Responsible Nanotechnology

Nanomachine Meme

As nanomachines move beyond just prototypes, a potential industry of microscopic mass production awaits its own Henry Ford to make it a reality.

In anticipation of this demand, researchers at a nanotech lab at UCLA [led by Dr. Thomas Mason] are mass-producing billions of customizable microparticles using a machine normally found in the microchip fabrication industry. 

 

Mason's ultimate goal is to quickly create large quantities of parts for complicated nanomachines. These parts would include nanogears, nanoengines and other small-scale parts that are currently created one at a time in an assembly line fashion.

The excerpt and photo above are from an article at WIRED. Although Mason's process is still working at the microscale level, the stated goal is to mass produce parts for future nanomachines. Whether or not this particular approach proves to be useful, it is emblematic of the shift in willingness of scientists to focus their work in the direction of advanced nanotechnology.

Mike Treder

Bob Dylan Was Right

Come gather round people wherever you roam
And admit that the waters around you have grown
And accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth saving
Then you'd better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone
For the times, they are a changing

It's hard to imagine a more compelling bit of evidence for this than an Op-Ed piece published on July 22 in the Los Angeles Times titled "Toward a Type 1 civilization":

Our civilization is fast approaching a tipping point. Humans will need to make the transition from nonrenewable fossil fuels as the primary source of our energy to renewable energy sources that will allow us to flourish into the future. Failure to make that transformation will doom us to the endless political machinations and economic conflicts that have plagued civilization for the last half-millennium.

We need new technologies to be sure, but without evolved political and economic systems, we cannot become what we must. And what is that? A Type 1 civilization.

The author, Michael Shermer, then explains just what a Type 1 civilization is, not to mention Type 2 and Type 3 civilizations.

In a 1964 article on searching for extraterrestrial civilizations, the Soviet astronomer Nikolai Kardashev suggested using radio telescopes to detect energy signals from other solar systems in which there might be civilizations of three levels of advancement: Type 1 can harness all of the energy of its home planet; Type 2 can harvest all of the power of its sun; and Type 3 can master the energy from its entire galaxy.

What makes this so remarkable is that discussions of such arcane and advanced topics have almost always been confined to science fiction novels and limited-interest mailing lists. To have them now being seriously discussed in a major newspaper should tell us how much times have indeed changed.

But beyond the surprise factor in finding this subject on the Op-Ed page, even more important is the key point that Shermer makes:

The forces at work that could prevent us from making the great leap forward to a Type 1 civilization are primarily political and economic. The resistance by nondemocratic states to turning power over to the people is considerable, especially in theocracies whose leaders would prefer we all revert to Type 0.4 chiefdoms. The opposition toward a global economy is substantial, even in the industrialized West, where economic tribalism still dominates the thinking of most politicians, intellectuals and citizens.

For thousands of years, we have existed in a zero-sum tribal world in which a gain for one tribe, state or nation meant a loss for another tribe, state or nation -- and our political and economic systems have been designed for use in that win-lose world. But we have the opportunity to live in a win-win world and become a Type 1 civilization by spreading liberal democracy and free trade, in which the scientific and technological benefits will flourish. I am optimistic because in the evolutionist's deep time and the historian's long view, the trend lines toward achieving Type 1 status tick inexorably upward.

That key point is summarized in the piece's sub-heading, which says, "Along with energy policy, political and economic systems must also evolve."

Can we do it? Can we evolve, adapt, improve, or reinvent our political and economic systems to achieve a Type 1 civilization?

Shermer says he's optimistic. Given how much is at stake, let's hope he is right.

Mike Treder

Radical Technologies

In 2005, for my first appearance at the annual conference of the World Future Society, I was given a small room with only 25 chairs, and I was scheduled for a 9:30 PM presentation. My topic was "Do Sweat the Small Stuff: Why Everyone Should Care about Nanotechnology." To my surprise and delight, the room was full and in fact we had another 10 or 15 people standing at the back.

