Opposing Extremes

CRN's recommended study #29 -- "What policies toward administration of molecular manufacturing does all this suggest?" -- is the most comprehensive of our thirty essential studies. This is in part because it deals with a very important central question, and also because there are so many variables. Intelligent answers will not be found without intensive analysis.

Since study #29 covers such a big topic, we're splitting our review of it over several days. Today we'll look at "Opposing Extremes That Won't Work":

It will be very tempting to choose simplistic extremes of policy, especially if events seem to be leading toward loss of control. But this virtually guarantees failure. Furthermore, extreme policy disasters can't be corrected by further extreme policy; in general, the bad effects will add, not cancel.

Subquestion A: Crash program vs. delay?

Preliminary answer: As discussed in study #30, a crash program without substantial policy planning will lead to a powerful technology we don't know how to handle. But a delay, especially if it's implemented by denying the feasibility of the technology, will also lead to lack of preparedness—and reduced ability to control or predict when someone finally does develop MM.

Subquestion B: Restriction vs. freedom?

Preliminary answer: A policy that is too restrictive will inspire attempts to circumvent it, from within the administration (idealism, high-stakes blackmail or subversion) and from without (cracking restrictions, independent development). This will require intolerable and unsustainable restrictions, and will eventually fuel a black market where one leak spreads unconstrained nanotech beyond hope of containment.

A policy that is too lax will lead to a situation that can't be controlled, a 'state of nature' in which anyone can strike at anyone else unless eternal vigilance is kept. This will create a public outcry for control as well as government insecurity, leading to overly restrictive policy.

It looks like the best approach is wide availability of nanofactories with built-in technical restrictions. The more benefits are freely/widely available, the less pressure for independent development. The widespread use of 'approved' hardware allows all sorts of less-intrusive controls. See our paper on "Safe Utilization of Advanced Nanotechnology".

Subquestion C: Global empire vs. independent states?

Preliminary answer: A declared global empire will be resented, hated, and feared, no matter who is emperor. Preparation for it is likely to tempt preemptive strikes.

Independent states will not be able to coordinate the cross-border policing necessary to prevent cross-border crime and terrorism. Some states will not be able to police themselves adequately. Any state that maintains an uncontrolled nanotech capability will threaten the entire world.

The best solution is probably an international organization, both to administer the molecular manufacturing that has been developed and to prevent possession of dangerously unrestricted versions by illicit actors. This might be modeled on the IAEA, the WHO, or UN peacekeeping forces. Unfortunately, international cooperation is not at its best right now (in mid-2004); such an organization would take time to develop, and some nations (especially, perhaps, the U.S.) may try to sabotage it and go it alone.

Both nanotech problems and nanotech solutions are international. If MM goes wrong, some of its problems may be global in scope. Gray goo and military nanorobots will not respect national borders. Economic collapse of any large nation will shake all the rest. Likewise, MM risk prevention must also be global. Programs and policies for reducing poverty must be international. Administration to detect and prevent rogue MM programs must have global jurisdiction. An accretion of national programs may be able to mitigate some problems and risks, but cannot address all of them. International policies, and international bodies, must be designed and created before molecular manufacturing arrives.

We'll mention again Jim Garrison's "network democracy" as a possible approach. Small groups with specific focus may be both more responsive and less threatening. However, there still has to be some way to apply their recommendations.

Subquestion D: Guardian vs. Commercial vs. Information?

Preliminary answer: As explored in this study's section on "Approaches to Resources", negative-sum, positive-sum, and unlimited-sum situations require very different approaches. Any single approach will be inadequate, and will not only fail but will be destructive in situations that demand a different approach. (See Systems of Survival on "monstrous moral hybrids".) Effective administration will require application of all these approaches, chosen appropriately to address the various kinds of problems, and probably implemented by distinct but coordinated organizations.

Subquestion E: Capitalism vs. socialism?

Preliminary answer: The goal of socialism is to make sure that everyone is provided for adequately by redistributing wealth. Molecular manufacturing will certainly produce enough wealth to make everyone (worldwide) rich by today's standards, and will probably exacerbate imbalances and inequities; this will tempt socialist policy. Socialism is great in theory, but in practice it cripples the main incentives for productivity, innovation, and trade.

The goal of capitalism is to accumulate resources and use them to generate wealth. However, it can lead to destructive imbalances of power such as monopolies. When the cost of production becomes a miniscule fraction of the value to the user, and when manufacturing capital and labor alike lose their value, capitalistic wealth accumulation may cease to provide its customary spinoff of value to the economy and to society.

The best solution may be one inspired by software development. Software is another area where the cost of duplication is far lower than the value of the product. For several decades, commercial software has coexisted with free software; each has benefited from the other, and neither has out-competed the other. Commercial software tends to be more polished, adding value; free software (and its recent cousin, Open Source software) has been an important source of innovation, and is available to people with no money to spend.

Patents or other artificial scarcity applied to the nanofactory could restrict trillions of dollars of economic benefit and comparable social benefit. Since a single general-purpose manufacturing system can make millions of different kinds of products, there is plenty of opportunity for corporations to make money by designing and licensing products, and paying part of that fee to the nanofactory inventors. At the same time, vast benefits could be delivered both to poor users and to the common pool of information by designers who wish to make their designs available for free—but only if nanofactory use for producing free designs is not encumbered by heavy licensing fees. This would allow a single fundamental invention, the nanofactory, to be used in both a commercial context and a non-rivalrous, unlimited-sum context.

