Cascio: the Nanofactory Ecosystem
The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology's (CRN) new Director of Impacts Analysis, Jamais Cascio, has submitted an article to Nanotech Now for a column usually provided by CRN's Executive Director, Mike Treder. Cascio is taking on more responsibility for the organization as CRN Director of Research Chris Phoenix goes on sabbatical. Meanwhile, yours truly is supporting them from the wings as a member of the CRN Global Task Force.
Alongside the Foresight Institute, CRN is one of the only organizations preparing in advance for the arrival of molecular manufacturing, the bottom-up fabrication of macroscale products from individual atoms. This is molecular nanotechnology, nanoscale machines building nanoscale machines, rather than the more mundane (but still important) nanotechnology and nanoscale sciences most popular today.
In this month's column, Cascio asks, "What sort of "ecosystem" would spring up around nanofactories?"
He looks at designs, distribution methods for nanofactories, distribution methods for products, distribution methods for "toner", physical reliability, physical safety, health and safety evaluations, knowledgeable users, ways to avoid abuse, political support, economic support, and market acceptance. Here are the main points paraphrased, with comments:
Design: a fair amount of abstraction can be expected in nanofactory design codes, just as in software programming there is the object-oriented level and the machine code level. Denying users access to the machine code level offers a way to prevent the design and fabrication of dangerous products. I agree with this.
Distribution for nanofactories: This section is just open-ended questions. ("Will nanofactories be available on the shelves of Target or Wal-Mart?") For a clue, I look to the paper "Economic Impact of the Personal Nanofactory" by Robert Freitas, which argues that nanofactories will likely debut at a cost of around $4000, to create maximum profit while ensuring there will still be many buyers. This is a high enough price that we may expect a specialized dealership for nanofactories, as we have with cars today, but low enough that sales at Wal-Mart is also conceivable. As with practically any commercial product today, we can expect a nanofactory to be available via the Internet. Unless nanofactory distribution is heavily regulated by governments, we can expect distribution to be near-universal, with an adoption curve steeper than what we saw with the personal computer. This is because nanofactories would be even more useful than computers, but with a similar debut price. An iPod-like adoption curve is not implausible.
(This cool image was included in the article.)
Distribution methods for products: Cascio speculates that if nanofactories are not individually owned, then "make on demand" systems could emerge whereby someone specifies a desired product and has it shipped overnight using a company like DHL. Although a scheme like this might make nanofactory regulation easier by restricting availability, I doubt it would last longer than a couple years at most, because the demand for individual ownership would be enormous. The first specialized nanofactories may exist in labs, used by scientists on a time-share basis, like today's most powerful supercomputers and telescopes.
Distribution methods for toner: if nanofactories are individually owned, how will the "toner" be supplied? Will existing supply chains be sufficient? Well, for a diamondoid nanofactory the toner would probably be acetylene, which is made using limestone (available in practically unlimited quantities) and coal (available in large quantities). Acetylene is flammable, just like butane, and distribution would probably involve steel tanks, like the butane tanks we see dotting the roofs in places like Mexico. As society begins to transition from conventional products to diamondoid products, we can expect an industry to develop around the processing and distribution of acetylene. Because of the importance and ubiquity that nanofactories will achieve, acetylene canisters of all sizes are likely to be made available. If small nanofactories, say 10 gram pocket-sized nanofactories, become developed, then we can expect acetylene canisters of similar size to be sold at convenience stores. Instead of buying a pair of sunglasses at the gas station, you might buy a canister of acetylene at a gas station and fabricate the sunglasses in your preferred style using a small nanofactory.
Physical reliability: if nanofactories and nanoproducts don't work perfectly, how will a support network emerge to address it? I would expect a patchwork of freelancers, a la early computer repair specialists, which may or may not aggregate into a unified company or alliance as time goes on. Because the moving parts are so incredibly small and complex, it may be difficult for repair workers to address the physical layer of the nanofactory architecture, being left to deal with only the software. Cascio speculates that if something goes wrong with a nanofactory, it would just be easier to print out a new one. This is true, but I am skeptical that business and government would allow nanofactories to print out other nanofactories without a substantial payment being involved (it would cause huge economic disruption otherwise), but perhaps a warrantee will make it possible for users to print out another nanofactory for free if their original is corrupted.
Physical safety: would it be possible to guarantee the safety of nanoproducts? With answer is: only with serious regulations built in at the hardware level. I am almost finished with a paper on this topic. Basically, to preserve safety, large portions of the design space must be prohibited.
Health and safety evaluations: who is ultimately responsible for regulation? What is self-policing doesn't work? These are important questions. In May 2004 I wrote a short paper that argued we actually have to create augmented human beings (perhaps through a brain-computer interface or neuroengineering project) to take on such a challenging task. But, I realize now that policy makers would never take such a suggestion seriously, so it makes sense to come up with a solution that could actually be implemented with humans. The only one I can really come up with is global governance, or some other form of hegemony. Otherwise, arms race dynamics are likely to emerge. Imagine a company with more than one CEO, each giving contradicting orders. That is the state of the world today. Enforcing complex uniform standards globally will require a central decision-making agency, perhaps something like a world treaty organization, but with actual bite. Because of the unlikelihood of any such organization being created prior to the introduction of nanofactories, it would not surprise me if the first organization or nation to develop nanofactory technology then goes on to use it to install itself as the Leading Force, the world power that sets the rules. Yes, this scenario has an unfortunate comic book feel to it, but I do think there is a fair chance it will actually occur.