Last year in Minneapolis, I gave my second talk at a WFS annual conference, this time on the topic of  “Nanotechnology and the Future of Warfare.” The room was larger, with seating for about 50, and again it was filled to overflowing.

Yesterday I traveled to Washington, DC, for the 2008 World Future Society conference, where I gave a one-hour presentation on "Radical Technologies, Rapid Change, and the Real World." This time, they were prepared for a bigger audience to attend, with a large room and seats for a hundred people. But guess what -- it still wasn't big enough -- once again, we had a standing room only crowd.

Here you can download a PDF [4.3 MB] of the presentation I gave yesterday.

I offered to give all attendees a free CD containing the full scenarios series, but it turned out we had more people asking for them than we were able to satisfy (I'd brought 100 CDs with me). If you'd like to download each of the eight scenarios, plus the introduction -- exactly the same thing as on the disk -- you can find links to them at this page.

Many thanks to all who attended!

Mike Treder

My Feelings Exactly

Not Necessarily Relevant Quote of the Week:

Setting a good example for children takes all the fun out of middle age.

— William Feather

Not Necessarily Relevant Quote of the Week:

Setting a good example for children takes all the fun out of middle age.

— William Feather

Not Necessarily Relevant Quote of the Week:

Setting a good example for children takes all the fun out of middle age.

— William Feather

Surveillance Goes Small

Look! Up in the sky!

It's a bird -- It's a plane -- It's --

   ... an artificial dragonfly surveillance device!!

The DelFly Micro may be the tiniest remote-controlled, camera-equipped, ultra-small aircraft ever built. Of course, we don't know what's being developed in secret military labs, but it can't be too much better than this, can it?

From an article at PhysOrg.com:

The Micro, weighing just 3 grams and measuring 10 cm (wingtip to wingtip) is the considerably smaller successor to the successful DelFly I (2005) and DelFly II (2006). The DelFly Micro, with its minuscule battery weighing just 1 gram, can fly for approximately three minutes and has a maximum speed of 5 m/s . . . The 'dragonfly' has a tiny camera (about 0.5 grams) on board that transmits its signals to a ground station. With software developed by TU Delft itself, objects can then be recognised independently.

Now imagine what might be possible when such devices can be built atom by atom, from the bottom up, with molecular manufacturing.

Mike Treder

Looking Ahead

I was asked recently by a group of nanotechnology researchers to provide what I see as the current best-estimate timeline for the eventual development of molecular manufacturing. They seemed impressed by my answer, so I decided I would share it with you...

In our first official statement on estimating a timeline for molecular manufacturing, issued in April 2003, CRN said, "MNT [molecular nanotechnology] is coming soon—almost certainly within 20 years, and perhaps in less than a decade." In July 2004, we revised that to say, "It might be become a reality by 2010, likely will by 2015, and almost certainly will by 2020." After leaving it like that for three and half years, we changed it again in December 2007 to, "It might become a reality by 2010 to 2015, more plausibly will by 2015 to 2020, and almost certainly will by 2020 to 2025."

I just realized now, believe it or not, that the current statement seems closer to what we originally posted than does the more aggressive timeline that was in place between the other two. In any case, our intention has never been to predict exactly when personal nanofactories will become a reality, but to raise awareness and stimulate investigation so that society can adequately prepare for the potential impacts.

However, because we cannot rule out the possibility of a secret crash program that began some years ago and could be nearing completion, we can't state categorically that molecular manufacturing is still at least X years away—and we would not be true to our mission if we did not continue urging those who will listen to prepare for its earliest plausible advent.

From my perspective as a fairly frequent public speaker, it appears that the knee-jerk objections to molecular manufacturing theory have subsided very substantially, and I almost never hear them now. This doesn't mean, of course, that inertia against nanofactory-oriented research and in favor of basic nanoscale technologies does not persist; it does and it will linger and continue to inhibit funding for some time.

