud's paper on unstable nanotech arms races? Nanotech
and nukes are not fully comparable.
http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Papers/Gubrud/
> Thanks to
> international corporations, we're becoming more and more inter-dependent.
Nanotech allows any region to "go it alone" economically.
> We're also becoming more and more aware that "them" is not so different than
> "us". The internet's greatest contribution to mankind might be just this.
> Barriers are coming down more than they are going up. Totalitarian nations
> are having a harder and harder time controlling their populations and are
> crumbling ... if not already crumbled. Think what the world will be like in
> ten to twenty years when nanotechnology MIGHT be able to develop to the
> point of nanite weapons.
In ten to twenty years a lot of the old culture will still be alive.
Look at racism in America today. Far better than it was--but the Civil
War was 140 years ago! And America is better connected (internally) and
has more tolerance of diversity than many areas of the world.
> If CRN is actually advocating the possibility of an arms race, it must first
> identify enemy states, give a reason why they'd attack, and, most
> importantly, be able to develop weapon nanotechnology at least as fast as
> the US and its allies. For if you fall too far behind in an arms race, you
> are in an inferior position where you really don't pose much of a threat.
> You attack and you know the superior force will wipe you out.
Hm. The nature of military threat is changing. Nineteen people did
multiple billions of dollars of damage, and killed several thousand.
Unregulated nanotech would allow not just nations but individuals to be
incredibly destructive. Does the Internet's current problems with spam,
worms, and viruses count as an arms race? It is often described that
way. But this is getting more into the irresponsible-hacker-goo threat
than the geopolitical-takeover threat.
So... I don't think we have to identify enemy states, just identify a
process by which states could *become* belligerent. If politics were
not forbidden on this newsgroup I would give a present-day example of a
large stable state acting belligerently and preemptively. (Discussion
of the rights and wrongs of such action is definitely outside the
newsgroup charter.)
We don't know yet whether nanotech will lend itself more to offense or
defense. (If the former, a preemptive strike might prevent effective
response.) We don't know whether a nation could "come from behind" in a
nanotech arms race by inventing an unexpected class of weapon. We don't
even know the level of uncertainty surrounding these questions. So even
if one nation gets there first, *and* spends a large fraction of its
effort on military research, we don't know whether it will feel secure
enough not to want to attack.
Of course, if attack is inevitable, and is asymmetric enough to be
surgical, that moves away from unstable arms race to abusive
administration/regulation.
> > ...economic upheavals...
>
> And this is bad for what reason?
At least three reasons. Note that "economic upheaval" goes beyond the
"creative destruction" involved in capitalism. What happens if you
Napsterize every manufacturing and infrastructure industry
simultaneously?
Society is largely based on economic structure. Large-scale economic
upheaval implies societal upheaval, which is stressful. Large-scale
human stress is undesirable. Change may or may not be improvement.
Capitalism is a great method--possibly the best--for solving many
problems involving positive-sum transactions. If capitalism fell apart
we'd lose that ability until we could evolve a new structure that did
the same thing.
Today, the economy and groups that represent it are extremely
influential. A proposal that leads to severe economic upheaval will be
fought by them. This could leave us without any workable proposal, with
the situation developing randomly. A rather unstable and unsafe
situation, in CRN's opinion.
> It appears that CRN is rather anti-capitalism ... or at the very least
> rather ignorant of the history of business and industry.
I'm not sure why you thought we're anti-capitalism; I hope the above has
changed your mind.
What part of the history of business and industry are you referring to?
> > ...and attempted programs of regulation that cause far
> > more harm than they prevent.
>
> We exist in a world not ruled by one government. This alone makes this "bad
> regulation" concern meaningless. There are over 200 nations in this world.
> Each one wants its economy to grow. Each one knows that technology is key
> to this. So what if one nation hampers the development of or even outlaws
> nanotechnology. They really don't matter ... not even if that Luddite
> nation was the US.
I can't give a full answer without getting into politics. But think
about the encryption fiascos of a few years ago, when the government was
trying to push the Clipper Chip and hamstring the U.S. encryption
industry. The result was the development of a wide range of completely
unregulated encryption technology.
Regulation that is sufficiently important to a nation may cause that
nation to act beyond its borders. Look how we defoliated coca fields in
Latin America. (Again, I'm deliberately skipping more recent examples.)
> Nanotechnology is a world movement and not the sole
> domain of any single nation. Those that don't jump on the nanotechnology
> bandwagon will trail behind the others. Once this is noticed, most nations
> will panic, reduce the regulation, and hope it isn't too late to catch up
> with the pack.
I agree about the panic. I disagree about reducing the regulation. The
commercial (e.g. capitalist) response is to do that. The force-based
(e.g. military) response is to clamp down harder--both internally and
externally. I think a nation panicking about nanotech is a *very*
dangerous scenario.
> Now if CRN has any positive contribution to nanotechnology, it MIGHT be in
> this one regards. However, from what I've read and heard about CRN, it
> won't be in a good way. CRN seems to want to advocate regulation and not
> work to abolish it. It appears to want to be a restraining force on the
> development of nanotechnology. If it does this, it will very likely hamper
> any nation that actually listens to it.
Nanotech will develop rapidly enough that it will be deployed unevenly
anyway. CRN wants to seriously retard the bad aspects of this
development while preserving, or at best only slightly hampering, the
good aspects. And we do want to see this implemented worldwide, so all
nations would be hampered evenly. They may see this as preferable to
the alternative.
Do you think that the development of nanotech should be completely
unrestrained? Do you think the following scenario is completely
implausible?: Start with the assumption that nanofactories of all shapes
and sizes are available and unrestricted. A team of undergrads at MIT
does some "lab on a chip" development to manufacture feedstock from
biological chemicals, adds the result plus some simple robotics onto a
small nanofactory, and throws it in the river to see what happens. They
included a feature to disable the machine in salt water, but they didn't
test it carefully and it doesn't work. The development of the system is
greatly speeded by the one-hour build time for each prototype, so the
project is completed in a single semester, before any responsible person
even knows it's happening.
> On the other hand, if CRN were to work to abolish regulation of
> nanotechnology, it could be a positive force for nanotechnology. It could
> appear before governments thinking of regulating the development of
> nanotechnology in their country and simply make those governments aware of
> the risks of doing so. How doing so may hamper the development of
> nanotechnology in their country in comparison to other countries that have
> less regulation. How pointless such regulation is when viewed from a global
> perspective. It's closing argument could be simply explaining how hard
> nanotechnology will be to regulate and thus how meaningless such efforts
> will be in the end.
Abolishing all regulation of nanotech seems to be unacceptably
dangerous. I agree with you that local controls are all but
meaningless. But I expect (and hope!) that carefully designed global
controls can significantly reduce the overall risk. I agree that if
nanotech is too tightly controlled, the controls will be
counterproductive. But if nanotech is too loosely controlled, or not
controlled at all, we will have the equivalent of script kiddies making
the equivalent of software worms.
> >CRN is dedicated to a sober and thorough review of all
> > the risks as well as the benefits, a careful analysis of
> > proposed modes for regulation, and a comprehensive
> > presentation of a plan for effective administration of
> > advanced nanotechnology.
>
> Unfortunately, by the above statement, CRN appears to be a potential
> negative force in the development of nanotechnology. The key phrase being
> "effective administration". Think Big Brother. An obsolete concept.
Maybe not obsolete. Without regulation, anyone will be able to make a
surveillance device and put it in your home. You'll have, at least, an
arms race between privacy/debugging technology and bugging technology.
I think the bugging technology would win--especially since governments
would have incentive to support bugging tech and outlaw privacy tech.
(Again, think encryption.) Want to live in that world?
Now extend the argument to untraceable remote-control crimes. You get a
cell phone call: "We have installed a bomb in your daughter. As proof,
here is her DNA sequence and a real-time physiological monitor trace.
Transfer $100 to this number in the next 30 seconds or she dies." Your
daughter is at school; you can see her on the webcam, and the heart rate
increases as she raises her hand. She can't be fully scanned in the
next 30 seconds. Did she take off her anti-nano suit on the way to
school? Are the school's filters working? Are you willing to risk her
life on the chance that the biometric trace is simulated from image
analysis of the same webcam you're looking at? Or do you lose the $100?
> That
> and CRN sounds like a group of Chicken Littles getting together to warn the
> world that the sky is falling.
I've been studying nanotech for a decade and a half. I am very
pro-technology. And I think that nanotech will be destabilizing and
risky to a degree probably unprecedented in history. I'm not warning
that the sky is falling; I'm warning that a big storm is coming. And
lightning rods haven't been invented yet, and no one has built a tornado
shelter.