Knowledgeable users: how difficult will it be to use a nanofactory? My guess is that most will have a difficulty of operation somewhere between a toaster and a computer, with more custom-tunable and complicated models available for the geeks among us.
Ways to avoid abuse: How will abuse be avoided? As I mentioned above, I think a Leading Force will be necessary to set the rules and avoid endless disputes and bickering. If one does not emerge right away, it will leave a tremendous vacuum, one which all the major players will be interested in filling. If the United States or the United Nations does not fill the gap, some other entity will. I expect nanofactory technology to be quickly accompanied by peer-to-peer transparency of a significant degree, simply because it will become so easy to mass-produce and distribute small cameras and sensors ("smart dust"), unless there are draconian laws against it. Although this will let governments spy on practically everybody, it will also let citizens spy on the government to a certain degree, hopefully leaving a dynamic balance.
Political support: what kind of political support will be generated? What alliances will make nanofactories more palatable to incumbent institutions? My guess would be, the usual: lobbies, letters to Congress, workers unions, think tanks, etc. I haven't thought much about the second question because I'm not part of an incumbent institution.
Economic support: nanofactories may radically reduce the cost of many products, but human-to-human services will retain the same price, barring sophisticated artificial intelligences. How will this effect the economy? This question deserves a post of its own, but my crystal ball says: the impact will be chaotic. Traditional product prices may be preserved initially due to a lack of open product designs, but soon a large portfolio of open designs is likely to emerge and sweep out many of the old players. They won't go out without a fight. The comparative value of human beings and knowledge will continue to increase. As I read somewhere in a nanotechnology book (don't remember which), prostitution, which was among the first lines of work, may also be one of the last!
Market acceptance: maybe people won't want to acquire nanofactories in the first place? I consider this possibility very unlikely. Nanofactories would simply offer too many performance and cost advantages to turn down.
Thanks to Jamais Cascio for getting our brains moving about open questions in the future of nanofactory technology.
The Word “Transhumanist”
Is the word "transhumanist" cool in the eyes of Joe Smith, or Joe Blow for that matter? This is a topic that has been being explored on the transhumanist mailing lists in recent weeks, as well in personal email conversations.
I asked Mike Johnson of Modern Dragons to tell me exactly what his problems were with the word transhumanism. Here's what he came up with:
Michael,
As a follow-up to our brief discussion of last night: my background in transhumanist literature is somewhat spotty- deep in some places, shallow in others. I've been reading your blog for about six months (my initial interest was kicked off by reading The Singularity Is Near... a very persuasive book). I find that I generally identify with the movement you outline in your posts, the only two big things you've argued that I really don't agree with being
1.that people in the movement you/we identify with should be called transhumanists;
2.the mostly-implicit assumption that intelligence augmentation won't play a huge role in the years to come.
I did some thinking about why I don't like the label 'transhumanist' and here's what I came up with. No punches pulled, nothing against the movement itself. Just one man's feedback about the term.
Etymologically and linguistically, I think 'transhumanism' has a tinge of
Elitism -- the term transhumanist sounds like it involves becoming 'more than other humans' (or perhaps 'more than other humanists'). This may not be the intended nor technical subtext of the term, but to me it has that baggage.
Disregard for flexible definitions of humanity -- we'll still be human whatever happens, sort of, right? And insofar as we shed our humanity, do we lose our identity? I suppose it's a word game at that point... but it'll be a connotation/word game which will have to be grappled with, should the term stick.
Inexactness -- it's applied to a group whose core interests span certain things which have very little to do with transcendence or humans (e.g., molecular manufacturing is a huge interest in the group/movement). I think it works now as a label now for the group, but only because the group is young and hasn't had a lot of time to philosophically diversify. Maybe any label would be as much or more inexact... perhaps as the group gets bigger, sub-movements will splinter off and call themselves different things. I don't know.
Linguistic association with 'transsexual' -- I realize it's just a linguistic accident that the other common-usage group label which starts with 'trans' is transsexual, and there is in fact nothing wrong with transsexuals, but the linguistic association might throw some people off.
Rapture-theology -- a group with the stated goal to "transcend humanity" rings religion warning bells in peoples minds, which can be exploited by hack pieces such as The Rapture of the Geeks.
Oddness – I'd like a movement label which wouldn't cause any strange looks if I mentioned it on e.g., a first date. Maybe this objection overlaps with some of the others... and perhaps you're right, and the term will become more familiar and palatable in time... but I think this is an important litmus test of the term.
All that said, transhumanist is a powerful label insofar it comes right out and says: we think the future is going to involve the possibility of becoming more than human, and we think that's a worthy goal. I see the strength of that.
