CRN goes to China!

CRN Director of Research Chris Phoenix has been invited to the World High Technology Society's Life Spring Forum in Dalian, China. He will give a talk at the conference on the revolutionary nature of programmable general-purpose molecular manufacturing. Then he'll give talks in Nanjing on progress toward molecular manufacturing, and in Shanghai on advanced nanotechnology and human rights. This will all take place in mid-May. Chris is extremely excited to be going to China for the first time, and to have a chance to spread CRN's message to the far side of the world.

Comments

[Mike Deering]

I think you are exaggerating the risks of open access nanoassembly in order to support your position on centralized control of the technology and therefore the economy. Yes there are risks, and some of the results are catastrophic, but they can be prevented without denying the population personal nanoassembly capability. This attempt to restrict access to nanoassembly technology is grab for power by the existing authority structures to keep the population dependent on the central authority. I believe in passing laws about what you can release into the environment but not in what you can produce for your own use. I think you are proposing a violation against a fundamental freedom. One's freedom of action should only be limited when it harms another person. The right to nanoassembly technology is analogous to the right to own guns.

[Janessa Ravenwood]

That's what I've been saying, but thus far CRN seems unwilling to admit that their proposal comes down to a planetary power grab.

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

Mike: How can we be exaggerating the risks of a technology that could give every person on earth simultaneous access to the industrial power of a medium-sized country, including the ability to easily and cheaply build and use technologies orders of magnitude more powerful than today's cutting edge?

How would you suggest preventing the risks and catastrophic results? We're always looking for ideas that are better than ours.

Janessa: your discussion style is not productive. You are attributing falsehoods to us and then accusing us of being unwilling to admit to them. It makes you look like a troll.

The amount of power we're talking about can't possibly be distributed evenly. Most people wouldn't know what to do with it. If the power is not allocated sensibly, then a power grab by some faction is inevitable. I'd rather see power allocated than left lying around until someone grabs it. What we have been proposing is to give a huge amount of power to individuals, but retain some restrictions to keep vicious people from being able to exert their will by raw destruction.

Perhaps a wild-west, everyone-for-themselves ungoverned strategy is better. But I really doubt it. Is this what you're proposing? (Note that I don't accuse--I ask.)

Chris

[Brett Bellmore]

CRN goes to China... The nation voted three times, "Most likely to attempt to use nanotechnology for world conquest."

Just joking, but it's not far from the truth. We all better pray that the breakthrough doesn't come first in China, or we'll all be speaking Mandarin, if we're lucky.

[Mike Treder, CRN]

Historically China has been much more often the recipient of aggression than the instigator. So they are probably not high on the list for world conquest. Among others, there was a Persian empire, a Roman empire, an Ottoman empire, a French empire, a British empire, a German empire, a Japanese empire, a Russian (Soviet) empire, and now, for all intents and purposes, an American empire...but never a Chinese empire, or at least not one with far-flung possessions and protectorates.

I'm not suggesting, of course, that we should assume China's use of advanced nano would be benign--but there is also little reason to assume that they represent a greater threat than any number of other nations.

[Brett Bellmore]

Tell the people in Tibet that there's little to fear. Ok, I can think of a dozen nations, off the top of my head, that would scare me more, but I rather doubt that North Korea is going to make the breakthrough. China might, if we were very, very unlucky.

[Mr. Farlops]

I think things are getting a little lost in the heat and noise here folks.

Of course China has been invaded, just think of the Mongols. Of course China has had imperial ambitions, just think of Vietnam or much of Southeast Asia. Obviously if you look at the history of nearly every major country on the Earth you'll find blood and shame.

But the point is that if we don't negotiate with China respectfully yet assertively, then they will isolate themselves and that's hardly the environment I want MNT developed in. Even when the Soviet Union and the United States were bitter enemies, with nuclear pistols to each other's heads, we negotiated. We even exchanged scientists on occasion. I think the world was better for it. Even now we are negotiating with North Korea, no paragon of human rights.

Better to keep China engaged in a global community that they feel they have a stake in--that they have something to gain by staying in it, that they have something to lose by leaving it.

Anyway, about power grabs and power to the people. Well, I sit somewhere in the middle on this. It's like gun control in the States. People can own guns (nanofactories, etc.) but there needs to be some regulation, that's just common sense. There is still a lot controversy but politically we are still heading somewhere down the middle. It'll always be like that even as MNT matures. There will be a vocal group calling for less or at least different regulation and there will be a vocal group call for more or at least different regulation.

And there will be unavoidable surprises--the nano equivalent of box cutters. That's just how the world is.

I tend to agree with the CRN because politically they are just a bit to the left (But perhaps they might not agree with that characterization.) of folks like Glenn Reynolds or the Extropians. I'll be frank. Sometimes it appears to me that the techno-libertarian mindset is just a little too smug. I think the CRN gives a healthy dose of skepticism.