Malcolm McMahon
On 7 Feb 2003 14:50:48 GMT, Matthias Braun <msb...@ph.utexas.edu>
wrote:
>But up to now, I never saw any "advantages" compared to
>ABC-weapon technology. You can annihilate menkind without it, so whats
>the point?
There are a number of new potentials.
Selectivity - a weapon that only affects people who speak a certain
language for example.
Subversion - weapons which subvert rather than destroy.
But above all wide availabilty of weapons of mass destruction.
Scott T. Jensen
"Tom Hofstedt" <rck...@aol.com> wrote:
> This guy named Albert Einstein wrote a letter to the president
> of the US, stating that the work of certain scientists opened up
> certain disturbing possibilities in regard to weaponry. He was,
> of course, talking about nuclear bombs.
You're equating nanotechnology with atomic weapons?
> If we can imagine for a moment that atomic fission was to the
> humans in 1944 what "nanotechnology" is to us currently, this
> may help to give a broader perspective on the issues at stake.
Then nanotechnology would be a pretty much unknown entity as far as the
public is concerned today. ;-)
Joseph Hertzlinger
On 3 Feb 2003 05:37:51 GMT, erincss <eri...@aol.com> wrote:
> Infact I was thinking of one possible way that simple nanotechnology
> could be used as an abuse. Imagine a limited nearer term assembler
> like system able to mass-assemble unlimited-length fullerene
> nanotubes. A braided tube of this sort would be extremely strong and
> thin, and could slice through materials with ease, not to mention
> human and animal flesh.
>
> Now picture criminals stringing this across walk-ways and connecting
> weights to the end and using it as a whip and such (concepts played
> with in various forms of science fiction).
>
> At the same time, the same basic tech would have wondrous positive
> uses. Imagine cutting cancer cells out with surgical tools made of
> this material, attached to say microsurgical robots. And more.
>
> Ideas? Critics?
Let's make the following assumptions:
1) The wire is just strong enough to support an orbital tower;
2) it has about the same density as diamond;
3) it is 10 angstroms thick (an area of 100 square angstroms).
The strength-to-weight ratio needed to support an orbital tower is
approximately the gravitational potential of the planet. In the case
of Earth that would be about 6x10^7 newton-meters/kilogram. Diamond's
density is about 3x10^3 kilograms/cubic meter. Put them together and
we obtain a strength of about 2x10^11 newtons/square meter (I'm
keeping everything precise to only one decimal place). 100 square
angstroms is 10^-18 square meters so monomolecular wire can support
2x10^-7 newtons. Not much.
Let's now consider what happens if it's looped across a doorway and
someone walks through it. If the doorway is one meter wide and it
starts cutting after it has been displaced one centimeter then it can
exert a force of only 4x10^-9 newtons. (If it starts cutting sooner
then it can exert even less force.) If it is extended across one
centimeter at that time, it will exert the force over an area of
10^-11 square meters. That amounts to 400 newtons/square meter. Is
this tolerable? Let's compare it to dental floss (people have cut
themselves badly with dental floss so the comparison is not as
preposterous as it might seem). If we assume that floss is about one
millimeter wide and it extends one centimeter when looped around a
finger then it has an area of 10^-5 square meters. At 400
newtons/square meter, that's 4x10-3 newtons which is about one
eightieth of an ounce. Since dental floss pressing on one's skin with
a force of eightieth of an ounce is harmless, I think the dangers of
monomolecular wire have been exaggerated.
The same material at the thickness of dental floss can be quite
dangerous. Floss is about one million thicker than the hypothetical
wire and the superfloss can exert one trillion times as much force
(and one million times the pressure). That amounts to 3x10^3 newtons
or 800 pounds (enough for floss to cut). I suspect that one tenth of a
millimeter is the most dangerous size. It's thin enough to be
effectively invisible and thick enough to cut.
In a society where extremely strong materials are commonplace, it may
become necessary to wear clothing made of the same material.
Kent Feiler
>"MIKE TREDER" <iph...@msn.com> wrote:
>> Much more pressing issues include the potential for
>> unstable arms races...
>
>To have an arms race, you first need an enemy that can also develop the
>technology at about the same rate as you are. And let's not do sophomoric
>debating here and just assume there will be such an enemy. Seriously. Who
>will be that enemy? Or enemy of any country capable of developing weapon
>nanotechnology and being able to develop nanotechnology at relatively the
>same pace.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is a silly and counter-productive line of thought. We don't know
who a potential future enemy might be, and we don't know what the
world will be like in twenty or even ten years. Consider that ten
years ago, no one would have picked out Islamic Fundamentalism as the
enemy du jour. Ten years from now the "enemy" could well be a country
that's currently an ally. Maybe Toyota and Honda will be the
adversaries. The way to think about it is that the history of the
human race has been more-or-less continuous warfare, and there's no
reason to think that will change.
One significant point is that Nanotech is like Nuclear technology in
that it's very expensive and difficult to produce. That, at least,
means that only a few of the biggest and wealthiest countries will be
able to afford to research and produce it. (Unlike Biotech which is a
very cheap technology, and could be produced by many third world
countries.) So the situation may turn out much like the Cold War
between Russia and the USA. A small list of players because the
technology is so expensive, something like MAD in effect, and a dark
cloud hanging over the world for years.
Organizations like CRN have never had much effect on real world
events. They require too much general "buy-in" by a very large group
of people, and since they have no enforcement capabilities, as soon as
one group splits off and goes it's own way the group dissolves.
Sorry to say so, but the only real possibility for control is probably
some strong world government, but that comes with its own set of
nightmares which might be worse than a Nano-War.
Regards,
Kent Feiler
kfe...@cpiusa.com
www.KentFeiler.com/
Matthias Braun
Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>Matthias Braun wrote:
>>But up to now, I never saw any "advantages" compared to
>>ABC-weapon technology.
> There are a number of new potentials.
> Selectivity - a weapon that only affects people who speak a certain
> language for example.
Do you think it will be possible, that a nanodevice which is by
definition considerably smaller than the wavelenth of sound can hear?
And even if, how often do we use words from a foren language. Never
perform a Gedankenexperiment after attacking Germany, or never sing an
Elvis song after a war with an english speaking country ect....
And even now, you can immunize your soldiers against your germs, so this
advantage is used in current in b-weapons.
> Subversion - weapons which subvert rather than destroy.
Even if we assume, that nanodevices can hear, what is the advantage
compared to ordinary spying? By answering, please consider, the
nanodevice must be placed in the right place, and also must deliver the
information out, and by sending they are detectable just like ordinary bugs.
> But above all wide availabilty of weapons of mass destruction.
To make a chemical weapon, you can use household chemicals. To make
biological weapons, you need a reseach team of 10-100 people and less
than 100Mio Dollars. Why do you think it is considerably easier to
construct nanodevices?
Still, i do not see any advantages of nanodevices as weapons compared to
current technologies.
Sincerly matthias
Malcolm McMahon
On 11 Feb 2003 04:57:14 GMT, Matthias Braun <msb...@ph.utexas.edu>
wrote:
>Do you think it will be possible, that a nanodevice which is by
>definition considerably smaller than the wavelenth of sound can hear?
>
It doesn't have to. It can construct a microphone, or it can attatch
itself to a suitable large bone, and analyse sound using an
accelerometer.
Incidentally nanosystems aren't necesarilly tiny. A giant redwood tree
is a nanosystem.
>And even if, how often do we use words from a foreign language. Never
>perform a Gedankenexperiment after attacking Germany, or never sing an
>Elvis song after a war with an english speaking country ect....
Ah, but those speaking the language of the enemy are probably traitors
at heart anyway and deserve their fate. Or you can look at the frequency
of use of certain key words. Or you might want to kill people who recite
certain prayers, or fail to recite certain prayers or political slogans,
or fat people, or short people. Any pretext can be used to regard other
people as less than human.
But the perfect weapon doesn't destroy, it subverts. Weapons aren't
primarilly about killing people, weapons are about controlling them.
It's a primate thing. Any number of possibilities spring to the more
evil parts of my mind. Blackmail devices of many sorts. Things that find
their way to the reward and punishment centres of the brain.
Read "The Diamond Age" for a few off-hand suggestions.
Scott T. Jensen
"Chris Phoenix" <cpho...@best.com> wrote:
> "Scott T. Jensen" wrote:
> > "MIKE TREDER" <iph...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > Much more pressing issues include the potential for
> > > unstable arms races...
> >
> > To have an arms race, you first need an enemy that can
> > also develop the technology at about the same rate as
> > you are. And let's not do sophomoric debating here
> > and just assume there will be such an enemy.
