Joy and Worry

Bill Joy was interviewed recently by the New York Times about the risk of plagues started either by carelessness (such as the recent SARS outbreak from a Chinese lab) or by malice (he suggests that plague and flu genomes should not be publicized). He's also worried about 'gray goo', the possibility of small, self-contained, foraging, free-floating molecular manufacturing robots that could in theory eat the biosphere.

CRN shares some of Joy's concerns, but we respectfully disagree with his focus on runaway nanotech replicators. There are several reasons for this. First, the development of molecular manufacturing is perhaps our best defense against biological plagues. Cheap medical sensors and cellular-scale robotics can detect and treat disease in ways that no other technology can. And second, gray goo will be very hard to design and build. It won't happen by accident. And it doesn't even make a very good weapon: a tiny self-contained foraging/manufacturing system would be very inefficient compared to a larger specialized factory producing non-replicating weapons.

This brings us to the biggest danger we see in molecular manufacturing: its potential as a weapons manufacturing system, which can only be called spectacular. And this leads straight to an arms race -- one which, for many reasons, will be less stable than the nuclear arms race. This cannot be prevented by science policy. Scientists will generally build what they're told to build, if not in the U.S., then elsewhere. And anyway, scientists have frequently built destructive weapons for idealistic reasons.

So we believe that molecular manufacturing presents massive risks, but that these must be addressed at a social and political level, not at a technical level. We also believe that molecular manufacturing will mitigate other major risks and harms, so any retarding of the basic technology must be considered very cautiously.

We will be contacting Bill Joy to propose a public debate or discussion of these points.

Comments

[Mike Deering]

The ability to make lots and lots of conventional weapons is not the biggest threat associated with MM. Witness the first U.S. vs. Iraq war. The victory decisively goes to those with the superior weapon design not quantity. How smart are your weapons? How good are their senses? How targetable, versatile, maneuverable, adaptable are they? These are the factors that determine who wins an arms race, not brute force manufacturing capability, assuming it's a real race and both sides have MM.

[Michael Vassar]

It's very important that Joy be brought on board in a sensible manner. He is sincerely concerned about these risks, and has enough clout in the tech community to raise the money needed to make a difference. More importantly, he has the software skills to make serious contributions to MNT software design, including safety features, and the connections to find other people with like skills. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't propose a "public debate or discussion". Don't be adversarial at all. That technique is aggressive and unnecessary. There is nothing to be gained by "defeating" him in a debate. He has no followers to dissuade. He will not be impressed. Engage him politely and personally, in a manner resembling the Phoenix Atkins (?) debate on the feasibility of molecular manufacturing. I would like to be involved in doing this actually. If you can contact him and arrange for an appointment I would like to try to attend. I will be discrete and avoid making active proposals, but will try to moderate in order to emphasize the shared aims and to make sure that the sincere mutual desire for the public good overcomes the sincere unstated desire to have a fun but minimally effective debate with a worthy opponent.

[Janessa Ravenwood]

I disagree. I think he should be kept out of it as much as possible as I doubt he would come over to the "pro-nano" side from what I've heard him say in the past. So unless he's changed his views I believe he's an opponent to the development of nanotechnology at all and as such his only "contribution" would be to say "don't do it." Thus I fail to see how that would be of any help.

[Rocky Rawstern]

Here's the link to the Atkinson-Phoenix Nanotech Debate

http://nanotech-now.com/Atkinson-Phoenix-Nanotech-Debate.htm

Debate is possible, and minds can be changed.

[Mike Deering]

As has been noted, Bill Joy is a smart guy with resources, a valuable addition to any endeavor. Even if he can't be convinced that GNR technologies are more positive than negative, he would probably concede that they are inevitable and imminent. And if they are coming anyway, who better to have on the team designing safeguards against the results none of us want to see than Bill Joy? You don't have to convert him to pro-nano, just that relinquishment is impractical, and management is better.

[Janessa Ravenwood]

Interesting approach. THAT might achieve some results. Good thinking!