My belief, though, is that there is at least a 50% chance that within the next several years, at least one rich nation or large multinational corporation will look at the huge potential payoff from developing nanofactory technology first and will fund a dedicated program. Whether that's public or covert (or perhaps Open?) is anyone's guess. I've posted a beginning analysis of all the dimensions that must be considered when looking at how, when, and where mature molecular manufacturing will emerge at this location.

Meanwhile, if a dedicated and well-funded nanofactory development program is not undertaken within, say, the next ten years, then it seems almost certain that incremental advances in related technologies will make the final steps fairly obvious and inexpensive by the early 2020's at the latest.

Final thoughts: Our current research suggests that molecular manufacturing will arrive suddenly, perhaps within the next ten years, and almost certainly within the next twenty. If it takes the world by surprise, we will not have systems in place that can deal with it effectively.

No single organization or mindset can create a full and appropriate policy—and inappropriate policy will only make things worse. A combination of separate policy efforts will get in each other's way, and the risks will slip through the cracks. By the time this technological capability arrives, we must have accomplished several things that each will take significant time.

First, we must understand the risks. Second, make policy. Third, design institutions. Fourth, create the institutions—at all levels including international levels, where things move slowly. This could easily take twenty years. If advanced nanotechnology could arrive in ten or fifteen years, then we'd better get to work.

Mike Treder

Back from Oxford

Sorry for such slow blogging over the last couple of weeks. Now that I'm done globetrotting for a while, I'll try to catch up with the backlog of what's been going on, and keep you up to date on the rest of our activities.

Last Sunday at Oxford University in England, Chris Phoenix and I had our first opportunity to do a co-presentation. In about 45 minutes, we tossed the microphone back and forth and tried to do justice to the topic of "Small Machines, Big Choices: The Looming Impacts of Molecular Manufacturing."

Apparently, we did fairly well. Or at least that seems to be the verdict of Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine, who attended the conference and wrote:

Next up was Michael Treder and Chris Phoenix from the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. They cannily opened with a series of quotations claiming that science will never be able to solve this or that problem. Two of my favorites were: "Pasteur's theory of germs is a ridiculous fiction" by Pierre Pachet in 1872, and "Space travel is utter bilge," by Astronomer Royal Richard Woolley in 1956. Of course, the point is that arguments that molecular manufacturing is impossible are likely to suffer the same predictive failures. Their vision of molecular manufacturing involves using trillions of very small machines to make something larger. They envision desktop nanofactories into which people feed simple raw inputs and get out nearly any product they desire. The proliferation of such nanofactories would end scarcity forever. "We can't expect to have only positive outcomes without mitigating negative outcomes," cautioned Treder.

What kind of negative outcomes? Nanofactories could produce not only hugely beneficial products such as water filters, solar cells, and houses, but also weapons of any sort. Such nanofabricated weapons would be vastly more powerful than today's. Since these weapons are so powerful, there is a strong incentive for a first strike. In addition, an age of nanotech abundance would eliminate the majority of jobs, possibly leading to massive social disruptions. Social disruption creates the opportunity for a charismatic personality to take hold. "Nanotechnology could lead to some form of world dictatorship," said Treder. "There is a global catastrophic risk that we could all be enslaved."

On the other hand, individuals with access to nanofactories could wield great destructive power. Phoenix and Treder's chief advice is more research into how to handle nanotech when it becomes a reality in the next couple of decades. In particular, Phoenix thinks that it's urgent to study whether offense or defense would be the best response. To Phoenix, offense looks a lot easier—there are a lot more ways to destroy things than to defend them. If that's true, we should narrow our future policy options.

You can read the rest of Bailey's observations on the conference here, here, and here.

Mike Treder

Superstruct the Future

Superstruct is the world’s first massively multiplayer forecasting game. It’s not just about envisioning the future—it’s about inventing the future. Everyone is welcome to join the game.

If you enjoy exploring possible versions of our collective future through the scenario process...if you worry about how much longer our civilization, and perhaps our entire species, can last under the increasing weight of threats and strains...or if you just like playing massively multiplayer online games, then you'll want to know about Superstruct.