>
> It won't necessarily be a current enemy. I'll break up the
> question into several sub-claims and then sketch a
> defense of them.
>
> 1) There are several countries in the world that will have
> the capability to launch an assembler project in the next
> ten years.
>
> 2) A nanofactory project is not much harder than an
> assembler project.
>
> 3) A nanofactory makes it easy to rapidly develop
> many powerful weapons and produce many copies; it
> could shift military balances of power.
That first assumes that those currently in a superior position will not do
likewise and even more so to keep their superior position.
> 4) Owning a temporary nanotech advantage tempts
> the rapid use of that advantage (to preserve it), and
> such use would be intrusive and disabling to other
> countries.
That assumes that an enemy can adequately gauge an opponent's capabilities
and be willing to risk destruction on such an uncertain assessment. First,
those already in a superior position won't act differently since to them
there has been no real change. Second, those in an inferior position must
first assume that those who currently have a superior position haven't also
worked on developing the same technology or, for some reason, have fallen
behind them. Only a naive fool would consider that a serious possibility.
> 5) Nanotech programs may be nearly simultaneous
> in several countries.
This strengthens the status quo, not weakens it.
> 6) If the above is true...
It isn't for the reasons I've outlined.
> ...even non-enemies have a strong incentive to
> out-compete the other in nanotech military
> development, and such a situation is unstable.
This is a Slippery Slope Argument, an informal logic fallacy where the
arguer make an assertion that because something will happen that something
harmful will then happen without giving proof that there's a cause and
effect.
> The tech is rapidly becoming more accessible.
> Today it might take an Apollo Project or
> Space Shuttle program. A few years from now,
> probably doable with a Manhattan Project.
> Once one nation starts, others will have strong
> incentive to compete. Espionage and public
> research will combine to make it fairly easy to
> keep up.
Which only furthers stabilizes the status quo.
> There'll probably be a political delay in starting
> the first project, thanks to those who say today
> that it's impossible.
Given the investments already being made by nations into their own
nanotechnology research, which industrialized nation are you referring to
that is listening to those that think nanotechnology is impossible? And I
haven't heard any respected scientist say these days that nanotechnology is
impossible. Some may argue about how far it can develop, but none that I've
heard have said that nanotechnology is an impossibility. Please tell us who
these doubting respected scientists are.
> Such a delay will make it even easier to do once
> the project starts.
That assumes a free exchange of technological secrets ... or a belief in the
superiority of one's foreign intelligence agency. After the Cold War and
with access to KGB archives, it is very apparent just how poor either of
these superpowers' intelligence services were. And that was all during the
height of the Cold War.
> The speed of success of the project depends
> heavily on how it's managed, and also on how
> much money is thrown at it.
So to have real controlled nuclear fusion, artificial intelligence, or a
cure for cancer or the common cold, all we have to do is hire Fortune 500
top management and throw money at these problems? I'm no expert on the
process of scientific innovation, but I now have doubts that you understand
it either. I think your entire "arms race" thesis turns on whether nanotech
is more like a Manhattan or Apollo project than an AI, controlled fusion, or
cure for cancer project.
> A nation that suspects it's falling behind will work harder;
> and they'll never know if they're behind or not, because
> success will not be directly proportional to work but will
> depend on a combination of many factors including luck.
And here you partly counter your previous statement. You need to make up
your mind on this point.
> Once an assembler is developed, a flexible, CAD-driven,
> human-scale manufacturing capability can be developed
> and deployed within months.
And you base this timetable statement on what?
> Unless the nations are cooperative *and open* or
> otherwise trustworthy, a nation that believes it may
> be attacked by advanced nanotech weaponry in a
> month has a strong incentive to attack now.
This assumes that a nation currently in a superior position hasn't been also
developing nanotechnology at least as fast as those inferior to them. Or it
assumes those currently in an inferior position think that it is best to
attack now instead of later when their inferior position is even weaker ...
as if the outcome would be any different.
> I think this puts the burden of discourse back on you...
And I've responded. But CRN is the one making the case for its position and
I am only pointing out what I believe are flaws in assumptions and
arguments. There is no burden on the critic, only the proponent.
> > Possible current candidates would be ... hmmm ... would be
> > who? Look at the world right now. Look how it has been
> > evolving. Thanks to nuclear weapons, there hasn't been a
> > major war since the end of WWII.
>
> Have you read Gubrud's paper on unstable nanotech arms
> races? Nanotech and nukes are not fully comparable.
> http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Papers/Gubrud/
Argumentum Ad Verecundiam (a.k.a. Appeal to Authority). And a rather weak
one given that the source you're quoting is only a physics graduate student.
If you're going to cite a source about international military relations to
back your position, you had best cite one that is at least is pushed forward
by an internationally-recognized authority on such matters and one that also
understands the likely capabilities of nano-weaponry.
If you still insist to use this source to support your position, then state
their position as you feel it supports yours. Also explain why you feel
this student has the necessary expertise to be used as such a source. Has
the paper been peer reviewed? Has it been endorsed by any military think
tank (such as RAND), foreign diplomat (I'd be willing to accept any of
ambassador rank or above that have dealt with weapon treaties), or even a
professor of international affairs.
> > Thanks to international corporations, we're becoming
> > more and more inter-dependent.
>
> Nanotech allows any region to "go it alone" economically.
First, my point was how international corporations are further stabilizing
international relations. Second, your statement supports my position. It
would further help stabilize international relations as it decreases the
"scarce resources" reason for conquest.
> > We're also becoming more and more aware that "them"
> > is not so different than "us". The internet's greatest
> > contribution to mankind might be just this. Barriers are
> > coming down more than they are going up. Totalitarian
> > nations are having a harder and harder time controlling
> > their populations and are crumbling ... if not already
> > crumbled. Think what the world will be like in ten to
> > twenty years when nanotechnology MIGHT be able to
> > develop to the point of nanite weapons.
>
> In ten to twenty years a lot of the old culture will still be
> alive. Look at racism in America today. Far better than
> it was--but the Civil War was 140 years ago! And
> America is better connected (internally) and has more
> tolerance of diversity than many areas of the world.
And your point is what?
If it is that things will be pretty much the same as far as human nature
goes, I agree. Those who feel they are inferior do not attack their
superiors. In other words, inferior nations will still not attack superior
nations for fear of destruction.
> > If CRN is actually advocating the possibility of an arms
> > race, it must first identify enemy states, give a reason
> > why they'd attack, and, most importantly, be able to
> > develop weapon nanotechnology at least as fast as
> > the US and its allies. For if you fall too far behind in
> > an arms race, you are in an inferior position where you
> > really don't pose much of a threat. You attack and you
> > know the superior force will wipe you out.
>
> Hm. The nature of military threat is changing. Nineteen
> people did multiple billions of dollars of damage, and
> killed several thousand.
What? Please understand the terminology you're using. You first talk about
"military threat" and then use an example of terrorism as proof that the
"military threat" has changed. Or are you now suggesting governments are
going to add a terrorism and/or kamikaze element to their military tactics?
> Unregulated nanotech would allow not just nations but
> individuals to be incredibly destructive.
Now let me get this straight. You're using a very low-tech terrorist tactic
(highjacking an aircraft and ramming it into a building) to support your
position that terrorists are going to take a high-tech method in the future?
Your example doesn't support your position.
> Does the Internet's current problems with spam, worms,
> and viruses count as an arms race? It is often described
> that way.
Just become something is described in a certain way doesn't mean it is. You
do understand how the media likes to hype events, don't you? How they use
generalizations and misuse terminology to make a crisis seem bigger, more
deadly, more important, etc. than it is. You could just as easily call
spam, worms, and viruses a game of Cowboys & Indians. Or how about a chess
game or Space Invaders? Or a game of cat and mouse?
> So... I don't think we have to identify enemy states...
My original question still stands and so does it reasoning. Your
counter-arguments to try to avoid answering my question have failed in my
eyes. You want to first assume there's a Satan without first proving there
is one. Again, I refuse to give into this sophomoric debating tactic.
> ...just identify a process by which states could *become*
> belligerent.
No matter how unrealistic that assumption is?
> If politics were not forbidden on this newsgroup,
> I would give a present-day example of a large stable
> state acting belligerently and preemptively. (Discussion
> of the rights and wrongs of such action is definitely
> outside the newsgroup charter.)
I do not appreciate the underhanded way in which you inserted an obvious
reference to a current political crisis and then closed the door on
responses. Also your tactic seems to be: "I would prove you wrong without
doubt ... but I won't because I'm not allowed to bring up certain facts.
But, boy, if I could!"
> We don't know yet whether nanotech will lend itself more
> to offense or defense. (If the former, a preemptive strike
> might prevent effective response.)