Best wishes,
Mike Johnson
http://moderndragons.blogspot.com/
~~~
Here was my response:
Mike,
Just so you know, there are already multiple sub-movements in transhumanism, some with more far-out names than others. For instance, "singularitarianism"! There's also "Democratic Transhumanism" which is less radical in its name.
I don't think, for instance, that an uploaded being made out of pure data and computing a million times more information than would be possible for a human should really be called a "human".
We are trying to transcend humanity, and I think our name needs to reflect that.
For a first date, would "pro-cyborg" be better? I mean, this is another one of those areas where nothing would pass the test -- transhumanism is inherently radical! No name change will fix that.
The sad thing is that every alternative to "transhumanist" I have heard proposed sounds a lot worse. Also, I think it may be permanently too late to turn back on it.
Best,
Michael Anissimov
Lifeboat Foundation http://lifeboat.com
http://acceleratingfuture.com
~~~
Then, on another mailing list, in response to the questions "Can you give reasons why you dislike the term? What negatives does it imply to you? What are your thoughts/feelings about the term posthumanism?", Jamais Cascio wrote:
I actually like the term "transhuman" more than "posthuman" (and I say that as someone who still owns the domain "post-human.org"). Actually, stripped of its connotations and associations, the term "transhuman" is just fine -- it doesn't call for a disassociation with humanity, and emphasizes the elements of transition. Unfortunately, in real world language, you can't strip away connotations and associations (really, they're what give language meaning beyond simple definitions). What bothers me about the term, and the reason I don't refer to myself with it, is that the connotations and associations arising from the way that the term "transhuman" has been used in the past decade or so all boil down to one thing:
Selfishness.
Sometimes, that's selfishness in the most basic sense -- I want to have the right/ability/support to make enhancements to myself. This is something that one finds in any rights-focused community, and isn't terribly problematic in and of itself. In my brushes with transhumanists over the years, however, I've seen this metastasize in a couple of different ways:
* the neo-Randian, "I got mine, Jack," ultra-selfish types who want these rights/abilities for themselves and really don't care whether anybody else gets them, too. By and large, these folks don't (in my experience) deny the potential for drastically divided societies, but in fact seem to relish the notion (or, at best, not care too much about it as long as they're on the winning side). This is what James Hughes' "democratic transhumanism" was invented to fight against, and I have a strong bias towards Hughes' perspective here. But the fact that the term "transhumanism" needs a modifier for people to see it as an inclusive, democratic philosophy is itself indicative of the larger problem.
* the damn-the-consequences, "we'll fix it in post," ultra-proactionist types who want to see all manner of experimentation and development happen without any significant regard for the possibility of complex, irreversible mistakes. I'm not calling for the overly-cautious, deep-precautionary approach of not doing anything that might have a negative result at any point anywhere down the road, but for a model that demands a great deal more emphasis on evaluation of consequences and is willing to say "not yet" when the results of those evaluations remain too negative or too vague to feel confident for now. I know that Natasha [Vita-More] and Max [More] created the proactionary principle, and I'm not saying that everyone who adopts that view is guilty of this manner of selfishness -- but sadly, it doesn't seem hard for people to get from a reasonable position to an unreasonable one.
(I wrote about this in the past.)
These two metastasized forms of transhumanism are caricatures, to be sure, but are grounded in reality. I want to emphasize that I'm not saying that everyone in the H+ world can be described in the above ways; I wouldn't be surprised if it was a distinct minority. But, like it or not, there's a strong connotation of selfishness connected to the term for the growing numbers of people who have heard of transhumanism, but only have the more vocal online rants to help them understand what it means. Those vocal rants didn't just come from fringe, late-arriving elements; they were heard from voices at the core of the movement, from its earliest days. I -- and a lot of other future-enthusiast folks who might otherwise be allies -- simply don't want to be tarred with that brush.
- Jamais
~~~
The selfishness accusation is evidently not enough to stop me and many others from proudly calling ourselves transhumanist. But I definitely don't want to see drastically divided societies, and comments like Marvin Minsky's recent quote in New Scientist frustrate me:
"Ordinary citizens wouldn't know what to do with eternal life," says Minsky. "The masses don't have any clear-cut goals or purpose." Only scientists, who work on problems that might take decades to solve appreciate the need for extended lifespans, he argues."
Dr. Minsky, why? From the perspective of the posthuman, believe me, all humans will look pretty much the same. This is the "psychic unity of humankind" that evolutionary psychologists are discovering more about everyday.
All I can do as a non-selfish transhumanist is to repudiate comments such as this.
I know a fair amount of intelligent transhumanists who are admirers of Ayn Rand, who said weird things like, "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship – the desire to look up to man." I feel that Ms. Rand promulgated a philosophy of selfishness and excessive absolutism. (Objectively good art? Objective morality? There are no such things.) I agree with her pro-capitalist, pro-secular sentiments, but feel that many use her work is used too often as a justification for petty selfishness. With technologies as powerful as MNT and AGI coming down the road, this selfish attitude could get us all killed.
