[Platform] GRP on nanotech?

[Jamie O'Keefe]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:52 AM, John Walsh <john.walsh at umassmed.edu> wrote:
> This is not a very good debate or set of positions.  First, it has a Luddite
> and anti-scientific tone to it, and it is unbalanced - stressing only the
> drawbacks.

I will admit to being of the science-fiction reading/watching part of
the GRP and I work testing software, so i doubt I could be considered
a Luddite.

I will point out that the proponents will only stress the benefits,
and they get paid to do it, so having us say "Hold on, lets think
about this" is a right position for us.  When the nanotech firms pay
people to focus on the potential downside, maybe I might cut them some
slack.

> Second, there is nothing preventing debate about all this although
> nanotechnology is so diverse as to be nearly undefinable.

Well, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanotechnology) sums it
up pretty well:

"Nanotechnology refers to a field of applied science and technology
whose theme is the control of matter on the atomic and molecular
scale, generally 100 nanometers or smaller, and the fabrication of
devices or materials that lie within that size range."

Seems pretty well defined to me.

> Third, how can you control something that is not yet invented.  Same with
> safety measures.

>From wikipedia page listed above:  "As of April 24, 2008 The Project
on Emerging Nanotechnologies claims that over 609 nanotech products
exist, with new ones hitting the market at a pace of 3-4 per week." -
original citation:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/poen-nnp042308.php

Putting in place some safety measures is a good idea from a
precautionary principle.  We have seen what technology has done so far
with increased pollution, increasing monoculture in agriculture, etc.,
that putting some limits on new technologies, the negative
implications of which could have dire effects, is a good idea.

> Fourth, it is wildly impractical.  Research cannot be stopped.

Research on human cloning is mostly banned and few seem to be working
on cloning people.  While nanotechnology is broader and thus has a
both a higher potential benefit and higher profit motivation, putting
some limits and guidelines as a minimum would help.

Perhaps such limits would help us avoid a Grey goo situation
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo) where "out-of-control
self-replicating robots consume all living matter on Earth while
building more of themselves".

Between nuclear winter (never far from my mind) and global warming
(six degrees anyone?), we know the potential catastrophic effects of
human technology when we ostensibly control it.  Throw in introducing
a technology where we don't have preexisting mechanisms to control it,
and we may not be long for this planet.  Outliers maybe, but through
planetary feedbacks, we may get ourselves to six degrees of warming
and turn the clock back to a very unpleasant world for the existing
state of the biosphere.

> Fifth, some of nanotechnology can be compared to genetic engineering (which
> was opposed once upon a time but is now clearly seen as a boon to health and
> medicine and knowledge.)   But not all of it can e.

Well I disagree with you on benefits of GE with GMO use decreasing
diversity and privatizing our common heritage.  See:

Biotech Giants Demand a High Price for Saving the Planet
Companies Accused of 'Profiteering' as They Attempt to Patent Crop Genes
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/08/9485/

Even GE for treating illness has social justice implications as
companies try not to cover people with preexisting genetic issues,
whether they have manifested themselves or never will.

There are serious social justice and biodiversity implications to
genetic engineering that haven't been thought through.  It is our
responsibility to bring them up and fight to fix them.

> And no nanotechnology will be able in the near future to reproduce as well as a bacterium or
> virus.

It has been something like 15 years since I read K. Eric Drexler's
book Engines of Creation on  Nanotechnology.  A great deal has
occurred and the pace only seems to be speeding up.  Maybe it will
take another 15 years to get to the point of self-replicating
nanobots.  Shouldn't we start calling out the problems now so we can
deal with them?  Isn't future focus one of our ten key values?

Jamie