You don't really seem to be able to grasp international politics. Why
didn't the US nuke Communist Russia BEFORE an American turned traitor and
gave the Russians our nuclear secrets? We had the advantage. Why didn't we
use it? Think about that for a bit.
> We don't know whether a nation could "come from behind"
> in a nanotech arms race by inventing an unexpected class of
> weapon. We don't even know the level of uncertainty
> surrounding these questions.
Thus we cannot challenge your assumptions? Hogwash.
> So even if one nation gets there first, *and* spends a large
> fraction of its effort on military research, we don't know
> whether it will feel secure enough not to want to attack.
Read what you just wrote! Why is this nation attacking? Think about that!
Nations do NOT attack simply to attack. There's always other reasons behind
such an aggressive move and I do not recall any point in history where it
was simply because a nation had a weapons advantage over a neighbor. If
that was the case, there would be only one nation in the world right now and
that would have been the US after WWII. Afterall, us Americans had nukes
and Russians didn't. By your reasoning, we should have used them before we
lost that advantage. Oh, and we should have also taken out Britain as well.
Afterall, we didn't know if they'll all of a sudden turn against us. And
let's not forget those evil Canadians to the north! How could we assume
back then that they weren't developing nuclear weapons in secret then spring
a surprise attack against us?
> Of course, if attack is inevitable...
And it isn't.
> ...and is asymmetric enough to be surgical...
And you base this on what?
> ...that moves away from unstable arms race to
> abusive administration/regulation.
You're now jumping to a conclusion.
> > > ...economic upheavals...
> >
> > And this is bad for what reason?
>
> At least three reasons. Note that "economic upheaval"
> goes beyond the "creative destruction" involved in
> capitalism. What happens if you Napsterize every
> manufacturing and infrastructure industry
> simultaneously?
And what if gravity all of a sudden reverses? In other words, aren't you
assuming too much of a rapid change?
Also, why do you think "Napsterization" isn't part of capitalism? You do
understand that capitalism isn't fascism, don't you? Capitalism doesn't
need government approval, support, or regulation. It has thrived regardless
what governments have tried to do. During Communist Russia's heyday, the
Black Market flourished. The Black Market was capitalism. We call it the
Underground Economy here in America.
> Society is largely based on economic structure.
> Large-scale economic upheaval implies societal
> upheaval, which is stressful. Large-scale human
> stress is undesirable. Change may or may not be
> improvement.
First, that's quite a Luddite statement there.
Second, let's take a closer look at that paragraph.
"Large-scale economic upheaval implies societal upheaval, which is
stressful."
Why not large-scale human giddiness? That seems more probable than
large-scale stress.
"Large-scale human stress is undesirable."
This assumes large-scale human stress will happen because of the
introduction of nanotechnology.
"Change may or may not be improvement."
The change you are talking about ... introduction of nanotechnology into the
economy ... will be an improvement or it wouldn't become part of it. For
some it won't be an improvement, but for the vast majority it will be. Was
the introduction of the automobile an overall positive thing for mankind?
Yes. However, not for buggy-whip makers and their employees. Did it still
happen? Yes. Why? Because it was an improvement for the vast majority of
people. Nanotechnology will happen along those same lines. And mature
nanotechnology won't just pop into existence. I don't know any respected
scientist that thinks such will happen. It will be a more gradual
introduction and society will adjust as it has always done to such changes.
> Capitalism is a great method--possibly the best--for
> solving many problems involving positive-sum
> transactions.
It also works with negative-sum transactions too. It takes the least
negative-sum route.
> If capitalism fell apart we'd lose that ability until we
> could evolve a new structure that did the same thing.
Now this is just nonsense. Capitalism has been with us since the first
spear was traded for a piece of meat. It's about the process of exchanging
one thing of value for another thing of value. What you're proposing is a
situation where nothing one possessed was desired by another.
> Today, the economy and groups that represent it are
> extremely influential.
No, international business is having the opposite effect. Where in the past
a corporation could try to monopolize an industry, it is becoming harder and
harder to do so.
> A proposal that leads to severe economic upheaval
> will be fought by them.
And succeed about as much as the Luddites did in stopping the Industrial
Revolution.
> This could leave us without any workable proposal,
> with the situation developing randomly.
How would it develop "randomly"? You make these statements without giving
supporting evidence.
> A rather unstable and unsafe situation, in CRN's
> opinion.
Which doesn't surprise me. Not that the doom-and-gloom situation will
happen, but that you and others in CRN think it will.
> > It appears that CRN is rather anti-capitalism ... or at
> > the very least rather ignorant of the history of business
> > and industry.
>
> I'm not sure why you thought we're anti-capitalism; I
> hope the above has changed your mind.
No, the above has just further reinforced my opinion of your organization.
> What part of the history of business and industry are
> you referring to?
All of it.
> > > ...and attempted programs of regulation that cause far
> > > more harm than they prevent.
> >
> > We exist in a world not ruled by one government. This
> > alone makes this "bad regulation" concern meaningless.
> > There are over 200 nations in this world. Each one
> > wants its economy to grow. Each one knows that
> > technology is key to this. So what if one nation hampers
> > the development of or even outlaws nanotechnology.
> > They really don't matter ... not even if that Luddite nation
> > was the US.
>
> But think about the encryption fiascos of a few years ago,
> when the government was trying to push the Clipper Chip
> and hamstring the U.S. encryption industry. The result
> was the development of a wide range of completely
> unregulated encryption technology.
Why was that a bad thing? I don't think you understand that the reason for
encryption was so others ... including and sometimes especially government
.... cannot read your private correspondence unless you want them to. Then
again, I'm a big advocate of personal freedom and privacy. Also, encryption
wasn't stopped by the US in the slightest and actually was spurred on by
US's politicians' need for total control and monitoring.
> Regulation that is sufficiently important to a nation may
> cause that nation to act beyond its borders. Look how
> we defoliated coca fields in Latin America.
And this stopped the drug industry by how much? I don't think it even
qualified as a speed bump. And the US didn't invade any of those countries
but got their consent first. You need to look at all parts of a situation
before drawing conclusions from that situation.
> > Nanotechnology is a world movement and not the sole
> > domain of any single nation. Those that don't jump on
> > the nanotechnology bandwagon will trail behind the
> > others. Once this is noticed, most nations will panic,
> > reduce the regulation, and hope it isn't too late to catch
> > up with the pack.
>
> I agree about the panic. I disagree about reducing the
> regulation. The commercial (e.g. capitalist) response is
> to do that. The force-based (e.g. military) response is
> to clamp down harder--both internally and externally.
> I think a nation panicking about nanotech is a *very*
> dangerous scenario.
It would also be a very backwards nation and not posing a threat to anyone.
Unless you want to talk about a fantasy world where the US doesn't exist as
the only superpower in the world.
> > Now if CRN has any positive contribution to
> > nanotechnology, it MIGHT be in this one regards.
> > However, from what I've read and heard about CRN,
> > it won't be in a good way. CRN seems to want to
> > advocate regulation and not work to abolish it. It
> > appears to want to be a restraining force on the
> > development of nanotechnology. If it does this, it will
> > very likely hamper any nation that actually listens to it.
>
> Nanotech will develop rapidly enough that it will be
> deployed unevenly anyway. CRN wants to seriously
> retard the bad aspects of this development while
> preserving, or at best only slightly hampering, the good
> aspects. And we do want to see this implemented
> worldwide, so all nations would be hampered evenly.
If there was any doubt that CRN is a pro-authoritarian organization, the
above statement eliminates it.
> They may see this as preferable to the alternative.
If they are also pro-authoritarian, I'm sure they will.
> Do you think that the development of nanotech should
> be completely unrestrained?
Such a question makes the flawed assumption that it can be restrained in the
first place. It also assumes that for some reason you've yet to give that
your organization knows what's best for everyone and every nation.
> Do you think the following scenario is completely
> implausible?: Start with the assumption that nanofactories
> of all shapes and sizes are available and unrestricted. A
> team of undergrads at MIT does some "lab on a chip"
> development to manufacture feedstock from biological
> chemicals, adds the result plus some simple robotics onto
> a small nanofactory, and throws it in the river to see what
> happens. They included a feature to disable the machine
> in salt water, but they didn't test it carefully and it doesn't
> work. The development of the system is greatly speeded
> by the one-hour build time for each prototype, so the
> project is completed in a single semester, before any
> responsible person even knows it's happening.
You're using gray-goo doomsday scenario as a counter-argument?!
