Guns or Butter?

In governance and politics, the familiar dilemma between spending more on defense or more on domestic programs is often referred to as "guns or butter".

I'm reminded of this expression in reading New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman's call for "a crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation to make America energy-independent in 10 years."

Friedman lambastes the US Congress for reducing funding to the National Science Foundation at a time when "the cold war generation of American scientists is not being fully replenished." He says:

America is facing a mounting crisis in science and engineering education. . . If we Americans don't do something soon and dramatic to reverse this "erosion", Shirley Ann Jackson, the president of Rensselaer Polytechnic and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, told me, we are not going to have the scientific foundation to sustain our high standard of living in 15 or 20 years.

This echoes CRN's concerns about the looming Peak Oil crisis, which we assert is a strong reason to quickly develop exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing.

That's the butter: energy independence. But what about the guns?

Nothing comes without a cost. The same technology powerful enough to provide cheap energy -- along with medical miracles, easy access to space, and other benefits -- also will be powerful enough to create nearly unlimited numbers of weapons of mass destruction. These weapons will be more dangerous than anything we have today, and, unless something is done, they also will be much more accessible to people with bad intentions.

CRN is not alone in these concerns. We were pleased to read a recent commentary from Doug Parr, the Chief Scientist at Greenpeace, in which he warns about a nano arms race:

For Greenpeace, nanotechnology has the potential to generate cheaper renewable energy, stronger, lighter materials and other environmental benefits. But it could also lead to new, insidious forms of pollution, greater use of fossil fuels and a new nanotechnology military arms race. The debate is about how this technology is applied, and for whose benefits, and with what risks.

So, guns or butter? Energy or WMDs? Nanotechnology can provide both. Which comes first is up to us.

Mike Treder

Comments

[Michael Vassar]

I see a large number of possibilities for replacing oil over a roughly 30 year period without MNT. A very partial list include direct solar energy Hydrogen http://www.techreview.com/articles/04/12/rnb_120604.asp, Nuclear waste heat + electrolysis for 50% efficient Hydrogen production (probably supplemented with wind power), nuclear electricity + ordinary nanotech batteries in plug-in hybrids, thermal depolymerization to make oil from almost any organic energy source, shale oil, traditional coal liquification and gassification, natural gas from methane clathrates, hydrogen reforming fuel-cell powered vehicles, nanomaterials-based flywheels, long-range pure electric vehicles based on aluminum batteries, etc. Even old fashioned energy efficiency would go pretty far (more public transit, fewer SUVs, more diesel engines, better streamlining), and could be driven by a simple Europe style gas tax and by mass-transit deregulation.
I recommend my nano-energy page http://wise-nano.org/w/Nanoscale_technology_energy_products. www.futurepundit.com, and http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/
also have good regular discussions of this.
In short, while nanotechnology is a given, ordinary technological development will provide the nanotechnologies we need for energy independence. MNT may come prior to energy independence, but that's a different issue.
As for the guns or butter issue, the idea of "guns or butter" suggests a trade-off, but MNT is very much about guns AND butter. There really isn't much of a choice as to whether energy or weapons come first from MNT. Energy comes first because it requires less design, although distribution could concievably be faster for weapons, especially if MNT was developed by a military and restricted. Actually, novel nanoweapons will require a lot of design compared to nano-versions of old weapons, so the latter is probably more of a short-term threat.

[John B]

Quoting Mike, "These weapons will be more dangerous than anything we have today, and, unless something is done, they also will be much more accessible to people with bad intentions."

Mike, why're you trying scare tactics here? "will"? How do you know what they "will" be?

I admit, they COULD be many times uglier than nukes, and many times harder to detect in either production or even use, but 'will' is a bit tough to swallow right off the bat.

Nitpick, but perhaps an important one.

-JB

[Janessa Ravenwood]

John: Well, that is pretty much CRN's MO - try to scare people into going along with their plan to create this global administrative body that will rule us all. Nothing really new with the scare tactics. I pretty much tune it out at this point and just focus on the more interesting posts.

[Mike Treder, CRN]

John and Janessa,

I used the word "will" because those weapons will be more dangerous than anything we have today. It's not intended as hyperbole nor as a scare tactic, but as a statement of fact.

[Tom Craver]

JohnB - I think Mike and Chris have been pretty clear on how nanoweapons *will* be more dangerous - assuming only that molecular manufacturing will be possible and capable of assembling just about anything atom by atom.

Nuclear weapon use is constrained by the scarcity of radioactive materials, expertise required (at present) to assemble them, their indiscriminate killing/destruction, and the danger that in using them you will destroy yourself via fall-out, or enemy retaliation.

Molecular manufacturing required to make them, should allow creation of world-devestating nanoweapons that get around all of those "problems" - making them easier to acquire or make, easier to use, precisely and fully achieving the destruction one desires, etc. That makes them much more dangerous. Maybe we'll find defenses that neutralize that danger - but that doesn't change the level danger, especially in the chaotic transitional era where no one is quite sure just how capable anyone else's nanotech is, and the tendency will be to err on the side of assuming the enemy may be farther along than oneself.

