Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

What is the safest way to develop nanotech?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Will Ware

unread,
Sep 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/10/97
to

Mitchell Porter (mi...@smople.thehub.com.au) wrote:
: Is it possible to say whether one is less likely to lead
: to catastrophe than the other: private development of
: nanotech, or public-domain development?

I've thought about this a little. I haven't come up with anything
brilliant, but one thing that occurred to me is that it would be
good to have defensive development leading offensive development
(assuming they turn out to be distinguishable). One way to do this
might be to have a think tank that works on both offensive and
defensive measures, since you can't develop defenses without some
idea of what you're defending against, and they publish the
defensive blueprints and keep the offensive ones under lock and
key. If several well-funded think tanks are all doing this, they
might have a good chance of covering the threats that are likely
to be invented by less-organized, less-well-funded efforts (e.g.
terrorists, or nations inclined to terrorism).

In the short term, it should be possible to limit the spread of
nanotech hardware by limiting access either to specialized
materials or equipment, or to some key piece of knowledge. Such
containment policies would presumably be implemented by the
military, since thusfar they have a pretty good track record for
being responsible and trustworthy with other complex, dangerous
technologies. Ultimately that kind of containment would inevitably
fail, but in the time it was operating, we might succeed in getting
some kind of general-purpose defense into place.

There was a thread a few months back about these kinds of topics,
and there was one really clever analysis of the gray goo scenario.
I forget who did it, but the person posting had made some reasonable
assumptions and had calculated the typical waste heat that could be
expected for a vigorously replicating colony of nano-bad-guys. It
turned out to be a lot of heat, which would presumably be visible
to roving infrared sensors. If the bad guys were replicating slower,
they'd throw off less waste heat, but they'd be correspondingly
less of a threat. So that seemed pretty optimistic.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Will Ware email: wware[at]world[dot]std[dot]com
PGP fp (new key 07/15/97) 67683AE2 173FE781 A0D99636 0EAE6117

Hagbard Celine

unread,
Sep 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/10/97
to

Mitchell Porter wrote:
>
> Is it possible to say whether one is less likely to lead
> to catastrophe than the other: private development of
> nanotech, or public-domain development?
>
> If it's done in the public domain, more people have
> access to blueprints, which presumably increases the
> chances of accident or malice; but there will also
> be a greater number of people working on countermeasures.
> That's about as far as I've thought it through, so far.

It seems to me that the dawn of nanotech is likely to be a simultaneous
event in several locales. Unlike, say, the Manhattan Project, which
involved an international brain-drain of the best and brightest,
nanotech research is going on everywhere. A breakthrough in one place
probably means a similar breakthrough is imminent elsewhere.

What interests me most about this scenario is how the government will
react. Presumably, the government will by this time have been educated
as to the positive and negative potentialities of emergent nanotech and
will take steps to ensure its own survival. What form will such "steps"
take? It seems the typical regulatory process (which in more than a few
cases tends to be reactionary) would have to sprint to catch up. This is
Toflerian future shock at the highest level. In general, I find it
difficult to see the government passing out assemblers to the world. By
the same token, I also find it difficult to see the government
maintaining a firm grip on the technology via regulation.

As far as private development is concerned, and I assume you are talking
about corporate R&D, no corporation as of this moment (correct me if I'm
wrong) can equal the Japanese government's current outlays for nanotech
research. Money greases the wheel, so to speak. I would be surprised if
any corporation (or university, for that matter) could do it without
government grants. And then the issue comes up: who gets the patent?
(More on this some other time.)

Regards,

Hagbard
--
Hagbard Celine

Not a clerk of the nostalgia of the declining ruling class.

Jeff Thompson

unread,
Sep 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM9/10/97
to

Mitchell Porter wrote:
>
> Is it possible to say whether one is less likely to lead
> to catastrophe than the other: private development of
> nanotech, or public-domain development?

A way to approach the question may be to ask why we haven't
had a catastrophy with all the destructive technologies
we have so far. (I don't have a good answer.)

For example, the homebrew sarin nerve gas used in the
Japanese subway has been around for quite a while.
Why hasn't it been used like a nuclear threat? Some
say rogue people or countries don't deploy it because
it is so dangerous to handle, but that can't be the whole
reason.

A hundred years ago if you knew that everyone could
get a hold of the kinds of assault rifles and weapons
sold in the gun magazines, you would imagine 1997 would
be a kind of Mad Max anarchy. But it isn't.

I'm not trying to make some kind of optimistic point here.
I'm quite dumbfounded that things aren't worse than they
are right now. Why aren't they? Are the police and
anti-terrorism agencies doing a better job than I thought?
Are people more rational than I thought?

Nanotech doesn't really change these basic questions.

P.S. Thanks Mitch for your comprehensive nano page!

0 new messages