Just in case you haven't read anything about gray goo, for it to work, the
gray goo must go undetected for quite awhile and then cannot be destroyed by
anti-gray-goo nanites. It is far easier and faster to destroy than it is to
build. Doesn't matter what the scale we're talking about. So for your
scenario to work, the students must also build into their nanite the ability
to defend itself against other nanites and/or build more of their kind
faster than they can be destroyed. Think about that for a second. First,
you have to have students bright enough to create such a nanite and yet dumb
and/or mentally screwed up enough not to see the potential harm it could do.
Second, you have to assume that the nano industry won't prepare for a gray
goo possibility. Third, you have to assume they won't have nanites out
looking for gray goo and reporting its existence as soon as it is found ...
if not automatically attacking known gray-goo nanites. Fourth, you have to
assume that these college students can design a nanite that can take on
anti-gray-goo nanites designed by professional nanite builders. That's a
lot of assumptions.
> > On the other hand, if CRN were to work to abolish
> > regulation of nanotechnology, it could be a positive
> > force for nanotechnology. It could appear before
> > governments thinking of regulating the development
> > of nanotechnology in their country and simply make
> > those governments aware of the risks of doing so.
> > How doing so may hamper the development of
> > nanotechnology in their country in comparison to
> > other countries that have less regulation. How
> > pointless such regulation is when viewed from a
> > global perspective. It's closing argument could be
> > simply explaining how hard nanotechnology will be
> > to regulate and thus how meaningless such efforts
> > will be in the end.
>
> Abolishing all regulation of nanotech seems to be
> unacceptably dangerous.
Those with authoritarian, elitist, or paternalistic bent would agree with
you..
> I agree with you that local controls are all but
> meaningless. But I expect (and hope!) that
> carefully designed global controls can
> significantly reduce the overall risk.
And who do you think has such global power? The UN? *laugh* Read up on
the UN and just how effective it is. You'll be sorrily disappointed. The
UN really has NO power. Its success rate to influence any country is
extremely poor and usually results in a knee-jerk negative reaction by the
focused-on country. Even such a straight forward thing as dealing with one
country invading another has proven very disappointing. When it comes to
economic and scientific issues, the UN isn't really even listened to by any
nation. If your nation disagrees with what the UN thinks should be done,
there isn't much it can do to prevent you from doing what you want to do.
And if you think any country is going to listen to the UN about reigning in
their development of nanotechnology, you're only fantasizing. Less
developed countries will scream oppression by industrialized countries.
Even industrialized countries would scream oppression by the US. For
everyone knows that the UN only has as much power and authority as the US
gives it. So only if the country already agrees with the UN's stance will
it go along with what the UN says. In other words, it would have done so
anyway.
> I agree that if nanotech is too tightly controlled, the
> controls will be counterproductive.
First, it cannot be controlled on a global scale. Thus it is my position
that the only nation hurt by regulation is the nation that tries to
implement it.
> But if nanotech is too loosely controlled, or not
> controlled at all, we will have the equivalent of
> script kiddies making the equivalent of software
> worms.
Like to know the best way to get a kid to do something that is viewed by
them as not really harming anyone seriously? Pass a law against doing it.
In other words, make it into a forbidden fruit. An activity which they can
rebel against to show their independence. Welcome to human nature.
Like to get the kid to go over the edge? Make him an outlaw for doing
something harmless and he'll more likely take that first step down the dark
path. Again, welcome to human nature.
However, there currently are laws against software worms. So maybe you have
a point. Afterall, since those laws were passed, no software worm has been
developed or released. No sub-culture has developed where teenagers and
adults take pride in making such things. Ahhhh, the beauty and perfection
of Law.
> > >CRN is dedicated to a sober and thorough review of all
> > > the risks as well as the benefits, a careful analysis of
> > > proposed modes for regulation, and a comprehensive
> > > presentation of a plan for effective administration of
> > > advanced nanotechnology.
> >
> > Unfortunately, by the above statement, CRN appears to
> > be a potential negative force in the development of
> > nanotechnology. The key phrase being "effective
> > administration". Think Big Brother. An obsolete concept.
>
> Maybe not obsolete. Without regulation, anyone will be
> able to make a surveillance device and put it in your home.
What? You really think such laws have prevented people from spying on each
other?
> You'll have, at least, an arms race between
> privacy/debugging technology and bugging technology.
You sound as if this isn't currently the case. It is.
> I think the bugging technology would win--especially
> since governments would have incentive to support
> bugging tech and outlaw privacy tech.
Government supports both. Governments want to bug their enemies and
citizenry as well as prevent other governments from bugging them.
> (Again, think encryption.)
Yes, precisely.
> Want to live in that world?
I live in that world. What world do you live on?
> Now extend the argument to untraceable
> remote-control crimes. You get a cell
> phone call: "We have installed a bomb
> in your daughter. As proof, here is her
> DNA sequence and a real-time
> physiological monitor trace. Transfer
> $100 to this number in the next 30
> seconds or she dies." Your daughter is
> at school; you can see her on the
> webcam, and the heart rate increases as
> she raises her hand. She can't be fully
> scanned in the next 30 seconds. Did she
> take off her anti-nano suit on the way to
> school? Are the school's filters working?
> Are you willing to risk her life on the chance
> that the biometric trace is simulated from
> image analysis of the same webcam you're
> looking at? Or do you lose the $100?
I'm trying to have a serious discussion with you and you bring up this
flight of fantasy. I'm very disappointed in such debating tactics.
> > That and CRN sounds like a group of Chicken
> > Littles getting together to warn the world that the
> > sky is falling.
>
> I've been studying nanotech for a decade and a half.
Argumentum Ad Verecundiam (a.k.a. Appeal to Authority).
> I am very pro-technology.
Your statements in your reply would seem to indicate otherwise.
> And I think that nanotech will be destabilizing
> and risky to a degree probably unprecedented
> in history. I'm not warning that the sky is
> falling; I'm warning that a big storm is coming.
> And lightning rods haven't been invented yet,
> and no one has built a tornado shelter.
First, this is a classic Chicken Little statement.
Second, there is more at play here than simply technology. More
importantly, there is international politics and how it operates.
Additionally, there is military strategy, economics, history, crime, and
social psychology. The role you seek for CRN needs CRN to have qualified
individuals with expertise in at least these seven areas. It doesn't. In
reading the biographies of those behind CRN (that being Mike Treder and
yourself), there is a clear lack expertise in any of these areas except
technology. I feel your lack of understanding of these other six areas is
the reason for the problems I've outlined in my original reply and this one.
Scott T. Jensen
"MIKE TREDER" <iph...@msn.com> wrote:
> Thanks, Scott, for your excellent challenge. Chris Phoenix
> will respond to your points in greater detail. Let me just
> make some brief remarks.
Since you and Chris are on this together, I will only reply to Chris's post
to keep this discussion at least semi-manageable, easy-to-follow, and to
reduce repeating myself over and over. And I believe I do address at least
in part all the points you brought up in your post here.
Matthias Braun
>>Do you think it will be possible, that a nanodevice which is by
>>definition considerably smaller than the wavelenth of sound can hear?
> It doesn't have to. It can construct a microphone, ....
Ok, you build a nanodevice, which enters say an office and there it
builds an ordinary bug. Why do you not hire an ordinary spy which places
the bug by hand?
> ...or it can attatch
> itself to a suitable large bone, and analyse sound using an
> accelerometer.
Still i do not see the advantage of nanodevices compared to bugs. The
nanossytem is to small to see, ok. But a good placed bug should also be
out of sight. Both are detectable by their transmission of the gathered
information.
> Incidentally nanosystems aren't necesarilly tiny. A giant redwood tree
> is a nanosystem.
With the same argument my desk is a sub-nanosystem, because it works by
electrostatic repulsion of electrons. This part of the discussion does
not lead to anything.
>>And even if, how often do we use words from a foreign language. Never
>>perform a Gedankenexperiment after attacking Germany, or never sing an
>>Elvis song after a war with an english speaking country ect....
> Ah, but those speaking the language of the enemy are probably traitors
> at heart anyway and deserve their fate.
You sound like some french politicians ;-)
> Or you can look at the frequency of use of certain key words...
.... and kill all females... (despite of political correctness ;-) )
> Or you might want to kill people who recite certain prayers,
> or fail to recite certain prayersor political slogans.
There you have a dilemma. In one scenario, the nanodevice-using party is
a tiny minority (sect or whatever). Then they do not need a selective
weapon, because all others are the enemy. They can use ABC-weapon
technologie instead, which is much cheaper. Or in the other scenario,
the nanodevice-using party is in the majority (dictatorships ect.). Then
you do not want a method which checks much of the population, because
you gather too much information, which you can not evaluate, or kill
without supervision. This causes errors ect. and you kill a lot of
innocent (oops, i fogot to pray today...), which strongly motivate the
population to get rid of you. So you have to infect suspicious people
selectively, but if you already know them, you can use ordinary spying
to subvert their organissation. Both ways, nanodevices no not help you much.