It's the year 2019, and humans have only 23 years to go:

This fall, The Institute for the Future invites you to play Superstruct, the world’s first massively multiplayer forecasting game. It’s not just about envisioning the future—it’s about inventing the future. Everyone is welcome to join the game. Watch for the opening volley of threats and survival stories, September 2008.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SEPTEMBER 22, 2019

Humans have 23 years to go

Global Extinction Awareness System starts the countdown for Homo sapiens.

PALO ALTO, CA — Based on the results of a year-long supercomputer simulation, the Global Extinction Awareness System (GEAS) has reset the "survival horizon" for Homo sapiens - the human race - from "indefinite" to 23 years.

“The survival horizon identifies the point in time after which a threatened population is expected to experience a catastrophic collapse,” GEAS president Audrey Chen said. “It is the point from which it a species is unlikely to recover. By identifying a survival horizon of 2042, GEAS has given human civilization a definite deadline for making substantive changes to planet and practices.”

According to Chen, the latest GEAS simulation harnessed over 70 petabytes of environmental, economic, and demographic data, and was cross-validated by ten different probabilistic models. The GEAS models revealed a potentially terminal combination of five so-called “super-threats”, which represent a collision of environmental, economic, and social risks. “Each super-threat on its own poses a serious challenge to the world's adaptive capacity,” said GEAS research director Hernandez Garcia. “Acting together, the five super-threats may irreversibly overwhelm our species’ ability to survive.”Garcia said, “Previous GEAS simulations with significantly less data and cross-validation correctly forecasted the most surprising species collapses of the past decade: Sciurus carolinenis and Sciurus vulgaris, for example, and the Anatidae chen. So we have very good reason to believe that these simulation results, while shocking, do accurately represent the rapidly growing threats to the viability of the human species.”

GEAS notified the United Nations prior to making a public announcement. The spokesperson for United Nations Secretary General Vaira Vike-Freiberga released the following statement: "We are grateful for GEAS' work, and we treat their latest forecast with seriousness and profound gravity."

GEAS urges concerned citizens, families, corporations, institutions, and governments to talk to each other and begin making plans to deal with the super-threats.

###

This is a game of survival, and we need you to survive.

Super-threats are massively disrupting global society as we know it. There’s an entire generation of homeless people worldwide, as the number of climate refugees tops 250 million. Entrepreneurial chaos and “the axis of biofuel” wreak havoc in the alternative fuel industry. Carbon quotas plummet as food shortages mount. The existing structures of human civilization—from families and language to corporate society and technological infrastructures—just aren’t enough. We need a new set of superstructures to rise above, to take humans to the next stage.You can help. Tell us your story. Strategize out loud. Superstruct now.

It's your legacy to the human race.

Want to learn more about the game? Read the Superstruct FAQ.

Jamais Cascio, CRN's Director of Impacts Analysis, is one of the lead developers behind the Superstruct project. We urge you to get involved.

Risk vs. Risk

Not Necessarily Relevant Quote of the Week:

And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.

— Anais Nin

Not Necessarily Relevant Quote of the Week:

And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.

— Anais Nin

Nanotube Radio

News from Berkeley:

We have constructed a fully functional, fully integrated radio receiver, orders-of-magnitude smaller than any previous radio, from a single carbon nanotube. The single nanotube serves, at once, as all major components of a radio: antenna, tuner, amplifier, and demodulator. Moreover, the antenna and tuner are implemented in a radically different manner than traditional radios, receiving signals via high frequency mechanical vibrations of the nanotube rather than through traditional electrical means.

We have already used the nanotube radio to receive and play music from FM radio transmissions such as Layla by Eric Clapton (Derek and the Dominos) and the Beach Boys' Good Vibrations.

The nanotube radio's extremely small size could enable radical new applications such as radio controlled devices small enough to exist in the human bloodstream, or simply smaller, cheaper, and more efficient wireless devices such as cellular phones.

I'm glad to see they have such good taste in music! Mike Treder