Lifeboat Foundation Seeking Funding for Important Meeting
From the Lifeboat Foundation's website:
We would like your support for our important U.S. Naval Operations Strategic Studies Group (SSG) meeting on November 6 in San Francisco.
In addition to our local San Francisco people, we would like to fly in personnel from Nevada and from Tenerife, one of the seven Canary Islands in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Africa. This will enable us to bring our best people to this important meeting. Due to the Tenerife personnel being quite far from the meeting, it will cost $2,500 to fly in all these personnel.
Please note that not only will your donation help strengthen our cause, currently backed by 84 donors, it will enable us to see how important you think it is for us to interact and advise government agencies on the possible dangers in our future. If there is little interest, we will listen to you and divert our resources elsewhere.
We received a letter that said:
Dear Mr. Klien,
I am Science Advisor for the Chief of Naval Operations Strategic Studies Group (SSG) and would like to see if a small Group of SSG members could meet you and other members of the Lifeboat Foundation in San Francisco early in November.
Each year, the CNO selects nine senior level officers to participate in a fellowship at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. These officers are selected as the future leaders of the military and include 7 Navy Captains, 1 Marine Colonel and 1 Coast Guard Captain. In addition, 12 junior level officers are also selected to participate. The SSG also has 12 scientists and technologists and one science advisor. The Group is lead by ADM James Hogg (US Navy retired). The SSG is directed by and reports solely to the CNO ADM Mullen and is responsible for generating revolutionary naval warfare concepts. Please see the attached copies of some of our materials for your review. FYI- We do not yet have our theme for this year.
Part of the development of the SSG team is to have discussions with prominent leaders in technology, industry, academia and government. The goal is to apply this knowledge to improve the ability to think innovatively and develop concepts for an improved Navy and Maritime Forces.
We would appreciate the opportunity to gain insights into the activities of the Lifeboat Foundation and have discussion about different programs you have to help "safeguard humanity." We are especially interested in how you identify and mitigate risks associated with future technological developments. Please advise a time when I can call to speak with you in this regard. Thank you for your consideration.
v/r Robb
Dr. Robb Wilcox
Science Advisor
Chief of Naval Operations
Strategic Studies Group
Naval War College
You can see the attached files Dr. Wilcox referred to at http://lifeboat.com/sf.pdf and http://lifeboat.com/sf.ppt.
~~~
If you think this meeting will be valuable, then help us finance it. Best-selling author David Brin is among our supporters for this effort.
At Lifeboat, our mission is to find ways to turn money into actions that reduce the risk of technological mega-scale disasters in the next few decades and beyond. By contributing to us, people whose careers would otherwise make it impossible for them to have a substantial impact on this crucial area can indeed do so, by using the Lifeboat Foundation as a tool. For more information on the Lifeboat Foundation's work, get in touch with me via email. I have chosen to work part-time for the Lifeboat Foundation because I see technological risk as humanity's greatest challenge in the 21st century. To support my desired transition to full time, I would also suggest you donate to my fund.
ETC Group: Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration
(Cross-posted from Lifeboat Foundation blog.)
I've been taking a look at an "international civil society organization" called the ETC Group. The "ETC" group is also known as the "Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration". To be honest, I can't figure them out. Here is a summary:
"ETC Group is an international civil society organization based in Canada. We are dedicated to the conservation and sustainable advancement of cultural and ecological diversity and human rights. ETC Group supports socially responsible development of technologies useful to the poor and marginalized and we address international governance issues affecting the international community. We also monitor the ownership and control of technologies and the consolidation of corporate power."
So they look like a somewhat standard leftist environmentalist technology oversight group. Alright.
Here is their stance on nanotechnology:
"Nanotechnology refers to the manipulation of matter on the scale of the nanometer (one billionth of a meter). Nanoscale science operates in the realm of single atoms and molecules. At present, commercial nanotechnology involves materials science (i.e. researchers have been able to make materials that are stronger and more durable by taking advantage of property changes that occur when substances are reduced to nanoscale dimensions). In the future, as nanoscale molecular self-assembly becomes a commercial reality, nanotech will move into conventional manufacturing. While nanotechnology offers opportunities for society, it also involves profound social and environmental risks, not only because it is an enabling technology to the biotech industry, but also because it involves atomic manipulation and will make possible the fusing of the biological world and the mechanical. There is a critical need to evaluate the social implications of all nanotechnologies; in the meantime, the ETC group believes that a moratorium should be placed on research involving molecular self-assembly and self-replication."
(Bold by me.)
This is a touchy issue for researchers. At the Lifeboat Foundation we sometimes talk about the Religion of Science, which states that science must progress as quickly as possible and that any attempt to limit it is foolish and immoral. We've had people leave our Scientific Advisory Board when they realized that we did not subscribe to this Religion, but in fact question whether any scientist should be allowed to do just anything.
But we do not go as far as the ETC Group, which is proposing a blanket ban on all molecular self-assembly, a very large and potentially incredibly fruitful field.