And one is shure, enemy spy will pray be non detectable.
> ...or fat people,...
They die anyway in near future on heart-dissease.
> But the perfect weapon doesn't destroy, it subverts. Weapons aren't
> primarilly about killing people, weapons are about controlling them.
> It's a primate thing. Any number of possibilities spring to the more
> evil parts of my mind. Blackmail devices of many sorts. Things that find
> their way to the reward and punishment centres of the brain.
Blackmailing works on the street size preaty good with hitmans. And on
the goverment-size by chemical warfare or patriotism or a tight
state-police or ...
> Read "The Diamond Age" for a few off-hand suggestions.
I do not want suggestions, what you CAN do, I want application, which
are done BETTER/cheaper by nanodevices, thats my point.
Even if in far future nanodevices get so cheap, that they are comparable
to a bunch of hitmans, than the other side will have invested enough
(little) money for counter-devices.
I suggest reading Stanislav Lem for better Science Fiction.
mfg matthias
e...@ekj.vestdata.no
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Chris Phoenix wrote:
> 1) There are several countries in the world that will have the
> capability to launch an assembler project in the next ten years.
Trivially true: *I* can "launch" an assembler-project all by myself in
the next ten *minutes*. It does not follow that such a project would
succeed.
It is *extremely* optimistic and highly unrealistic that *any* country
will have a fully working assembler (defined as one that can at a
minimum assemble a copy of itself) in the next 10 years. I would say the
same thing if you replaced 10 with 30.
> 2) A nanofactory project is not much harder than an assembler project.
..... which is to say they are both very hard indeed. (as demonstrated by
the fact that no country is even *remotely* close to manage either one,
nor does anyone even have a real clue how you'd set about managing
either one.)
> 3) A nanofactory makes it easy to rapidly develop many powerful weapons
> and produce many copies; it could shift military balances of power.
Again trivially true. You could even state it stronger: A general
assembler in the hands of any one nation *would* change balances of
power. (this is a lot like stating that a nation that developed
Abrahams tanks in WW-I would have 'an advantage'.)
> 6) If the above is true, even non-enemies have a strong incentive to
> out-compete the other in nanotech military development, and such a
> situation is unstable.
And yet, there is no current strong push for nanotech in *any* country.
What do you suppose is the reason ? (hint: I have a good idea what the
reason migth be, I just wonder if *you* do.)
> CRN is working on this; it does not look easy.
Yeah. You and Mike Treder have been thinking about it. So has many
others. That the two of you choose to label yourself the "Center for
Responsible Nanotech" does not significantly strengthen your arguments.
As far as I can tell the the "center" consists of the two of you, is not
open to membership for anyone else (even if they would want to) and has
as it's principal output three "primary papers", two of which are
"scheduled" and only one of which is actually published. That one is a
trivial summary of other papers filling all of maybe 5 pages. (and
"published" here seems to mean only "available from our webpages", not
actually accepted into a peer-reviewed publication.) You and Mike also
run the "Incipient Posthumans" (whatever that means)[1]
In short: Would you please try to let your arguments stand on their own
rather than attempting to bolster them up by having this "centre" lend
credibility ? This "centre" has no more credibility than you yourself
do.
mvh,
Eivind Kjrstad
[1] It's hard to say what these "posthumans" do because their website,
made by Mike Treder consists of a single picture, with links that I'm
sure he has intended to point to relevant documents, but which do
instead point to locations like:
file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Mike\My%20Documents\My%20Webs\myweb\beginnings.htm
Which tells us a bit about Mikes operating-system, folder-layout and
html-knowledge, but nothing at all about the "incipient posthumans".
Malcolm McMahon
On 11 Feb 2003 23:50:13 GMT, Matthias Braun <msb...@ph.utexas.edu>
wrote:
>There you have a dilemma. In one scenario, the nanodevice-using party is
>a tiny minority (sect or whatever). Then they do not need a selective
>weapon, because all others are the enemy.
Hardly anyone wants to destroy the whole human race, just the part they
don't like, or think they can control.
The prospect of a "programmable disease" is pretty scarey. Imagine a
disease which was highly contagious but showed no symptoms at all until
a specific time and date, at which time it killed all the people it had
decided met certain criteria.
The criteria could be anything, depending on the terrorists involved. It
could be based on genetic markers, on speach, on GPS readings, even on
diet.
How do you mount a defense against such a threat? Constant monitoring of
possible vectors of transmission, such as taking atmospheric and other
environmental samples in populous places and examining them for
microscopic nanosystems. But there are many possible methods of
transmission, and the body has many possible hiding places.
If a substantial proportion of the population have some kind of internal
defences, which would be something along the lines of microscopic
nanosystems travelling arround the body, looking for invaders then they
might trigger a public warning, but warning in time to treat your entire
population with counter-agents? And there are other places such a
contagion might hide itself than the human body. How about a disease
that initially infects clothing, for example?
You're looking at an arms race, not so different from the eternal battle
between computer hackers and system adminstrators. Again you have the
problem that an attacker needs to succeed only once, whereas a defender
must succeed every time.
This stuff is still a long way off, of course, but I don't see anything
preventing it from happening.
Amos Jeffries
Joseph Hertzlinger <jher...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:b28bk...@enews3.newsguy.com...
I am not up enough on the details enough to supply calculations
but it seems to me you are ignoring a difference between
monomolecular wire and dental floss which directly affects the
lethality. Namely tensile properties.
To take the skin test (pressing into skin):
Skin has two properties that protect it, resistance to direct
pressure and distribution of forces across its surface
The dental floss with its assumed (10^5) times larger surface
interface presses on a larger width of skin and increases the
area of skin transfering both of these forces over the entire
skin surface.
The monomolecular wire with its very much smaller interaction
area is better likened to a razor blade.
With a razor it is safe enough to press directly onto the surface
(blade perpendicular to the skin) since the unoving blade allows
the pressure to be redireted over the skin. When you move the
blade sideways across the skin is where the cutting occurs.
The molecular wire however has tensile properties you mentioned
at the top, a slight expansion.
Any tensile structure when pressured or stretched _moves_ from
its natural position. In the case of the monomolecular wire the
expansion of skin pressing on it causes this expansion movement
to have the same action as a small movement of a very sharp razor
blade.
It may not have the strength to remain in one piece accross the
doorway. But the forces that caused it to break have already done
a lot of damage before the breakage and if it breaks at the
endpoint rather than the center of contact it will cause much
more damage as the wire is pulled around the limb or whatever
caused it to break.
At monomolecular dimensions it may be stopped by bone, or similar
but that is enough to remove a lot of soft tissue if not
protected properly.
>
> In a society where extremely strong materials are commonplace,
it may
> become necessary to wear clothing made of the same material.
>
Denfinately.
AJ
Chris Phoenix
I will give a very incomplete answer based on one quick read-through. I
refuse to wade through vitriol to have a discussion. If anyone
(including Scott) thinks I've missed answering an important point, they
can restate it politely and I will be glad to answer it. Future
vitriolic posts will get even more cursory treatment.
Regulation is not the same as law. For example, technological
regulation can't be broken without cracking the technology--which is
usually possible but can be made quite difficult and sometimes
detectable--or social engineering, which can also be made difficult and
detectable.
I mentioned Gubrud's paper not as an appeal to authority, but because I
think it has interesting ideas that I'd like to talk about. I'd still
like to talk about it.
I do think that gray goo is a concern. You have to find it before you
can kill it. And given that it can be microns in size, and some
varieties can presumably exist in deep ocean, I think finding it could
be pretty hard. I haven't calculated the energy cost of sieving the
ocean yet, but I bet it's not easy. And thousands of varieties (think
"script kiddie") may be harder to kill than one. And releasing a new
"fix" for each new goo is not really practical when each "fix" takes
resources and creates litter and may have to provide coverage of the
entire globe.
Well, that's all I can remember. Scott, I'm sure you'll be "very
disappointed" in my "sophomoric" response. If that's all you can say,
don't even bother. If you want to be polite, feel free to rewrite your
post, and I'll be very happy to have a productive discussion.
Chris
"Scott T. Jensen" wrote:
> [Very long post deleted. Use Google if it's disappeared from your news
server.]
Chris Phoenix
e...@ekj.vestdata.no wrote:
>
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Chris Phoenix wrote:
>
> > 1) There are several countries in the world that will have the
> > capability to launch an assembler project in the next ten years.
