Responsible Nanotechnology

Security Council

The United Nations Security Council currently consists of 15 member states. Five are permanent, with veto power. The rest are elected for two-year terms.

Current permanent seats (with veto power):
United States
United Kingdom
Russia
France
China

The basic composition of the Security Council has remained the same for decades. However, all this may be about to change.

Proposed additional permanent seats (without veto power):
Germany
Brazil
Japan
India

The four nations above are working together to support each other in obtaining permanent seats; however, they face substantial opposition from Italy, Pakistan, Singapore, and others. The four nations say they also may support the membership of an as-yet-unnamed African nation. Meanwhile, the Netherlands has proposed eliminating the separate seats held by France and the UK and replacing them with one seat representing the EU, and also giving Japan a permanent seat.

Some nations and analysts propose expansion of the Council to 20 or 25 nations. Opponents claim that will be unwieldy. Others say that too much focus on Security Council makeup diverts focus from other needed reforms of UN organization.

This debate has been going on for at least 11 years. Some hope that next year, on the 60th anniversary of the UN, the Security Council composition may be changed. Others are skeptical, saying that not only may nothing change, but even if modifications are made, the practical effectiveness of the Security Council -- and the UN as a whole -- remains in question.

What do you think? Does it matter?

Outside Looking In

These nations -- Brazil, Russia, India, China -- all are anxiously looking for a place at the table: the economic power table currently dominated by the US, Japan, and the European Union. Together these four nations are known, in economist circles, as the BRICs.

According to an article published by Standard Life Investments, "the balance of economic power in the world is set to shift dramatically."

A recent study by Goldman Sachs argued that, over the next 50 years, the G4 nations [US, Japan, the UK and Germany] are expected grow between 1% in Japan and 2.5% in America. Meanwhile, the Brazilian economy could grow at an average of 3.7%, with Russia at 3.3%, China at 4.7% and India at 5.8%.

Developing economies can grow quicker than developed countries due to faster population and productivity growth. They can generate high returns on capital, as labour costs are relatively cheap. They can also exploit existing technologies used in developed economies and their demographic trends are supportive of economic growth. . .

Our analysis concludes that the Brazilian and Russian markets could grow by a real rate of around 7% p.a. in dollar terms, while India and China may achieve close to 10% growth. This means the BRICs' markets could be nearly as large as the G4 stock markets by 2050 and implies an enormous shift in the balance of stock market power.

This market analysis looks ahead 50 years. But what it does not take into account is the economic power that molecular manufacturing may represent. So, will the BRICs get a place at the table? Will nanotechnology tip the balance in their favor, for one or more? How soon might it happen, and how disruptive could the effects be?

Mike Treder

Nanotechnology Change

Nanotechnology has the potential, within the next decade or two, to sharply increase the quality, cleanliness, efficiency, and profitability of manufacturing. It could offer better housing, sanitation, healthcare, nutrition, and educational opportunities. It could allow us to live in closer harmony with our environment, and to adopt truly sustainable -- but rich and fulfilling -- lifestyles. It could enable great strides forward toward equal opportunities for all, everywhere in the world.

It could. But that doesn't mean it will.

In yesterday's post, we mentioned the existing North-South divide, and the concern that emerging technologies will only widen the gap between have and have-not, instead of narrowing it. With all the amazing potential of nanotechnology to offer change, it can't by itself overcome long-standing irrational prejudices.

In many countries, lighter-skinned persons generally receive favorable treatment over darker-skinned persons. This has been going on for centuries, of course, and today remains an unsavory vestige of (primarily) European colonialism.

The effects of both past and present racial discrimination are still visible in public places all around the world. Go to an expensive hotel or a major office building and look around; you'll notice that those in serving occupations are, as a whole, darker-skinned than those being served.

And such pervasive inequities are not limited to "third world" countries. For example, a recent study found that job applicants in the US with "white-sounding names are 50 percent more likely to get called for an initial interview than applicants with African-American-sounding names."

So, who will be the benificiary of all the wonders that molecular manufacturing may offer? Unless we take a hard look at these problems and at ourselves, there's no guarantee that things will get better for the majority of earth's inhabitants...and they might just get worse.

The sad truth is that nanotechnology probably will have no effect at all on changing our attitudes. For that, we'll have to look somewhere else.

Mike Treder

Transformative Power

Is there less resistance to nanotechnology in developing countries? If so, is it likely that molecular manufacturing will be developed first in China, India, Brazil, or even Russia?

This is not an easy question to answer, because resistance to research takes several forms.

