- Nuclear War
- Global Warming
- Anti-aging Research
What do you suppose they have in common?
Besides the fact that the first one, if it's all out, stands a good chance of eliminating worries about the second one (because the war could bring a nuclear winter) while also making interest in the third one essentially obsolete -- besides all that, what do these three items have in common?
This blog and, more generally, the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology are concerned with: a) raising awareness of the benefits, the dangers, and the possibilities for responsible use of advanced nanotechnology; b) expediting a thorough examination of the environmental, humanitarian, economic, military, political, social, medical, and ethical implications of molecular manufacturing; and c) assisting in the creation and implementation of wise, comprehensive, and balanced plans for responsible worldwide use of this transformative technology.
What you've just read is CRN's mission statement. Now consider that other organizations concerned with other issues might adopt a similar statement regarding nuclear war, global warming, or anti-aging research. (Obviously, it's hard to imagine any sane person calculating benefits from nuclear war, but you could easily substitute nuclear energy for that clause.)
But what these three issue areas have in common is that CRN (and other groups like ours) can learn lessons from each of them about raising awareness, encouraging studies, and developing solutions.
So, who has done the best? Which one is struggling the most, and why?
NUCLEAR WAR (& ENERGY)
We're tempted to say that those who have worked hard to prevent nuclear war are the most successful of the lot. Until, that is, you remember that their efforts did not get going until after an initial catastrophe already had taken place. When just two bombs can cause some 200,000 deaths in a few months (about half in the first few seconds), that does have a tendency to concentrate interest and activity. Since then, attempts to contain proliferation and avert nuclear war have been markedly successful, when you consider that in more than half a century, only a handful of nations have gained nuclear capability.
So, should CRN look at this as a model for success? Or, because it took a deadly crisis to generate wide interest, should this example be ruled out? Can we afford to wait for the first nano-weapon shots to be fired, thereby gaining the impetus needed to accomplish a global agreement on responsible administration of molecular manufacturing? We don't think so.
Consider this trenchant analysis from NuclearRisk.org:
For 99.9% of our tenure on this planet, we could wait for direct evidence of our errors before correcting our actions. Sometimes the results were horrendous, as in the two World Wars and the environmental degradation due to hydraulic mining (now outlawed). As bad as those results were, our trial and error approach did not threaten our existence as a species. But during the last 0.1% of our existence our physical power has become so great that we can no longer wait for direct evidence that we are on the wrong path before changing our ways. Given that 99.9% of humanity's data says trial and error works, it is understandable – but horribly dangerous – that we have not yet recognized the obsolescence of that approach.
This warning is about the obscene danger of taking a "trial and error" approach to nuclear war, but we think it applies equally well to the equally severe threats posed by a nanotech arms race and an out of control war.
GLOBAL WARMING / CLIMATE CHANGE
Those of us who take seriously the results published last November by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are becoming increasingly worried about the signs of impending danger and the lack of corresponding action.
The IPCC's latest report [PDF] — signed off by 130 nations including the U.S. and China — slams the door on any argument for delay and makes clear we must under no circumstances listen to those who urge that we wait for a more convenient time to take the needed steps, however difficult they may be.
As the New York Times put it:
Members of the panel said their review of the data led them to conclude as a group and individually that reductions in greenhouse gasses had to start immediately to avert a global climate disaster that could leave island states submerged and abandoned, African crop yields decreased by 50 percent, and cause over a 5 percent decrease in global gross domestic product.
Concerns about global warming are nothing new. Since at least the 1980s, some world leaders and many scientists have warned that atmospheric effects from human activity would begin causing problems in the 21st century. What is unexpected is how quickly some of those effects seem to be occurring -- and are now strengthening -- showing that the old models were far too conservative in their predictions.
Why are we still dragging our feet? Instead of decreasing, carbon dioxide emissions are rapidly accelerating. Why hasn't more been done? Is it because the plans proposed are just too unpalatable to the public and politicians alike? Is it because the oil and gas and goal and automobile manufacturer lobbies are just too strong? Or is it because we haven't yet had a full-scale environmental disaster, a cataclysm equal to Hiroshima and Nagasaki that's directly traceable to global warming? Have scientists not yet made a strong enough case? It's hard to imagine how the evidence could become more conclusive without clearly being way beyond the point of no return.
So, unfortunately, this model also does not look like a good one for molecular manufacturing policy advocates to emulate.
ANTI-AGING RESEARCH
They're making lots of news, getting coverage everywhere from "60 Minutes" to Popular Science to the Wall Street Journal. They've hosted large conferences and built a significant foundation with a large staff and millions of dollars in contributions. Still, though, the research touted by the main exponents is usually dismissed and sometimes ridiculed by mainstream gerontologists. That situation is changing, but slowly.
Hoping to hurry things along, a series of large cash prizes is on offer for researchers able to demonstrate that aging in mice can be delayed or reversed. In effect, they're looking for the opposite of a major catastrophe, instead trying to provoke the achievement of a scientific "miracle" that will turn the world in their direction.
Could such an effort succeed for nanofactory technology? Possibly, although no one yet has figured out how to set up and market a competition that gains as much interest, publicity, and practical results as the M-Prize. That doesn't mean it won't happen in the future, but it also doesn't mean that it will.
Besides, even if this approach did generate a lot of researchers spending a lot of money to build the first operational molecular fabricator, that alone would offer no guarantee that CRN could fulfill our mission statement. Remember, our aim is not just to hurry the technology along. It's mostly about understanding all the implications of a nanofactory-enabled world and being prepared for it so that we don't have to suffer through a disastrous learning experience.
Recent Comments