What prompted me to write on the ETC Group was a news release they sent me today on synthetic biology:
ETC Group
News Release
17 October 2007
www.etcgroup.org
Syns of Omission:
Civil Society Organizations Respond to Report on Synthetic Biology
Governance from the J. Craig Venter Institute and Alfred P. Sloan
Foundation
A report released today on policy options for governance of synthetic
biology is a disappointing effort that fails to address wider
societal concerns about the rapid deployment of a powerful and
controversial new technology. Synthetic biology aims to commercialize
new biological parts, devices and living organisms that are
constructed from synthetic DNA – including dangerous pathogens.
Synthetic biologists are attempting to harness cells as tiny
factories for industrial production of chemicals, including
pharmaceuticals and fuels. ETC Group describes the synthetic biology
approach as “extreme genetic engineering.â€
The report, authored by scientists and employees from the J. Craig
Venter Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the
Center for Strategic & International Studies (Washington, D.C.) was
funded by a half-million dollar grant from the U.S.-based Alfred P.
Sloan Foundation and billed as a “project to examine the societal
implications of synthetic genomics.†The study was more than two
years in the making, but the report makes no policy recommendations
and failed to properly consult civil society. While the authors do
acknowledge possible bio-error (i.e., synbio accidents that cause
unintended harm to human health and the environment), the emphasis is
on how to impede bioterrorists “in a post-September 11 world.â€
“This report is a partial consideration of governance by a partisan
group of authors,†explains Jim Thomas of ETC Group. “Its authors are
‘Synthusiasts’ – or, unabashed synthetic biology boosters – who are
primarily concerned about holding down costs and regulatory burdens
that could allegedly stymie the rapid development of the new
industry. By focusing narrowly on safety and security in a U.S.-
centric context, the report conveniently overlooks important
questions related to power, control and the economic impacts of
synthetic biology. The authors have ignored the first and most basic
questions: Is synthetic biology socially acceptable or desirable? Who
should decide? Who will control the technology, and what are its
potential impacts?â€
The report’s authors include representatives from institutions that
have a vested interest in commercialization of synthetic biology.
According to the J. Craig Venter Institute, one of the three
institutions that led the study, scientists are just weeks or months
away from announcing the creation of the world’s first-ever living
bacterium with entirely synthetic DNA and a novel genome. Scientists
from the Venter Institute have already applied for patents on the
artificial microbe, and Craig Venter predicts that it could be the
first billion or trillion dollar organism. The report fails to
address issues of ownership, monopoly practices or intellectual
property claims arising from synthetic biology.
“The sixty-page report has oodles of input from a small circle of
scientists and policy ‘experts,’ but the 20-month long study fails to
incorporate views of civil society and social movements,†points out
Hope Shand, ETC Group’s Research Director. “An insular process like
the one that produced the Sloan report instills little confidence in
the results.â€
The economic and technical barriers to synthetic genomics are
collapsing. Using a laptop computer, published gene sequence
information and mail-order synthetic DNA, it is becoming routine to
construct genes or entire genomes from scratch – including those of
lethal pathogens. The tools for DNA synthesis technologies are
advancing at break-neck pace – they’re becoming cheaper, faster and
widely accessible. The authors acknowledge this reality, and evaluate
several options for addressing it.
One proposal aimed at “legitimate users†of the technology – those
working in industry labs, for example – is to broaden the
responsibilities of Institutional Biosafety Committees, which were
established (in the US) to assess the biosafety and environmental
risks of proposed recombinant DNA experiments.
Edward Hammond, Director of the Sunshine Project, a biotech and
bioweapons watchdog, argues, “Institutional Biosafety Committees are
a documented disaster. IBCs aren’t up to their existing task of
overseeing genetic engineering research, much less ready to absorb
new synthetic biology and security mandates. The authors of this
report are aware of the abject failure of voluntary compliance by
IBCs, including by the Venter Institute’s own IBC. So it is very
difficult to interpret their suggestion that IBCs oversee synthetic
biology as anything but a cynical attempt to avoid effective
governance.â€
Options for governing synthetic biology must not be set by the
synthetic biologists themselves – broad societal debate on synbio’s
wider implications must come first. Synthetic microbes should be
treated as dangerous until proven harmless and strong democratic
oversight should be mandatory – not optional. Earlier this year the
ETC Group recommended a ban on environmental release of de novo
synthetic organisms until wide societal debate and strong governance
are in place.
ETC and other civil society organizations have called repeatedly for
an inclusive, wide ranging public dialogue process on societal
implications and oversight options for Synthetic Biology.
The full text of “Synthetic Genomics: Options for Governance†is
available here:
http://www.jcvi.org/
ETC Group’s January 2007 report on synthetic biology, Extreme Genetic
Engineering, is available here:
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=602
Backgrounder: Open Letter on Synthetic Biology from Civil Society,
May 2006:
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=11
~~~
Does synthetic biology need more oversight? I believe it does. But I am hesitant to support the ETC Group in full, because some statements on their website have a Luddite flavor. For instance, I think it is infeasible to call for a moratorium on molecular self-assembly.
