Responsible Nanotechnology

Statistical Death

If you consider it rude to reduce human suffering to cold statistics, you don't have to. Turn away now.

That's how historian/librarian Matthew White introduces his "Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Man-made Megadeaths of the Twentieth Century." It's a shocking, scrupulously researched, indispensable information source.

Blogger Sean Carroll, a physicist at the University of Chicago, summarizes White's list in an entry titled "A million is a statistic." He says:

Our emotions simply lack the dynamic range to really appreciate what it means to have over a million people -- the population of Detroit, Michigan -- be killed by their fellow humans.

Here is a list of the human-initiated events of the twentieth century that left over one million people dead. Wars, genocides, and famines are all lumped together, for what it's worth. . . Talking about such a subject is difficult, because it immediately veers off into quibbling about the numbers and pointless comparisons about whose tragedy is worse or more shamefully neglected. All of these events are unique and horrible, and the reason they are worth remembering is to prevent their like from ever happening again.

After listing 24 man-made million-death events, Carroll adds, "I suppose there is some comfort in the fact that the total number of deaths was lower in the second half of the century than in the first. Not much."

We agree. It's not insignificant that we have avoided world war for the last sixty years. Good for us.

But this is no time for feeling complacent. Factors are emerging -- and merging -- that potentially could lead to a new level of geopolitical instability, global war, and many more millions of dead human beings.

Molecular manufacturing, made possible by advanced nanotechnology, is a leading cause for worry in addition to being a source of many potential benefits. How we manage this transformative technology will determine whether the 21st century claims even more lives than the 20th.

By the way, White's "Megadeaths" list is part of his amazing Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century, an online compendium in which it's easy to lose oneself for hours.

Mike Treder

Nano Jobs

Nano Jobs -- Does that refer to employment in the field of nanotechnologies? Or does it mean that the number of available jobs is really really small?

We're not sure, but we hear these questions all the time. Recently, a user called 'Emshon' started a new discussion page at Wise-Nano that asks:

So, you've spent years working in software. It's not as fast paced and interesting as you'd hoped. You're willing to go back to school if necessary. How do you find a job in nano? Or one advancing the nano "cause"? What skills should you develop? Should you obtain a degree? In what? Physics? Chemistry? Materials science? How do you get started?

The best source we know for employment opportunities in nanotech is TinyTech Jobs. For educational opportunities, Small Times recently published a ranking of U.S. university nano programs.

If you have other thoughts on the subject, please go here. And good luck to everyone in finding a job that makes a difference!

The Universe

Not Necessarily Relevant Quote of the Week:

The man who doesn't know what the universe is doesn't know where he lives.

— Marcus Aurelius

Privacy and Security

Privacy and security are on a collision course. Your desire to be kept safe will soon collide with your wish to be left alone.

This warning is often heard. But is it true?

ITEM: A new generation of software developed for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is intended to "unravel the complex web of relationships between people, places, and events," by tracking and analyzing "emails, Web pages, financial transactions, and other documents." Under the U.S. "Patriot Act," federal agencies participating in terrorism prevention can monitor computer networks, wiretap phones, and scour public records and private financial transactions.

ITEM: A network of 1,000 cameras, 4,000 vehicles, twelve patrol boats, nine helicopters, four mobile command centers, and a blimp were put in force as security at the 2004 Olympics in Greece.

ITEM: In England, four million government cameras keep constant watch over public places, making Brits the most photographed people in the world.

A "police state characterised by omniscient surveillance and mechanical law enforcement," is what we may be headed for, cautions Charlie Stross.

It all sounds ominous, if not downright oppressive. However, some pundits envision using the same technology to turn tables on the watchers.

Soon -- probably within the next decade, certainly within the next two -- we'll be living in a world where what we see, what we hear, what we experience will be recorded wherever we go. There will be few statements or scenes that will go unnoticed, or unremembered. Our day to day lives will be archived and saved. What’s more, these archives will be available over the net for recollection, analysis, even sharing.

And we will be doing it to ourselves.

This won't simply be a world of a single, governmental Big Brother watching over your shoulder, nor will it be a world of a handful of corporate siblings training their ever-vigilant security cameras and tags on you. Such monitoring may well exist, probably will, in fact, but it will be overwhelmed by the millions of cameras and recorders in the hands of millions of Little Brothers and Little Sisters. We will carry with us the tools of our own transparency, and many, perhaps most, will do so willingly, even happily.

That's Jamais Cascio of WorldChanging, describing what he calls the "Participatory Panopticon."

...constant surveillance is done by the citizens themselves, and is done by choice. It's not imposed on us by a malevolent bureaucracy or faceless corporations. The participatory panopticon will be the emergent result of myriad independent rational decisions, a bottom-up version of the constantly watched society.

It may have started already.

Millions of people carrying camera cell phones or portable instant messaging devices are being encouraged to share what they see, hear, and think as it happens -- and by Google, no less. Think about that: the owners of the world's largest data storage and retrieval system are gathering audio, video, photos, and text messages from all over. Should we be pleased? Or worried?