>
> It is *extremely* optimistic and highly unrealistic that *any* country
> will have a fully working assembler (defined as one that can at a
> minimum assemble a copy of itself) in the next 10 years. I would say the
> same thing if you replaced 10 with 30.
Hm. Well, that's your opinion... and a few years ago it was the opinion
of almost everyone... but the tide seems to be turning. Danial Wayner,
who's heading Canada's nanotech institute, says it could be "15 years or
more before the first real breakthroughs in self-assembly." The only
real difficulty is the mechanochemistry itself; the mechanical design of
an assembler is pretty easy.
I doubt we'll agree on this point. Can we at least agree that some
respectable scientists say it could be less than 20, while others are
saying 50 or never?
> > 2) A nanofactory project is not much harder than an assembler project.
>
> ..... which is to say they are both very hard indeed.
My phrasing was unclear here. An assembler-plus-nanofactory project is
not much harder than an assembler-only project. Once you have an
assembler, designing and building (bootstrapping) a nanofactory just
requires some fairly straightforward mechanical engineering and lab
work--no new research.
> (as demonstrated by
> the fact that no country is even *remotely* close to manage either one,
> nor does anyone even have a real clue how you'd set about managing
> either one.)
CRN is about to publish a paper showing how the nanofactory part would
work. Zyvex is supposedly publishing books later this year on
"Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines" and "Diamond Surfaces"
(http://rfreitas.com/, scroll down about halfway). I haven't seen those
books. It'll be interesting to see just how many DOF a mechanochemical
manipulator requires.
> > 3) A nanofactory makes it easy to rapidly develop many powerful weapons
> > and produce many copies; it could shift military balances of power.
>
> Again trivially true. You could even state it stronger: A general
> assembler in the hands of any one nation *would* change balances of
> power. (this is a lot like stating that a nation that developed
> Abrahams tanks in WW-I would have 'an advantage'.)
Yep. And in the hands of two competing nations, would probably create
an unstable arms race.
> > 6) If the above is true, even non-enemies have a strong incentive to
> > out-compete the other in nanotech military development, and such a
> > situation is unstable.
>
> And yet, there is no current strong push for nanotech in *any* country.
> What do you suppose is the reason ? (hint: I have a good idea what the
> reason migth be, I just wonder if *you* do.)
Let me add a word to your statement: There is no current *unclassified*
strong push for nanotech in any country. I forget the reference, but I
think it was about a year ago that some industry-watcher mentioned that
some nanotech scientists had started stopping publishing.
If there really are *no* projects, then that's because people listen to
Smalley more than Drexler.
> > CRN is working on this; it does not look easy.
>
> Yeah. You and Mike Treder have been thinking about it. So has many
> others. That the two of you choose to label yourself the "Center for
> Responsible Nanotech" does not significantly strengthen your arguments.
We don't expect it to. We expect our arguments to strengthen CRN. We
started CRN so that people would know what to call us.
> As far as I can tell the the "center" consists of the two of you, is not
> open to membership for anyone else (even if they would want to)
We're not a membership organization, meaning that we don't charge people
money to "belong." Did you also read the part where we invited all
readers to send comments? And we are actively seeking authors and
co-authors. Our organizational structure is not unusual. For example,
ETC Group seems to have four members; their ideas have been widely
published. Further attacks on our chosen organizational structure will
get you nowhere.
In fact, I wrote a detailed response to your subsequent points, but upon
reflection I see no need to defend ourselves or our organization.
One note: "Incipient Posthuman" is Mike's project, pre-CRN, not a joint
project. Thanks for catching the web errors there.
Scott T. Jensen
"Kent Feiler" <ke...@KentFeiler.com> wrote:
> Scott Jensen wrote:
> >"MIKE TREDER" <iph...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> Much more pressing issues include the potential for
> >> unstable arms races...
> >
> >To have an arms race, you first need an enemy that can also
> >develop the technology at about the same rate as you are.
> >And let's not do sophomoric debating here and just assume
> >there will be such an enemy. Seriously. Who will be that
> >enemy? Or enemy of any country capable of developing
> >weapon nanotechnology and being able to develop
> >nanotechnology at relatively the same pace.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Militaries prepare for real potential enemies and cannot prepare for every
imaginable possible enemies. CRN says nano-weaponry will cause an arms
race. It needs to then identify who in be in such an arms race and why.
The US could spend trillions of dollars preparing for a war with Canada, but
that would just be silly due to how well the US and Canada get along.
> We don't know who a potential future enemy might be, and
> we don't know what the world will be like in twenty or even
> ten years. Consider that ten years ago, no one would have
> picked out Islamic Fundamentalism as the enemy du jour.
Actually, we knew it was a major terrorist threat back then and even before
then. When the Shah was overthrown in Iran by Islamic fundamentalists and
America, which backed the Shah, was proclaimed by Ayatollah Khomeini as
Satan incarnate, terrorist attacks against the US have been unfortunately
rather regular and building in severity. And it goes back even further than
that.
> Ten years from now the "enemy" could well be a country
> that's currently an ally.
I don't see how this would happen given the current state of the world.
> Maybe Toyota and Honda will be the adversaries.
Now you're talking nonsense or joking.
> The way to think about it is that the history of the human
> race has been more-or-less continuous warfare, and
> there's no reason to think that will change.
But it did change with the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan. There
hasn't been a major war in the world since that time. No major power has
declared war against another major power and there is no evidence this will
occur for the foreseeable future. The development of nano-weaponry should
have the same effect.
> One significant point is that Nanotech is like Nuclear
> technology in that it's very expensive and difficult to
> produce.
It depends what you consider to be nanotech. Many conceive nanites as
possessing and needing to possess the ability to reproduce. If this is the
nanotech you refer to, production of nanites will be neither expensive or
difficult. Development of them will be, but not the production of them.
> That, at least, means that only a few of the biggest and
> wealthiest countries will be able to afford to research
> and produce it. (Unlike Biotech which is a very cheap
> technology, and could be produced by many third world
> countries.) So the situation may turn out much like the
> Cold War between Russia and the USA. A small list of
> players because the technology is so expensive,
> something like MAD in effect, and a dark cloud hanging
> over the world for years.
If that is what happens, then the world is a better place for it. Nuclear
MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) has given us almost 60 years of world
peace. If a nanotech MAD can do the same (and I think it would), it is
something we should be thankful for.
However, I do think there will be more players this time and possibly every
single nation in the world.
> Organizations like CRN have never had much effect on
> real world events. They require too much general
> "buy-in" by a very large group of people, and since they
> have no enforcement capabilities, as soon as one group
> splits off and goes it's own way the group dissolves.
A likely possibility.
> Sorry to say so, but the only real possibility for control
> is probably some strong world government, but that
> comes with its own set of nightmares which might be
> worse than a Nano-War.
I would agree.
Chris Phoenix
Matthias Braun wrote:
>
> Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> >Matthias Braun wrote:
>
> >>But up to now, I never saw any "advantages" compared to
> >>ABC-weapon technology.
>
> > There are a number of new potentials.
> > Selectivity - a weapon that only affects people who speak a certain
> > language for example.
>
> Do you think it will be possible, that a nanodevice which is by
> definition considerably smaller than the wavelenth of sound can hear?
Speed of sound = 340 m/s. Audible frequency = 20 Hz. Wavelength = 17
meters! When you get below a wavelength, you see it as changing
pressure, but it's still detectable. (At some point the force applied
to the pressure sensor becomes smaller than the effects of thermal
noise, but even that isn't a hard limit.)
> And even if, how often do we use words from a foren language. Never
> perform a Gedankenexperiment after attacking Germany, or never sing an
> Elvis song after a war with an english speaking country ect....
I think speaking a certain language is one of the harder criteria. On
the other hand, the machines might be switched on by a broadcast radio
signal. (Detecting radio waves is also possible for nanobots--the
electrical component of the wave affects point charges. See
Nanomedicine 6.4.2. I'm not sure what broadcast power would be
required.)
> And even now, you can immunize your soldiers against your germs, so this
> advantage is used in current in b-weapons.
True. But immunization, like anti-virus programs, may not be used as
widely as desirable, especially in civilian populations who may actively
resist it.
> > Subversion - weapons which subvert rather than destroy.
>
> Even if we assume, that nanodevices can hear, what is the advantage
> compared to ordinary spying? By answering, please consider, the
> nanodevice must be placed in the right place, and also must deliver the
> information out, and by sending they are detectable just like ordinary bugs.
I believe spread-spectrum technologies can be undetectable: each
pulse is below noise level, so you have to know when the pulses are
arriving to be able to add up enough pulses to get a signal. So I was
told by a spread-spectrum researcher whose name I've forgotten.