Another cause the ETC Group seems to be involved in is that of "Terminator" seeds -- seeds that grow into plants which are sterile, forcing farmers to return to the seed market. They call this "an immoral application of biotechnology" and I'm inclined to agree.
The ETC Group also seems to employ the phrase "Playing God" to scare up support a little too often for my liking. And putting "extreme" before "genetic engineering". It's like so extreeeme, man, you should be extreeemely scared, obviously. (Synthetic biology really is extreme genetic engineering, but why the use of that term?)
I like paying attention to the risks of future technologies, without using tactics I consider pandering. A recent study on nanotechnology opinions figured out that the interviewer could easily manipulate the respondent's opinions on the safety of nanotechnology simply with a few purposefully chosen sentences. People are irrational and they freak out about technological changes sometimes. By the same token, sometimes people are greedy or so blindly ambitious that they'll discourage any regulation whatsoever in the name of capitalism and the free market. Both sides are wrong!
New technologies such as MNT and synthetic biology need to be regulated, but I don't like the extremes I'm seeing: either pure boosterism, or borderline Luddism. The only organizations we can trust are those not attached to any particular extreme. The Lifeboat Foundation seems to be one.
What do you think?
Al Gore on Molecular Nanotechnology
In July 1992, mere days before he was announced as a vice presidential candidate, Al Gore held hearings on "New Technologies for a Sustainable World", which included the testimony of "father of nanotechnology" Eric Drexler. Parts of this excerpt were included in Ed Regis' book Nano, which when I read it in 1996 caused me to become a transhumanist. Here is an excerpt from a transcript, which is online at the Foresight Institute site:
Senator Gore. One other point: When you use the word "nanotechnology," a lot of times these new concepts come at us with words attached to them, and the words are used in different ways by different people.
Just so I am clear in my own mind about this, the first part of that word, nano, is really a measurement word that connotes something that is real small, right? [Laughter.]
Dr. Drexler. Yes.
Senator Gore. All right. There seemed to me to be three different ways in which the word has been used. Nanotechnology has sometimes been used to describe very small etching operations of the kind you see in the smallest computer chips; correct?
Dr. Drexler. Yes.
Senator Gore. That is not really what you are talking about. There would be some overlap at the boundaries, but that is not really what you are talking about.
Second, there has been an interesting discussion of what might be called micromachines, and sometimes the word "nanotechnology" has been used to describe that whole effort. Correct?
Dr. Drexler. Yes.
Senator Gore. And that is not really what you are talking about, either; although again there is some overlap at the boundary.
What you are talking about when you use the phrase molecular nanotechnology is really a brand new approach to fabrication, to manufacturing, whereas the way we make things [today], we will take some substance in bulk and then whittle down the bulk to the size of the component we need, and then put different components together and make something.
What you are describing with the phrase molecular nanotechnology is a completely different approach, which rests on the principle that your first building block is the molecule itself, and you are saying we have all the basic research breakthroughs that we need to build things one molecule at a time, all we need are the applications of the research necessary to really do it.
You are saying that the advantages of taking a molecular approach are really quite startling, and that as a result, you believe it is advisable to really explore what it would take to develop these new technologies.
The best evidence that the research breakthroughs and the conceptual breakthroughs have long since occurred is that Dr. Richard Feynman made a speech 33 years ago in which he essentially outlined the whole field, and even the researchers at the cutting edge today were sort of surprised when they went back and read the speech, and found out that the basic concept has been available for a long time.
Is that basically on target, or would you like to qualify it or recast it?
Dr. Drexler. I would say that the set of distinctions that you draw are correct and are very important to understanding the field.
With respect to the terminology, so nearly as I can tell from what I have seen in print, I coined the word "nanotechnology" in the mid-1980's, and it has subsequently become a buzzword. It is appropriate etymologically to use "nanotechnology" to describe other small-scale technologies, but, as you point out, those are fundamentally different.
The degree of overlap between nanolithography and micromachines, on the other hand, and molecular nanotechnology, on the other hand, appears to be remarkably slight, even though those subjects have commonly been confused in the popular press.
As I said, I think that we will need a lot of applied science research in pursuing these goals, but you are correct in stating that the basic science is in place. Richard Feynman did indeed point in these directions, in a talk in December of 1959, and that has been an inspiration to many people.
Senator Gore. All right. Thank you very much. We will come back to this as time permits.
~~~
Al Gore is aware of MNT, and has been for many years. His ex-boss Bill Clinton is also: he has been spotted reading The Age of Spiritual Machines by Ray Kurzweil.
Given that both likely recognize the huge impact that molecular nanotechology could have on making manufacturing processes clean and efficient, on building solar cells for sustainable energy, and for vast performance improvements in dozens of other technological fields, why do they not advocate the technology more openly?
My guess is that they are waiting for more prominent scientists to voice support for the idea, or for some definitive experimental milestone, like diamond mechanosynthesis.
My only hope is that the regulatory details are worked out and ready to put into play before major molecular nanotechnology breakthroughs, not after. A major breakthrough could come as early as 2010, so we'd better hurry. Jamais Cascio recently offered some interesting thoughts on what he calls molecular rights management, a concept I hope will get fleshed out more in the future.