So it's not just scare tactics motivated by a desire to push a "one world government" - if anything, it's the other way around, that they are having a hard time finding any sustainable world system in which multiple governments have nanotech. A pessimist would say that they're right - and eventually we'll have exactly one government (by force) or no government (due to global destruction). I'm optimistic enough to keep looking for a 3rd alternative, and I'm not quite as convinced as they are that full, mature nanotech in individual hands is a certain prescription for global death.

[Matt]

John and Janessa: I second Mide Treder´s opinion, because it is obvious: At the very least, take any one weapon today and re-design it to molecular precision, and it will be more effective than today, thus more dangerous. That´s true for knives as well as ICBMs as well as anything in between.

Then consider weapons that only exist in science-fiction today and consider if it is possible to produce them with tomorrow´s capabilities. You might find that a lot of these are a lot more plausible then. If you believe in a theoretically unlimited life span, you also have to believe in practically unlimited destruction capability.

[Janessa Ravenwood]

I'm not saying devasting weapons won't be possible, I'm saying that CRN "advertises" them in the worst possible light as a means of marketing their "product" - this mythical global administration they're so keen on.

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

Janessa, I'm sorry that any mention of supranational government makes you so paranoid. Please remember that before the US existed, there were thirteen incipient nations on this continent. Our "United States" government seems to have done OK.

If you can refrain from posting more slanted and misleading attacks against us for a few minutes, I'll work up a blog article that'll give you something real to talk about.

Chris

[Janessa Ravenwood]

Chris: Take a chill pill. I’m not screaming or swearing, this is old ground. Saying that CRN uses scare tactics is like saying “Hmmm…it might rain in Seattle today.” In other words, nothing out of the ordinary. You said you specifically wanted dissenters here and I believe it’s long established that I am one. This whole thing is just the Gun Control Debate all wrapped up in a new package and you want strict regulations while I want “Shall Issue” licenses (so to speak). You seem surprised to hear me disagreeing with something here or taking issue with your proposed solution to nanotechnology development and use. Looking forward to that article.

[Janessa Ravenwood]

P.S. I believe my reasons for opposing supranational governments are long since established as well. Are you even going to TRY to defend the best-known example of such a beast, the U.N.? Corruption in extremis indeed at that place.

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

Janessa: There's a difference between dissent and attack. Saying that we plan "a global administrative body that will rule us all" is unjustified. Telling me to "Take a chill pill" when I complain is trolling for a flame war. Stop.

Chris

[Janessa Ravenwood]

Chris: I've posted in the past - several times - precisely what my arguments were why such an organization would almost certainly end up with such power. I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm just expressing my honest assessment of such an idea; no matter how many times I look at it I cannot see any other way for that scenario to end up but I also don't think it would come into being in the first place. Why is my saying that such an organization would necessarily rule us all unjustified? Again, in the past I’ve laid out my reasons why in detail. Is this a claim I am not allowed to make here, no matter how much analysis I might back it up with? Please clarify. I repeat, I’m not screaming at you, I’m not swearing at you, I’m not calling you an idiot, but I do disagree with you. Do you count that as an attack? I’m simply describing the situation as logically as I can considering:

A) I firmly believe, having considered the parameters of such a scenario, that such a global nanotech administration would necessarily end up ruling the world in very short order.
B) The formation of a global nanotech organization is what CRN advocates according to their website.
C) Therefore, I see CRN advocating the creation of an organization that would end up ruling the world.

Is it an attack to state that?

[John B]

Considering the breadth of international contracts, law, treaties, etc, we're effectively living under a 'global administrative body' as is. *shrug*

However, back to my point: Apparently you (Mike & Chris) have discounted the fear backlash against nanotech as a social force to be reckoned with. It is quite possible, IMO, that fear of a technology could generate just the social impetus required to misuse it into one of several 'worst case' scenarios. Developed in secret for military use only in a single nation/state/corporation and used to gain dominance. Developed as surveillance gear exclusively.

That is - by using negative social pressure, I'm worried you may well be feeding ammo & motivation to one of the best organized, easily-mobilized, and numerous foes of nanotechnology out there, some of whom are commonly belittled here as 'luddites'. I mean the various conservative religious organizations.

"Our parents got by fine without it - we'll do just fine too" seems a likely response when such scary 'news' comes across.

I'm not belittling your scholarship on the dangers of nanotech, Mike & Chris. Far from it - I'm merely suggesting a different tack might be appropriate, given the sociopolitical environment we live in.

Take it or not, there's my 2c.
-John B

[Mike Treder, CRN]

John B,

From a parochial perspective, I agree that religious conservative backlash against technology is a concern. But that's primarily a U.S. phenomenon; it exists to a far less extent in Europe and South America, and is almost nonexistent in Asia, where progress in emerging technologies seems to be leaping forward.

Many readers of this blog and visitors to our main website are not Americans. CRN is not a U.S.-centric organization. We are concerned with responsible development and wise use of advanced nanotechnology wherever it may occur... which increasingly seems to be somewhere outside the United States.

