System of Global Management

Whenever we say anything good about the United Nations or suggest that the U.N. might be part of a plan for safe, responsible development and use of advanced nanotechnology, we receive shrill comments from readers. Some cast doubts on the efficacy of the U.N., some point to its alleged corruption, and others question its very need for existence.

On the other hand, the U.N. currently is the only functioning pan-national body with the necessary reach (if not the authority) to serve as a platform for organizing cooperative international administration of molecular manufacturing (MM). Whether or not such an administration is needed, desirable, or even possible is still open to debate, of course.

Along these lines, it's interesting to read this opinion about the U.N.:

The United Nations is not a popularly elected world government; it isn't even a collection of well-meaning people who just want peace. It is a group of different agencies with different agendas, some of which are relatively effective and some of which are ineffective or even dangerous. The United Nations provides the relief workers who are coordinating international aid for tsunami victims, and people delivering aid and democracy assistance in Afghanistan. The U.N. umbrella includes critical agencies such as the World Health Organization, whose work to prevent another flu pandemic could save millions of lives.

That's columnist Anne Applebaum writing in the Washington Post. She also says:

Infamously, the United Nations has lately been implicated in a vast and tangled scandal, the oil-for-food scam. It was not the only culprit -- dozens of governments, including ours, knew of, or even cooperated with, smuggling in Iraq -- but unfortunately this corruption is part of a larger pattern. Financial scandals plagued U.N. operations in Cambodia. Trafficking scandals plagued U.N. operations in Kosovo. What the world body spends on pointless conferences and unnecessary publications would feed many, many children in Africa.

I especially like this part:

But if the United Nations isn't good in and of itself, neither is it evil. It is only as good or bad as its employees, all political appointees whose activities are, by ordinary government or business standards, subjected to shockingly little oversight. Unlike, say, the U.S. civil service, or the Japanese bureaucracy, the U.N. bureaucracy is not beholden to a democratic government or even a sovereign government. There is no electorate that can toss the Libyans out of the human rights commissioner's chair, no judicial system that can try corrupt officials. . .

The trouble with many U.N. defenders is that they refuse to see this fundamental problem, and demand a constantly expanding role for the United Nations without explaining how its lack of democratic accountability is to be addressed. The trouble with many U.N. detractors, in Congress and elsewhere, is that they see the corruption and nothing else. But there is a role for U.N. institutions -- in Afghanistan, or in international health -- as long as that role is limited in time and cost.

If a consensus arises in favor of some system of global MM management, then either an existing organization will have to be charged with that duty, or an entirely new body will need to be created. CRN has been unable to identify any existing institution presently capable of performing this critical function. We think something new will be needed, although we can't say for sure yet how -- or even whether -- this can be accomplished. If it cannot, we fear the worst.

You may or not agree with Ms. Applebaum's final conclusion, but her objective appraisal of the U.N.'s usefulness and limitations does illuminate the challenges and pitfalls of developing a wholly new organization.

My point here is not to defend the U.N. but to show that we might have to start somewhere. Learning how the U.N. works (or doesn't work), and what its strengths and flaws are, could help in deciding what sort of pan-national administrative structure would suffice to ensure safe, responsible development and use of advanced nanotechnology.

Mike Treder

Comments

[Karl Gallagher]

I certainly agree with her conclusion. If we had an accountable, freedom-loving world governance body I'd be willing to accept it as a lawful source of regulations and discuss how they could be enforced. I don't see how to get there from the current organization myself but I'll accept that someone else might find one. Possibly a new entity could be created from scratch and the UN colors transferred to it. But the UN as it stands now isn't something I'd trust with regulation of lawnmowers, let alone nanotech.

[todd]

When speaking to administration of nanotechnology we are left with an eventual conclusion that something will have to be done. I would tend to agree with CRN that no existing organization is ready or prepared for the undertaking. I'm afraid I am also on the list of individuals that do not fully trust the United Nations. This is one of those times when we that is humanity cannot get this one wrong if we step even a small step the wrong direction we could lose millions. Indeed the species as a whole is in jeopardy with a mature and capable MM.