The Director of Research for the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, Chris Phoenix, recently attended the Foresight Institute's Roadmap Unveiling event in Arlington, VA., providing live blogging coverage. His conclusion is that this long-awaited roadmap does in fact support molecular manufacturing, as the culmination of work towards single-atom manipulation.
Galactic Glow
The dwarf galaxy I Zwicky 18, discovered by astronomer Fritz Zwicky in a 1930s. Once thought to be the youngest galaxy known at only 500 million years of age, new Hubble images have recently confirmed that it is significantly older than previously thought, with star formation occurring from 1 billion to as long as 10 billion years ago.
Bacterial Apocalypse?
A challenge in making people care about techno-apocalypse is that most of the proposed technologies which could cause it exist in the future, not the present.
There's all-out thermonuclear war, sure. If the Bush administration is dumb enough to attack Iran before he leaves office, then we could have serious problems with Russia (the country my family left when the Communists took over), whose minister of defense has cautioned the US not to lay a hand on Iran. If Putin's successor is as gangster as he is, then Cold War part II (or Hot War part I) can't be ruled out.
But would this kill everyone? Not too likely. Although burning cities do create black clouds which can initiate widespread crop failure, this effect is temporary. The world is a big place, and you can't nuke it all.
So, in examining possible sources of human extinction risk, we have to look to the future. In a way this is reassuring, because we have time to prepare, but in another way it's not, because some of the scenarios are too futuristic for people to take seriously.
I suppose the step after global thermonuclear war is genetically engineered plague. I've talked to four separate recombinant geneticists who say they would have a good chance at wiping out 90% of the human population in a decade if they had several million dollars and complete secrecy. (Their claims were more or less in tune even though they don't know one other, to my knowledge.) Are they exaggerating? I don't know, I'm not a biologist, but I think I'd rather err on the side of trusting them on this one.
What I do know about is history. The Black Death, which was possibly not the same thing as the bubonic plague, killed as much as half of Europe. Perhaps modern-day hygiene would prevent this from ever happening again, but the Spanish flu happened in conditions of nearly-modern hygiene, still killing 50-100 million, and spreading as far as the Arctic and remote Pacific islands (those are the two regions you need to watch if you care about extinction risk).
Would nuclear war threaten Tristan da Cunha, the most remote archipelago in the world? No. But a sufficiently powerful plague might. Especially a plague that spread to hundreds of millions of people before they started to display symptoms. Would such a thing be possible to genetically engineer? I've been talking with scientists about it since I got out of school but they often contradict each other, so I'm still confused.
My intuition tells me that when mankind can engineer something from scratch, it opens a vastly wider design space than nature alone could access. This is why humanity came up with computers, supersonic planes, and rocket ships, and the fastest swallow can't even break the sound barrier. That's why the Luddites got angry -- because specialized looms could create textiles way faster than they ever could. Perhaps specialized microbes could kill people faster than any conventional weapon, or even nuclear weapons. I'd rather not watch it in action to find out.
I like thinking about the genetically engineered bacteria because it's a happy medium in its future shock between thermonuclear war (which most accept as a possibility) and AI/robotics (which people have bizzare reactions to). There's also nanowar, but that is also more futuristic.
What is Intelligence?
(Cross-posted from SIAI blog.)
What is intelligence? It's like pornography -- you know it when you see it.
The way people talk, you'd think that intelligence was some sort of magical fairy dust. It's not. Intelligence is a dynamic system that takes in information about the world, abstracts regularities from that information, stores it in memories, and uses it knowledge about the world to form goals, make plans and implement them.
Simple enough. The definition I give above covers humans, cyborgs, possibly intelligent animals, artificial intelligences, extraterrestrial beings, and whatever other form of intelligence you care to dream up.
There is no intelligence that isn't a dynamic system. Intelligence is inherently a dynamic process. This one is a no-brainer.
There is no intelligence that doesn't take in information about the world. It needs that information to learn and make plans. If it isn't taking in information, something is wrong, like it's locked in a box. But even an intelligence locked in a box takes in the information that it's in a box.
There is no intelligence that doesn't abstract information from its perceptual data. There's simply too much to store otherwise. It has been estimated that we take in gigabits of perceptual data every second. Only a minority of that makes it into our long-term memory or plays a critical role in concept formation. Unless the data input is artificially constrained, an intelligence will always throw away most of the information it gathers.
There is no intelligence that doesn't store memories. Even the main character of Memento had a perfectly functioning short-term memory. Without it, intelligence wouldn't be possible. Lacking memories, we would be completely ignorant of both the past and the future. Not intelligent at all.
There is no intelligence that lacks goals. Even a randomly generated goal is still a goal. Uttering a word, turning your head to look at something, moving aside when a large object is incoming -- these are all small goals. Any form of differential desirability constitutes goalhood. Without differential desirability, an intelligence will just sit still until it starves or otherwise runs out of power. An intelligence may derive its goals from external feedback... but that doesn't mean it doesn't have goals, just that it copies them from elsewhere.