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

Janessa: You wrote "... try to scare people into going along with their plan to create this global administrative body that will rule us all."

That sentence is ambiguous. I read it--several times--as saying that the rule over all was part of our plan. I see now that it can also be read as saying the rule over all is an inescapable but unintended side effect of our plan. If that's how you intended it, then I'll accept that you weren't consciously intending to attack us. But I'll ask you to re-read your post with an eye to loaded, slanted, or extreme phrasing and language: "MO" "rule us all" "scare tactics" "going along with their plan" and the compact charged phrasing that doesn't give people time to think about the logic. If you really didn't intend to use a demagogic rabble-rousing style, stop and think about the possibility that you did it unintentionally--is that who you want to be?

Chris

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

John, I'd be more concerned about environmental groups than religious groups, even in the U.S. It'd be hard to explain in religious terms why nanotech is bad--and those who recognize its implications will also recognize its power, and perhaps want it. From a cynical point of view--and keep in mind that I'm talking about only a small subset of religions--stem cell research will make people happier and better off, while nanotech could easily make people less happy and give more license to various control freaks; so stem cell research threatens them, and nanotech could be good for them.

I agree that blind opposition to nanotech will only drive it into other countries. And it does seem likely that it could be developed first in a non-democratic country as a result, or developed and used unscrutinized in a democratic country.

I've heard from several sources that Europe is not likely to develop it--because of environmentalist distrust of any powerful technology. On this side of the pond, we have the ETC group, though they seem to be more thoughtful than they were at first.

Also, it'll be a while before people start using nanotech in ways that upset religious people. But nanoscale technologies are already raising legitimate environmental and health concerns. And early business reaction to those concerns has not always been reassuring.

But so far, the health and environment discussion doesn't seem to be sliding off a cliff the way it did with GMOs (regardless of who was right, there was no chance to find out once the shouting started), or being buried the way past problems have been.

As to your concern that we're feeding fear--the topic is scary, and I'm not sure how we could inform people without scaring them. Give it a shot--if you come up with a way to tell people what they need to know without scaring them, we'll use it.

Chris

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

Answer to Janessa, part 2: You ended your last post with "Is it an attack to state that?" and I didn't answer.

No, that post was not an attack. If that had been your first post, I would not have complained at all.

We should shift this thread over to my "Global Adminstration" post. I'll answer you there.

Chris

[John B]

Mike -

Give them the facts. Flat out, the facts. It's part of the charter, after all - educating the populace.

"We can't do nanotech today. However, we can do this and this and this, which indicates that molecular manufacturing is quite likely. These bright folks think it'll happen within 20 years. These other bright folks think sooner, and those ones think later, but the average seems to be around X.

"What this will mean is speculative. Some examples of what we perceive to be likely scenarios involve
-Diamondoid
-carborundumoid/other regular crystalline structure

"What this means is...

If you try to scare people, you'll succeed with some degree of the population, and other parts will dismiss you out of hand. If, instead, you EDUCATE people, (at least theoretically) they should be able to draw the conclusions themselves - the scary ones and the nanotopic dreams of 'post-scarcity'.

If you try to gloss over the threats, agreed, you'll have a similar reaction - some people will be reassured and drop the concept off their cognitive 'radars', and others will poke thru and get twice as worried.

Admittedly, it's a tightrope walk, and in some ways I have fairly thin skin regarding fearmongering - I see too much of it, partially because it works great for blocking market forces, scientific discovery, etc. But it does quite crappily for finding better solutions, instead barring whole realms of options.

*shrug* Still my 2c. Hope it helps, in some way.

-John

[Michael Vassar]

Isn't the WTO, GATT, World Bank, IMF globalization NGO sphere a much more real example of world government than the UN?
They get lots of bad press, and make many mistakes, but don't seem like a corrupt dictator's club.

[John B]

A very brief google found the following:

World Bank: http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/bwi-wto/wbank/2004/0513corrupt.htm

(This World Bank one may be from a somewhat biased web site, but the headline and date appear to be from Reuters)

IMF: http://aaahq.org/northeast/2001/Accepted/bnewman.pdf

I don't have time for in-depth research at this point, but... *shrug*

-John

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

John: As to education vs. fear, the question is what's fact and what's opinion. We don't think we're exaggerating or over-extrapolating. How far should we expect people to draw conclusions? The world hasn't had experience with molecular manufacturing, or the consequential exponential manufacturing and general-purpose manufacturing. It seems better to work through the implications, state our conclusions, and show our work. If we wanted to scare people, we could go into great detail about horrific weapon possibilities. We haven't done this. But if we reach a legitimate scary conclusion, we don't hide it.

Chris

[John B]

Fair enough, and thanks for the clarification.

I agree, it's a tightrope walk between fact and opinion, and while I sometimes have heartburn over some of your chosen steps, I applaud you guys for trying - and am impressed on how few wriggles you have to make to rebalance, to stress the analogy to the breaking point.

-John