Assuming that at some point a few years from today we have a robust diamond or DNA based replicator capable of reproducing itself. We have a whole series of decisions to make shortly thereafter. As we have stated in the past on several occasions the what it's run rampant and although who is ahead is speculative the past I would say we're looking at a convergence of several roads to the same eventual goal. Several individual countries are in relative short timeframe apart on this road. Indeed only a few steps differ six or seven countries each with it's own distinct history, fears, goals and potential use for this technology.

We could attempt to generalize some of the specific questions that the organization in charge of maintaining and distributing MM will face.

The first question is clear will individuals be granted access to molecular manufacturing production equipment i.e. the device.

The second question what level of autonomy will be granted to individual possessing a molecular manufacturing device.

The next question assuming the first question is yes and the second question is some what are the useful products that will be allowed for production by the individual.

It is here that the questions begin to drift as to the previous answers but certainly some of the most critical ones I will address here.

What will be the position of the ruling body governing nanotechnology in regards to the continuation of the market economy and specifics the payable rights for copyrighted items.

If the ruling body declares all copyrights irrelevant and all existing products are placed on the useful products list this in my opinion would open up a positive and useful step.

There are two other questions the core should be addressed once we have a staggeringly large useful product list. Which products will be removed from the list because of perceived or otherwise dangerous.

The second question is what level of design will be granted to the individual for creation of new products utilizing molecular manufacturing.

This question is open-ended for it would allow individuals to produce weapons that were otherwise not on the useful products list and design their own for production.

As of today I find that I'm curious to hear if even our group can agree on any one of the specific questions I've asked. As we are at least reasonably well versed on the issue it is my opinion that if we here cannot agree on even the smallest issue we are in trouble.

todd

[michael vassar]

The WTA or IMF are a great deal more influential than the UN, and seem more competent as well, with a greater understanding of liberal values. OTOH, their commercial ethos may be less suitable to MNT than the UN's guardian ethos. Frankly though, I don't think this is for CRN to decide. The default is for whichever organization first develops MNT to administrate it, or to distribute it, but certainly not to give it to some other organization to administrate. The very fact that the original developers had created MNT once would make them the primary threat to anyone who wished to maintain a monopoly. Such a transfer of power would tend to lead to an organization who's authority was born in betrayal and then had eternity to go bad.

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

Michael, I think it's been shown by long experience that any single organization can only administer a subset of domains well. Governments can't do central economic planning (though deciding economic policy may be an appropriate function) and corporations probably shouldn't do security, and neither one can handle non-rivalrous goods. (Our Three Systems paper says the same thing from a more theoretical approach.)

So, suppose a commercial group creates MNT first. Are they going to administer the geopolitical implications? No! They wouldn't have a clue how to begin. They'd have to let someone else do that. And they might or might not have the wisdom or the power to select who that someone else is.

Suppose a government gets it first. Are they going to develop it to its full positive potential? No! The best we could hope for is a sort of Soviet dole. They'd have to find a way to let commerce and Open Source use it without compromising security too much. (Or, their other viable choice is to impose totalitarianism worldwide and simply prevent effective competition.)

Chris

[Giu1i0 Pri5c0]

Unfortunately the UN should really be called the DN (Divided Nations): the UN have never been more than a platform used for power games in the name of the interests of nation states. Same for other international organizations. Sadly I don't expect any real change as long as nation states continue holding all power.

[cdnprodigy]

Since the end of WWII there have only been three major players in global military interventions. USA has a better track record than the USSR did, but UN is superior to both. I don't understand the focus of integrating MM products into current economic arenas founded by the principle of scarcity. I think the whole point of MNT is that getting rich won't matter anymore. Unless a nano-regulatory body controls the 1st assembler and all subsuquent nano-factories, its status is merely decorative.