First, there is a general public distrust of advanced science and technology, which mostly shows up as less public funding for basic research than scientists would prefer. This is common in both developed and developing countries, although there are exceptions, such as Singapore, and perhaps India.

Second, this general distrust sometimes takes a more specific form as opposition to animal research or as organized resistance to perceived (and often real) ecological threats; this type of response is far more common in the developed world than in developing countries.

Third, in developing countries more than in the developed world, we see resistance to R&D based on concerns about growing economic disparity -- exacerbation of the North-South divide.

Attitudes toward the development of advanced nanotechnology probably will follow along these same lines. The question is, which type of resistance will prove strongest (or, conversely, which will be weakest), and therefore where will the most significant development occur?

It's too early to tell, but -- the transformative power of general-purpose molecular manufacturing makes this a vitally important question. If one nation (or bloc of nations) takes the lead, it could have a significant destabilizing effect on the geopolitical balance of power. That likely will not go smoothly, unless all parties can agree in advance on how to manage such an historic transition, which seems improbable.

Mike Treder

Security Worries

Two scary articles on security came across my desktop recently.

The first, "Home computer land security" from InfoWorld, says that almost 80% of PCs are infected with adware/spyware. This despite the fact that 77% of users felt fairly confident they were safe.

We worry that nanotech-built weapons and spies will have a similar impact -- but in the real world.

It's been argued that people are lax about computer security because it doesn't physically threaten them, and when the threat gets physical, people will develop and use countermeasures. Well, the second article is about an existing physical threat.

"Nuclear genie blasts out of the bottle" from Asia Times warns of a nuclear proliferation threat, and asserts that a terrorist nuclear explosion (not just a dirty bomb) will probably happen "sooner rather than later."

So how are we dealing with it? Noting that Bush and Kerry agree that the threat exists, the author warns, "Bush's and Kerry's one and only time-worn prescription for how to keep nukes away from terrorists was enforcement of a strict non-proliferation regime. But that hasn't worked particularly well in the past and will prove even less efficient in the future." The article focuses on the possibility of nuclear bombs being built by rogue actors -- not purchased or stolen from semi-legit owners through lax security, which is another possible avenue.

CRN does not advocate strict non-proliferation of molecular manufacturing technology; we advocate flooding the market with moderately-restricted nanofactories to reduce the incentive for proliferation of unrestricted ones. But this cannot be a complete solution. No one has a complete solution yet.

I'll close with a note of hope. In Bryan Bruns's excellent talk at the Foresight Conference, he mentioned that when a nation's economic situation improves, its government -- even if it started out repressive -- seems to go through a positive transition. He just mentioned it in passing, and I don't remember the examples he listed. But assuming this works in general, it's another reason for handing out nanofactories once they're developed (and maybe a reason for developing them early): if used right, they could greatly improve any nation's economy and the welfare of its people.

Chris

Foresight Conference Reporting

It's a catch-22: I was at the Foresight conference, which meant that I was mostly away from email for a week, which meant that I had to spend two days (mostly) catching up, which meant that I couldn't write about the Foresight conference.

Ronald Bailey over at Reason Magazine did a nice write-up of the conference. He spent several paragraphs on my talks, reporting my position pretty accurately (and disagreeing about high prices -- but I still think I'm right since prices today are far above costs on some items, and I see a strong possibility of policy limiting competition).

Adam Keiper blogged the whole thing. He says he wrote 12,000 words. He has individual posts for most of the talks. I haven't read them all, but the ones I have read were pretty informative. For example, he links to the abstracts for each talk. He also has video interviews with several of the speakers.

Adam's posts on my talks (which were well received) are here: clean molecular manufacturing and top ten impacts of molecular manufacturing.

CRN was mentioned -- favorably -- in several of the talks. Gary Marchant gave us credit for helping on his project, and encouraged anyone with students to get in contact with us.

It was good to see a conference focused on the implications of molecular manufacturing, rather than just nanoscale technology. Kudos to the Foresight Institute for having the guts to do this.

Chris Phoenix

Internet Scout Project

We've been scouted!

Dear Wise-Nano administrators,

As the managing editor of the Internet Scout Project I am pleased to notify you that your site was reviewed and reported on in the current edition of the NSDL Scout Report for Math, Engineering and Technology.

Our weekly reports are read by tens of thousands of subscribers (and passed along to tens of thousands more) and seek to separate the proverbial "wheat from the chaff" when it comes to the innumerable resources available on the Web. Your site was found to be one of great quality and merit.

Congratulations on providing such a great Web resource!

