Planning Ahead

The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology has developed a tentative outline for the international administration of molecular nanotechnology manufacturing. Under our proposal, a self-contained, secure manufacturing system—a nanofactory—would be developed in a closely guarded crash program. The nanofactory would then be released for widespread use.

A nanofactory would only be able to make approved products or approved classes of products. This approval process could be quite flexible without giving up too much control and it could be mostly automated. Families of products could be classified according to increasing product safety; only unusually dangerous products would require any human approval. At the same time, the built-in restriction infrastructure would allow military, commercial, and societal interests to be protected. Intellectual property could be protected without discouraging innovation or preventing humanitarian aid.

Without our proposal, or something like it, there are two very bad possibilities. One is that the technology is completely unrestricted—everyone manages molecular manufacturing by themselves. That just looks too risky, especially in the first few years when we don't fully understand what the technology can do or how to defend against misuses of it. The other possibility is that whoever gets molecular manufacturing first tries to set themselves up as world rulers; this is worse than what we're proposing. But if we plan ahead and design an administration system in advance, we can build in checks and balances between diverse interests, and try to avoid a single "ruling class".

Comments

[Janessa Ravenwood]

That tentative outline includes none of the specifics I mentioned. Keep working.

[Robin Green]

I believe it is almost certain that such restrictions would be involved if the technology was pionneered in the US, no matter how loudly libertarians complain. For the simple reason that it would be literally essential for national security. For someone who has worked at a military base, Janessa, you show a surprising lack of political and military realism.

So I don't believe we have to be too worried about nanarchy if the US "gets there first". The work of CRN is, I believe, important in two respects: providing credible policy proposals to serve as framing the debate, and highlighting the enormous strategic imperative for (one of, or an alliance of) the relatively democratic nations to Get There First with a nanofactory.

These restrictions won't buy us forever, but they will buy us a significant amount of time to research defensive nanotechnology - and reengineering humanity to be more resilient.

[Mike Treder, CRN]

"The work of CRN is, I believe, important in two respects: providing credible policy proposals to serve as framing the debate, and highlighting the enormous strategic imperative for (one of, or an alliance of) the relatively democratic nations to Get There First with a nanofactory."

Indeed. Well said, Robin.

[Janessa Ravenwood]

I believe it is almost certain that such restrictions would be involved if the technology was pioneered in the US, no matter how loudly libertarians complain. For the simple reason that it would be literally essential for national security. For someone who has worked at a military base, Janessa, you show a surprising lack of political and military realism.
-----
I didn’t say that the U.S. would not impose regulation. I just don’t think that the U.S. regulation will be as ultra-Big-Brother as CRN wants, however. And I expect there to be a thriving nanotech underground in fairly short order.