The difference between socialism and free sharing of non-rivalrous goods should be carefully noted. Socialism is about redistribution: something must be taken away from its owner in order to give it to someone else. By contrast, increasing the distribution of non-rivalrous goods does not require denying them to anyone. Intellectual property (both patent and copyright) is a legal construct, a right invented and maintained by society and granted for the purpose of benefiting society by stimulating innovation while maximizing distribution. Failing to maintain this artificial scarcity does not take away an inventor's intellectual property, because that property does not exist unless and until society bestows it. Under the current proposal, the inventor of a nanofactory would still become astonishingly rich by extracting whatever licensing fee the market would bear from commercial users. Thus the incentive to innovate would be preserved, while distribution would be better than if the IP were completely commercialized. (See e.g. Lawrence Lessig on upstream vs. downstream patents.)

Tomorrow we will discuss a post-molecular-manufacturing "To Do List".

Our initial basic findings (preliminary answers and provisional conclusions) for all thirty studies should be verified as rapidly as possible. Because our understanding points to a crisis, a parallel process of conducting these studies is strongly preferred.

We are actively seeking researchers who have an interest in performing or assisting with this work. Please contact CRN Research Director Chris Phoenix if you would like more information or if you have comments on the proposed studies.

Comments

[Justin]

"Socialism is great in theory, but in practice it cripples the main incentives for productivity, innovation, and trade."

Socialism is doomed because without the private ownership over the means of production, economic calculations are impossible to make. Socialism can still provide incentives, but its planners cannot know how much to give.

That is not to say errors and judgment do occur under capitalism. Prices can only provide a tool for deciding on means and ends. That would not be possible if not for their origin in private property.

"However, it [capitalism] can lead to destructive imbalances of power such as monopolies." So how does a company become so powerful that it controls the market? In an unhampered market, they do it by satisfying the most consumers, by meeting people's needs better than anyone else.

But in the overwhelming number of times, this is not how monopolies are formed. In most cases, a company is issued protective privileges (guaranteed loans, bailouts, import restrictions, or bans of competition all together, for example). So the solution to prevent monopolies is to keep the government from handing out special favors.

And under capitalism, powers are divided much more evenly. The richest man in America controls less than one-half of one percent of the total wealth. In Eastern Europe, the divide that split the poorest and the richest was deciding who ate and who starved. Today, we ask who drives Mercedes Benz and who drives a used Chevy, and who eats prime ribs and who eats a quarter-pounder?

There can be no compromise, no third way.

[Brett Bellmore]

Socialism is only "great in theory" if you're talking about theories which have been emperically falsified. I suspect I could come up with a design for a perpetual motion machine that's "great in theory", if I'm free to pick a theory that's been proven wrong.

There are ways to distribute nanotech designs which are highly resistant to piracy, though you lose some of the advantages. Such as the "seed" concept, where artifacts are shipped to the customer as small units which construct the full blown product using power and materials supplied by the customer, with design details never existing outside the seed. IP rights can thus be protected enough to fuel innovation without much backing from a legal framework.

[Tom Craver]

"Intellectual property (both patent and copyright) is a legal construct, a right invented and maintained by society and granted for the purpose of benefiting society by stimulating innovation while maximizing distribution. Failing to maintain this artificial scarcity does not take away an inventor's intellectual property, because that property does not exist unless and until society bestows it."

This is not quite true. If I come up with a great invention, I have the right to keep it secret and tell no-one, or only those who agree to pay me a license fee and who agree to keep it secret or face stiff contractual penalities. I.e. my innate property right to my ideas and inventions precedes any government granted property right. What government offers is the power to force others to pay reparations if they use my creation without my permission.

If there were no government grant of monopoly, would society be more harmed or benefited? Generally any intellectual creation that is not kept secret would soon leak out or be re-created by other creators, spreading the benefits to society. But perhaps attempts to keep secrets will cause problems?

Consider new drug distribution - a case where drug companies, having invested large sums in researching and testing a drug, will take extreme measures to retain the secret. Drugs might be administered only by doctors under contact with the company, at prices that keep the drug out of the hands of many. But clients who would pay such a premium will require that the drugs be effective and safe, and likely will demand that the price include insurance against harm caused by the drug. This forces quality assurance on companies - replacing a role (poorly and expensively) performed now by government. Eventually - generally after a drug has proven it's worth - the drug's secrets will leak or be sold to second tier companies, who will begin producing and selling it more broadly and inexpensively. The net result appears to be about a wash in the early days, with significant benefit to poorer people later on.

But would many create intellectual products, without an artificial government increase in potential for financial gain? Would inventors invent, writers write, composers compose?

The answer is obvious: Of course! People already do it all the time. Many would be "amateurs" - creating for enjoyment and status rather than in expectation of financial gain. More difficult creations - complex music, novels, inventions - would be somewhat rarer (and higher quality) and frequently made in the context of employment or contracts with large companies that can arrange profitable distribution - really not that different from what we have today in book and music publishers and high tech corporations.

In short, lack of government enforced intellectual property would likely not be a major problem for society, though it would certainly mean some significant changes.