There is no intelligence that doesn't make plans. Making plans is an essential part of achieving goals. Intelligences visualize a goal state and then try to come up with a series of actions that will guide the current world into that goal state.
There is no intelligence that doesn't implement plans. Admittedly, this is the shakiest of the above requirements, as there could exist an intelligence that is an Oracle, making plans but passing them on to others to implement. I would consider that intelligence as implementing its plans indirectly, as making plans inherently implies their possible implementation. Okay, so maybe I cheated on that one.
And so concludes my attempt at coming up with a somewhat detailed nonanthropomorphic definition of intelligence.
Transhumanism as Questioning Our Nature
Why am I a transhumanist?
One very important reason is the inherent fragility of the human body and mind. Every day, just by getting out of bed, we put ourselves in a little bit at risk of misfortune or even death. The situation is far better than it was a couple centuries ago, but still, tomorrow any one of us could get into a car accident and it would all be over.
Not to mention the trauma that it seems almost everyone has to go through to get a decent mate. Human mating, as with mating in general, is largely a zero-sum game: if the other person picks up the hot girl or guy we like, we're out of luck. Human psychology is configured to be largely zero-sum; someone else is successful, and it can make us feel a little worse. Why does it have to be that way? Because the process that made us, evolution, optimizes for the survival of our genes, not us. We're just the robotic shell used by the genes to achieve their goals.
Many would agree with what I've outlined so far. What they don't seem to agree on is that we should make an effort to change things, yank them up by the roots and reconfigure them to our liking. Why the hell not? The situation is so bad that we have social intuitions that cause us to be wary of people that point out these flaws in the first place. They tend to be misanthropic. But I think noticing these flaws is important.
My point is that it's perfectly possible to be enthusiastic and cheerful about life, while simultaneously acknowledging that our bodies are weak and are minds are twisted by our genes' shallow goals.
People grow old and die when they shouldn't have to. People work at jobs they hate when they shouldn't have to. They get into nasty relationships when they deserve so much better. They get bored or angry or sad or confused when if they had the choice, none of those things would happen.
But our society tells itself lies about how these things were all meant to be. That God wills it. That whatever doesn't kill us only makes us stronger.
Bullshit!
Whatever doesn't kill me makes me miserable, it doesn't make me stronger. These empty phrases are defensive mechanisms that are fundamentally based on the premise that we can't do anything about the problem. But we can. We've spent so many centuries reassuring ourselves we can't change our natures that we are blinded to the technologies on the horizon which will enable it.
We've achieved so much as a species already. We sit in air-conditioned buildings, using devices with billions of nanoscale electronic components, communicating with people across the world at the speed of light, and then we say things like, "there's nothing new under the Sun". There is!
We can defeat aging, upgrade the human brain, colonize the solar system, get food and water for everyone, and wipe out all diseases, and that's just the beginning. Our defeatist attitude about solving these problems is what holds us back! If people would stop settling for what they have, and start wanting something more, something outside the box of more toys and more partying, then the world could become a lot better place in a hurry.
Don't be part of the problem, be a part of the solution! Get educated, and use your education to achieve something amazing -- as quickly as possible! Use your intelligence to come up with something nobody else has come up with before, and put all your energy towards making it real.
The Enlightenment happened when people stopped being tools of the elite and started trying to earnest to make the world around them a better place. Transhumanism takes this one step further -- instead of reengineering the world to be a better place, it also compels us to reengineer ourselves. And we will.
Nanotechnology Island
Nanotechnology Island has been launched in SecondLife. Other SecondLife venues to launch soon include:
- Astronomy Peak
- The Entymology Nest
- Speleology Chasm
- The Non-Newtonian Spa
- Bacteriology Swamp
- Magnetohydrodynamics Whirlpool
- The Stellar Nursery
- Stephen Wolfram's Mathlandâ„¢
See screenshots and other stuff of Nanotechnology Island here. Looks cool. Too bad SecondLife entails prohibitively long loading times.
Accelerating Future People Database
After several months of brainstorming, web development, and content building, we at Accelerating Future are pleased to announce the Accelerating Future People Database and People Database Project Blog.
Both projects were conceived of and implemented by my talented collaborator, Jeriaska.
The People Database is a repository for bio information, video, audio, and links for notable figures. Currently featured are three brilliant thinkers: Peter Voss, an artificial intelligence researcher; John Smart, a developmental systems theorist; and Steve Jurvetson, a venture capitalist. Over 80 entries exist already, and many more will be added. On each page is a link readers can use to contribute new information.
The Project Blog features transcripts of recent talks and interviews given by cognoscenti in artificial intelligence, futurism, technological acceleration, nanotechnology, software design, policy, philosophy, business, and more. Over the coming weeks and months, we will be posting transcripts of all the talks given at the Singularity Summit, the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology's Bio-Nano conference, Alcor's upcoming conference in Scottsdale, and whatever else we may attend in the future.
This is another significant step forward for Accelerating Future, which is growing into a portal for information on these important topics. Remember... all this is for your benefit, so if you have any suggestions for improvement, please give them!