Warm regards,

Managing Editor
The Internet Scout Project
University of Wisconsin – Madison

This recognition refers specifically to CRN's Wise-Nano project. We deeply appreciate the notice and hope that it will help bring many new participants to our collaborative research effort. Thanks, folks!

Defining Democracy

Here's another important thing to think about -- how do you define democracy?

Webster's Dictionary says it's: "Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people."

Of course, in most cases, the actual application is more like their second definition: "Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic."

Wikipedia says democracy is "a form of government under which the power to alter the basic laws and forms of government lies with the voting citizenry, referred to as 'the people', and all decisions are made by representatives who act by their consent, as enforced by elections and the rule of law. In some cases, democracy is associated with nominal monarchy where the monarch has sharply limited powers, but it is more commonly associated with a republic."

Okay, all that sounds pretty good, right? But here's the problem -- democracy is one of those words widely used by people all around the world, many with broadly divergent aims, interests, and values. Even in the US, or Canada, or Europe, democracy can mean very different things, depending on who is saying it and in what context.

And what does all this have to do with nanotechnology and CRN? Well, when the time comes to sit down at the table and discuss how we might effectively and responsibly manage exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing, there are going to be plenty of people with deeply felt needs. They're all going to want to protect their interests, and nearly all will advocate democratic solutions -- because by their definition, democracy will help them get what they want.

But whose form of democracy will hold sway? Will it be the social democracy so prevalent in Europe and South America? Will it be the classical liberal democracy of the United States? Perhaps a type of "people's democracy", as espoused by the Chinese government? Or something else altogether?

Mike Treder

Energy and Nanotechnology

In his stimulating New Yorker article titled "Green Manhattan" (October 18 issue), David Owen quotes from Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil, by David Goodstein, professor at the California Institute of Technology -- "Civilization as we know it will come to an end sometime in this century unless we can find a way to live without fossil fuels."

Diamondoid molecular manufacturing may provide a large part of the solution, if it is developed soon enough. This is from the Benefits page on CRN's main website:

The main source of power today is the burning of carbon-containing fuels. This is generally inefficient, frequently non-renewable, and dumps carbon dioxide and other waste products (including radioactive substances from coal) into the atmosphere.

Solar energy would be feasible in most areas of the globe if manufacturing and land were sufficiently cheap and energy storage were sufficiently effective. Solar electricity generation depends on either photovoltaic conversion, or concentrating direct sunlight. The former works, although with reduced efficiency, on cloudy days; the latter can be accomplished without semiconductors. In either case, not much material is required, and mechanical designs can be made simple and fairly easy to maintain.

Sun-tracking designs can benefit from cheap computers and compact actuators. Energy can be stored efficiently for several days in relatively large flywheels built of thin diamond and weighted with water. Smaller energy storage systems can be built with diamond springs, providing a power density similar to chemical fuel storage and much higher than today's batteries. Water electrolysis and recombination provide scalable, storable, transportable energy. However, there is some cost in efficiency and in complexity of technology to deal safely with large-scale hydrogen storage or transportation.

Solar solutions can be implemented on an individual, village, or national scale. The energy of direct sunlight is approximately 1 kW per square meter. Dividing that by 10 to account for nighttime, cloudy days, and system inefficiencies, present-day United States power demands (about 10 kW per person) would require about 100 square meters of collector surface per person. Multiplying this figure by a population of 325 million (estimated by the US Census Bureau for 2020) yields a requirement for approximately 12,500 square miles of area to be covered with solar collectors. This represents 0.35% of total US land surface area. Much of this could be implemented on rooftops, and conceivably even on road surfaces.

So along with the need to develop advanced nanotechnology for humanitarian purposes, medical advances, and environmental remediation, we also must hope it can be done soon enough to prevent the end of "civilization as we know it". Oh, and by the way, we've got to figure out how to manage it in a way that prevents a disastrous arms race, economic upheaval, anarchy, or oppression.

Whew, it looks like we've got our hands full. All of us.

Mike Treder

Technology Integration

In the most recent Harrow Technology Report, Jeff Harrow reports on "the issues and types of solutions that might be considered to address cell phone abuse, both now and in the future." He writes:

I believe that the most important thing we can learn from today's issues is that technology will continue to dramatically affect how people interact with one another. As with virtually every advance throughout history (consider the changes that had to take place after the introduction of stone knives, pistols, bombs, etc.), we have to learn to define and accept the needed changes, and integrate them into society.

Given the exponential growth of technology, and the accelerating RATE of such growth(!), let's be sure that we pay as much attention to the societal impacts of the technologies we unleash, as we do to the technologies themselves.

We couldn't agree more.

Mike Treder