[Janessa Ravenwood]

Janessa: your discussion style is not productive. You are attributing falsehoods to us and then accusing us of being unwilling to admit to them. It makes you look like a troll.
-----
Opinions vary, if that’s yours, fine. For the record, the definition of “troll” is NOT just someone who disagrees with you. I’m totally flabbergasted to see you call my statement a falsehood. You admit you want an absolute central control over all nanofacs, but you don’t think that such an agency is the unquestioned master of the world? How is it you can possibly think that? Here’s a quote from YOUR website: “it seems best to have a single, trustworthy, international administration imposing tight controls on the technology.” Exactly how am I misunderstanding that? (And here’s another quote: “DEVIL’S ADVOCATE – Submit your criticism, please!”) Your proposal would unavoidably hand total power over the Earth to this agency. As Mike pointed out, in such a world, absolute control of nanofacs means absolute control of the global economy. Are you actually going to dispute that? This is what I’ve meant when I said it was a de-facto one-world government that you were proposing, which the U.S. (and most other nations) simply would not go for as it would cost them their sovereignty. Congress can pass all the laws it wants, but when this agency can reach out and shut down the US with the flick of a switch, what good is that?

The amount of power we're talking about can't possibly be distributed evenly. Most people wouldn't know what to do with it. If the power is not allocated sensibly, then a power grab by some faction is inevitable.
-----
Or the same power factions that currently comprise the planet’s major political entities could all have it and all be on the same footing they are now, just with bigger and newer toys. As I think it was Brett who noted it, we could likely see all the major powers getting it around the same time as they finally realize that it’s possible. In this case, I don’t see any immediate major global power shifts going on (though maybe some minor ones). My personal take on that is that shortly thereafter you’ll see immediate laws passed against private nanofactory ownership of virtually any kind and the birth of the nanotech underground soon after that. Your pushing for heavy regulation is likely to result in regulation you don’t want. The powers that be always like to keep the really neat toys reserved for their exclusive use. Case in point: How many F-16’s do you own? You really think any government is going to let people just own a private nanofactory – restricted or not?

I'd rather see power allocated than left lying around until someone grabs it. What we have been proposing is to give a huge amount of power to individuals, but retain some restrictions to keep vicious people from being able to exert their will by raw destruction.
-----
But your entire proposal is predicated on this mythical enlightened and benevolent international bureaucracy coming into being. Such a thing has never existed. And despite prompts for more specifics by me, you still have not provided any. Located where, how big, started by what country or entity, funded by who, enforced how and by what, etc. Your proposals are still very vague, roughly equivalent to saying: “Well, yes, I think Mr. Smith should be president.” Unless you’re actually on his campaign staff, and/or a full-time professional lobbyist with actual influence, you’re a pundit and an observer, with your actual participation relegated to casting 1 vote in the election. Until I see at least a draft bill in Committee, I don’t see you actually DOING much beyond getting mentioned in articles now and then and attending the occasional conference somewhere. Just because you want to change the world does mean the world wants to be changed by you, which is a critical point I think you’re missing.

Perhaps a wild-west, everyone-for-themselves ungoverned strategy is better. But I really doubt it. Is this what you're proposing? (Note that I don't accuse--I ask.)
-----
No, as I’ve stated several times, I can live with some restrictions on my nanofac – I’m really not interested in causing a nano-catastrophe, thanks much. But this Big Brother style you’re proposing is just too much. Several posters here have said the same thing – nominal restrictions and widespread fast-response capability to deal with clean-ups from malicious nano-designers. But the restrictions you are proposing are NOT nominal, they’re Big Brother to the max. Real-time monitoring coupled with complete control from a distance of everyone’s nanofacs cannot reasonably be called “nominal.” Or, I’d hate to see the definition of “restrictive” if that’s the case.

See, the difference is between reactive and proactive law enforcement. By and large, we currently have reactive law enforcement. If and when you rob a bank or whatever, the cops come after you. What you’re proposing is constant monitoring (and control) of everyone to prevent certain types of crime. Hence the accusations of totalitarianism you keep encountering here, and not all by me in case you haven’t noticed. Should we monitor all computers all the time to try to stop virus writers? How about to stop people trading music files? Is sacrificing our privacy and freedom worth preventing those things, hmmm?

Again, how you can possibly state with a straight face that this agency would NOT be master of the world boggles the mind. Hence we use the term “power grab” because it fits quite well.

You said one of the big reasons you started this site to hear from people who disagreed with you. Well, you’re hearing it. Can’t take the criticism? Then you’re in for a rough ride as a lobbyist who literally wants to change the entire world. The people you’ll be up against in Washington (not to mention all the other countries on the planet) will be far less civil than we are here. See famous saying about heat and kitchens…

[Janessa Ravenwood]

Correction: "Just because you want to change the world does NOT mean the world wants to be changed by you, which is a critical point I think you’re missing."