> > But above all wide availabilty of weapons of mass destruction.
>
> To make a chemical weapon, you can use household chemicals. To make
> biological weapons, you need a reseach team of 10-100 people and less
> than 100Mio Dollars. Why do you think it is considerably easier to
> construct nanodevices?
The first nanodevice will not be easy to construct. But if unrestricted
CAD-driven nanofactories become available, nanodevices will then be
fairly easy to design, and construction will of course be trivial. And
CAD-driven nanofactories could follow the first workable assembler by as
little as a couple of months.
> Still, i do not see any advantages of nanodevices as weapons compared to
> current technologies.
The same as the advantage of non-weapon products. Two orders of
magnitude in strength (more in compression), six (energy) to twelve
(volume) in computing, something like nine in power conversion. Not
to mention virtually unlimited manufacturing. Plus very rapid
design cycle. (Fast prototyping reduces need for simulation as
well. And very small computers can reduce the need for complicated
mechanical engineering by trading it for complicated software
engineering.)
erincss
>Malcolm McMahon
>How do you mount a defense against such a threat? Constant monitoring of
>possible vectors of transmission, such as taking atmospheric and other
>environmental samples in populous places and examining them for
>microscopic nanosystems.
And this raises an issue that I think you (Malcolm) wisely mentioned in this
thread previously, namely that of "who watches the watchers?" The possibilities
for abuse of the civilian's rights using invisible-to-the-eye surveillance
devices is rather scary!
Chris Phoenix
"Scott T. Jensen" wrote:
> Militaries prepare for real potential enemies and cannot prepare for every
> imaginable possible enemies. CRN says nano-weaponry will cause an arms
> race. It needs to then identify who in be in such an arms race and why.
> The US could spend trillions of dollars preparing for a war with Canada, but
> that would just be silly due to how well the US and Canada get along.
We say it *could* cause an arms race--even that it's likely to. We
don't have to identify a specific country--just a situation that's
realistic and plausible for the range of countries we have in the world.
So let's look at it this way. If two countries like the U.S. and Canada
are extremely friendly, they have more to gain from a joint nanotech
project than from separate ones, and nothing to lose. (A joint project
can move faster, get more patents, etc.) Now, which combinations of
countries would you nominate for joint nanotech development? I can tell
you some I would *not* nominate: India and China. China and the U.S.
The U.S. and any Muslim state or collaboration. A Muslim collaboration
and Israel (which BTW is already raising significant money for a
nanotech project.)
So let's assume that (for example) China and India are working on
molecular nanotech manufacturing in separate programs. Do they trust
each other enough to share all their military secrets? Of course not.
So neither one knows exactly what the other is doing. A quick Google
search for <"arms race" India China> found this in the top 10 results:
http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/magazine/2000/0609/security.main2.html
I have yet to see an argument that nanotech weapons would be at least as
stabilizing as nukes. I have seen an argument that they would be
destabilizing, and it makes sense to me. If (for example) the weaker
power felt threatened by the stronger, it would at least try to build a
"minimum credible" deterrent (quoting from that article). Now, we don't
know yet whether nanotech-built weapons are better at defense or at
offense. I suspect the latter, but it's too soon to say. But if it
turns out that the minimum credible deterrent is also sufficient for a
credible threat, and if *both* countries fear expansionism (or
retaliation for previous events, or...) by the other, then you have all
the makings of an arms race.
> > Ten years from now the "enemy" could well be a country
> > that's currently an ally.
>
> I don't see how this would happen given the current state of the world.
What is your definition of ally? For example, is every nation in NATO
an ally of every other? And are you assuming that all major countries
have stable governments? I'm not.
> > The way to think about it is that the history of the human
> > race has been more-or-less continuous warfare, and
> > there's no reason to think that will change.
>
> But it did change with the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan. There
> hasn't been a major war in the world since that time. No major power has
> declared war against another major power and there is no evidence this will
> occur for the foreseeable future. The development of nano-weaponry should
> have the same effect.
I'd still like to talk about the content of Gubrud's paper. It's not
just the destructiveness of nukes that tends toward stability. There's
also the long-term cost of use (lower with nanotech), the indiscriminate
nature of destruction (significantly lower with nanotech), and the ease
of monitoring each other (vastly lower with nanotech).
Also, I wonder how much of the post-WWII stability resulted from the
existence of the new type of state--the global superpower--instead of
the Bomb. The U.S. has declared war on several nations since then, but
they were too small to do us much damage other than in a social sense.
Back in 1990 Iraq was a noteworthy regional power. And the U.S. did
fight with the other global superpower, the Soviet Union--we just did it
by proxy in several countries. We were unwilling to undertake an open
confrontation, and this may in fact be because of nukes.
Now let's take "global superpower" to mean a nation that can inflict
crippling damage at will on large areas of the globe. Nanotech may give
multiple nations that ability, thus creating several global
superpowers. Do they all play nice? Or do they arm themselves (as
happened before when there were only two superpowers) and fight
semi-covertly at high cost to third parties (as also happened)?
> > One significant point is that Nanotech is like Nuclear
> > technology in that it's very expensive and difficult to
> > produce.
>
> It depends what you consider to be nanotech. Many conceive nanites as
> possessing and needing to possess the ability to reproduce. If this is the
> nanotech you refer to, production of nanites will be neither expensive or
> difficult. Development of them will be, but not the production of them.
Right. And also consider that they may be a lot easier to steal than
atomic technology. It's not easy to smuggle pounds of uranium, but a
small nanofactory would be extremely smugglable.
> > That, at least, means that only a few of the biggest and
> > wealthiest countries will be able to afford to research
> > and produce it. (Unlike Biotech which is a very cheap
> > technology, and could be produced by many third world
> > countries.) So the situation may turn out much like the
> > Cold War between Russia and the USA. A small list of
> > players because the technology is so expensive,
> > something like MAD in effect, and a dark cloud hanging
> > over the world for years.
>
> If that is what happens, then the world is a better place for it. Nuclear
> MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) has given us almost 60 years of world
> peace. If a nanotech MAD can do the same (and I think it would), it is
> something we should be thankful for.
>
> However, I do think there will be more players this time and possibly every
> single nation in the world.
How many Cuban Missile Crises would arise from such a situation? How
many of those would turn into major conflicts? What's your estimate of
the damage caused by a major nanotech conflict, and the likely
geopolitical outcome?
> > Organizations like CRN have never had much effect on
> > real world events. They require too much general
> > "buy-in" by a very large group of people, and since they
> > have no enforcement capabilities, as soon as one group
> > splits off and goes it's own way the group dissolves.
>
> A likely possibility.
An interesting point. CRN does not intend to try to keep people bought
in. We are still working on long-term strategy, but I can give a
tentative discussion, and I'd like feedback from anyone.
For this purpose, I see the world as composed of many powerful
special-interest groups. Large businesses are one, which I sometimes
lump under "Commercial". Each major country is one, and sometimes I
lump them under "Government", or "Guardian" after Jane Jacobs. Then
there are environmental and human rights groups, which in aggregate can
be powerful. And scientists, technicians, and eventually hackers.
(This is not an exhaustive list.)
Our current idea is to develop a workable administration plan, then show
in detail why each of those groups should want it according to their own
short- and long-term self interest. If enough groups of enough
different types buy in, they will act within and across types to keep
the rest in line. Of course some will not want to toe the line, and the
administration plan has to be prepared to deal with that. Nuclear
non-proliferation has certainly been at least a partial success, and I
take some hope from that.
> > Sorry to say so, but the only real possibility for control
> > is probably some strong world government, but that
> > comes with its own set of nightmares which might be
> > worse than a Nano-War.
>
> I would agree.
There are kinds of control other than force and law. For example,
technological built-in controls can be made quite difficult to
circumvent. That won't stop someone from developing it independently,
but it will make it harder to steal. Another example: self regulation
is only somewhat useful or reliable (depending heavily on the kind of
community), but if responsible MNT (molecular nanotechnology) science is
willing to self-regulate somewhat strenuously, that could delay rogue
MNT development by at least a few years--which might be enough to build
defenses, and would at least give us a lot more opportunity to research
the problems and know what we're up against.
Then there's the separate question of whether strong world government is
unavoidable once MNT arrives. There are several factors that could lead
from MNT to strong world government. First, if nanotech is a major
factor in military defense/offense, the most stable situation is
probably a world government backed by nanotech. Second, reaction to the
threats and dangers of nanotech can drive people toward wanting stronger
world government. Third, if nanotech is useful in subjugating
populations (as it surely will be), a world government-type organization
with nanotech can make itself quite strong even against the will of the
governed. There are probably other factors.