[Janessa Ravenwood]

I tend to agree with the CRN because politically they are just a bit to the left (But perhaps they might not agree with that characterization.) of folks like Glenn Reynolds or the Extropians. I'll be frank. Sometimes it appears to me that the techno-libertarian mindset is just a little too smug. I think the CRN gives a healthy dose of skepticism.
-----
Interesting – I have the opposite take. To me, CRN is so far to the left (advocating the creation of a supremely powerful transnational entity) that I think we techno-libertarians are providing a healthy dose of skepticism to THEIR utopian proposals. Oh well, “utopia” has always been a very subjective term. This is ultimately a very political issue, so one’s personal political views will always color their perceptions of the positions in the debate. Again, personally I see the lefty statists as the smug ones who think they have all the answers that they have to share with those of us on the right who just need to be enlightened as to the “correct” way of thinking. I’m guessing from the above that you lean a bit to the left and so I would imagine probably have the opposite view. Though of course, it can be reasonably said that pomposity and smugness can be found in considerable amounts on either end of the political spectrum. Neither side can claim sainthood here.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It's like gun control in the States."

Actually, I agree. CRN's plan IS a great deal like gun control. Of course, keep in mind that I'm a life member of the NRA...

[Mr. Farlops]

Jenessa,

I think we use different spectrums in judging political wings.

Regardless, I don't think the CRN is advocating anything remotely like bloated bureaucracy and rigid totalitarian control. Their positions, simplified, are:

• Obviously bans won't work.
  
• We accept and advocate the Foresight Guidelines as our central guiding principles.
  
• Most MNT advocates accept that some regulation is necessary.
  
• Let's work out the gritty details--something concrete we can actually propose to functionaries in DC, the Hague, the NGOs or the press.
  
• Here are some of our ideas. They are works in progress. What do you think?
  
• We are always open to suggestions.
  

From what I've read of their position papers, at no point do they advocate something like an armed guard in front of a photocopying machine--or smart dust keystroke loggers with tempest to see that your are using your nanofactory in a moral and healthy way.

So far if anything they've been pretty vague (Unavoidable, because we can only guess what's going to happen.), my complaint would be that they should be more concrete.

[Mr. Farlops]

Oh, and by the way, I don't believe in utopia. Even in a world full of artificial life a and synthetic sapiences, there will be problems. That's what makes the world interesting. Heaven is boring. That's why I don't belive in it.

The moment someone says something like, "and when the singularity happens (the state withers away, the market is finally free of pointy headed bureaucrats, etc. etc.) everything will be fine." My bogometer gets pegged. We all know the slashdot cliche:

1. The Internet
2. ???? [A miracle occurs.]
3. Profit!!!

We need to be more explict in step two.

[Janessa Ravenwood]

Ah yes..."The Underpants Gnomes Dilemma"...is it drafty in here? Will get back to you later on this evening or this weekend on specific points of technological control (that are stated on the CRN website) and unavoidable aspects of internationalization of administration.

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

Janessa, I do see a difference between control of a particular technology, even a very important one, and World Government. America has several technologies already which are crucial to our lifestyle. These technologies are controlled. Does that make the American Medical Association a government? Obviously not.

It's hard to know where to draw the line between "some restrictions" and "too many restrictions." Obviously we draw it in different places. But it sounds like we can agree that a line needs to be drawn: that no-restrictions is a bad idea.

Where to draw the line--how much control to retain--is a different question. Maybe our scheme of built-in technical restrictions is not a good one. You are projecting consequences of it that are certainly bad. But those consequences are your projection, not our goal. That is the distinction that gets lost in your posts. It's like if I said, "America requires more electricity" and you said, "Oh, so you want to build more dirty coal plants!"

I say, "This technology must have limits that are not easy to break." You say, "Oh, so you want to create a world government!" That is untrue.

It is arguable whether our proposal will inevitably lead to a world government. You think it will. I don't. As long as we disagree on this point, your saying that I want a world government is inaccurate, unproductive, and undeserved. That--and not the disagreement--is why I used the word "troll."

I also disagree that our proposal is "Big Brother to the max." It's easy to come up with more big-brother-ish proposals than ours. We didn't propose them. Why not? Could it be that we are not actually trying to minimize freedom? Could it be that our underlying goals are the same as yours? We'll never know until you can talk about our actual goals, rather than your incorrect projections of them.

We do want productive discussion. We do want criticism. We do not want people saying untrue things about our motivations. That is not a good foundation for discussion. When you get that distinction, maybe we can have a productive conversation. I'd like that.

For example, you said you could live with some restrictions on your nanofac. What kind of restrictions could you live with?

Chris

[Mike Deering]

We all agree on what we don't want nanofacs to produce, WMD's. We all agree on what we want nanofacs to be able to produce, food, housing, vehicles, and toys. There are two options for achieving this end. Either nanofacs automatically self screen for WMD's, or the government approves each use. Automatic screening is not perfect, can never be perfect. Government screening is not safe from government abuse, can never be safe. So we have two no-win situations. Are we doomed to annihilation shortly after nanotechnology exists? No, I think we can delay it a while if we are extremely careful, intelligent, and lucky.