We began by saying that privacy and security are on a collision course. Plenty of evidence supports that assertion. However, according to transparency advocate David Brin, "the widely held belief in a tradeoff between security and freedom" is not only a faulty assumption, but also "dismal and loathsome."

Brin claims it is not true that "there is a basic, zero-sum tradeoff between safety and freedom," or that "we can only augment one by diminishing the other." On the contrary, he points to "the value -- and empowerment -- of common citizens in an age of danger."

Rather than diminishing the role of the individual, advances in technology seem to be rapidly empowering average citizens, even as professional cynics forecast freedom's demise.

Brin's basic message seems to be that we are not required to choose between freedom and security; that, in fact, history shows us that the most open or "transparent" societies -- those with the least emphasis on secrecy and control -- also are the safest.

Whether you agree or disagree, this is an important discussion to have. We live in a time of extremely rapid, accelerating change. Understanding the implications of our new technological abilities, as well as regulations that might be proposed to manage them, is critical.

Mike Treder

Applications for Warfare

I was about to apologize for posting another entry here about nano-warfare. But the truth is I'm pleased that the topic is coming up so frequently.

An unstable arms race fueled by molecular manufacturing is the single most dangerous threat to the world in the coming decades. It's a good sign that CRN is not alone in beginning to recognize this.

"Nanotechnology in Military Applications" [PDF] is the title of Neil Gordon’s presentation last month at the Defence Research and Development Canada Symposium. He does a great job of describing the significance of various nanotechnologies in facilitating "the creation of both EVOLUTIONARY and DISRUPTIVE innovation" (his emphasis).

Gordon mentions the potential for nanotech to "systematically organize and manipulate matter from the bottom up and control every atom" -- which means molecular manufacturing -- but he does not focus on this capability in his presentation. Like Charles Choi a few days ago, he doesn't need to accentuate MM, because the impacts of less revolutionary nanoscale technologies still could be substantial, and deadly.

If nations begin competitive development of nanotechnology applications for military use, it's a very short step from there to an MM arms race that could spiral rapidly out of control.

So, yes, we will keep bringing this up. If we did not, after all we've learned through our research and analysis, then CRN could not be regarded as a source of responsible nanotechnology information.

Mike Treder

Search for Sobriety

OK, I think I should explain about the odd little poem I posted here a few days ago. One person told me when he first saw it, he thought our blog had been hacker-hijacked. Another reader asked if I was high when I posted it!

The answer to both questions is no. I did post the poem, and I wasn't high (except on life).

What I hoped was that it would present an impressionistic analogy of our current situation as we stand on the brink of a nano arms race. If the Powers That Be (not just in the U.S., but everywhere) are so bent on superiority, domination, and military prowess that they can't see how close we are to disaster, they must be drunk, at least metaphorically.

This would be a good time for those leaders -- and all of us -- to sit down, be still, and listen to the better angels of our nature. Otherwise, we risk stepping off the edge of the roof.

Mike Treder

One Minute Late

Is it better to get to the aiport an hour or two sooner than your flight leaves, or one minute too late?

Is it better to be prepared for exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing five years or ten years before it is developed, or six months too late?

Getting to the airport earlier than necessary means you have to sit around and wait. Getting to the gate even 30 seconds too late means you have to wait for the next flight...if there is one.

Preparing responsible policy to effectively deal with the implications of advanced nanotechnology a few years before it arrives means we have more time to improve the policy. Waiting even one month too long and allowing runaway effects to get started could mean disaster.

How much do we have to do to prepare?

First, all of the risks have to be well understood. Then we need to work out a series of plans for dealing with each risk -- a task made much harder by the fact that measures to reduce one risk may increase another. Then all this information has to be presented, convincingly, to the people who make the policy. There are a lot of them, in many different organizations. Then systems have to be designed to administer the policy. Then the systems have to be implemented.

Each of these steps will take time. And this isn't a complete list. Technological safety measures will have to be carefully invented and developed. Public opinion, and then public support, will be necessary at several stages. Nations must learn to cooperate in ways that have not yet been tried.

How long will all this take to complete? A conservative estimate would be twenty years. A rush program might be able to get it done in ten years.

Because our analyses show that molecular manufacturing almost certainly will be developed within the next twenty years, and perhaps in less than ten, we'd better get started right away. We can't afford to miss this flight.

Mike Treder

World War When?

Nano could lead to new WMDs

Does that sound like one of CRN's warnings? Not this time. It's Charles Choi writing for UPI, interviewing scientists from the University of Mexico and the University of California.

The scary thing is that they aren't focusing on advanced nanotechnology -- destructive new devices produced in mass quantity with molecular manufacturing -- because they don't have to. They make a convincing point just talking about improved (is that the right word?) chemical and biological weapons.

Cutting edge technologies are nearly always driven by development of military applications. Nanotechnology is not likely to be an exception.

But the perils of a new arms buildup must not be put aside. Factors introduced by molecular manufacturing -- such as rapid innovation and prototyping, low-cost in-field mass production, automated weapons guided by integrated supercomputers, and decreased economic interpendence between nations -- will make the next arms race inherently unstable.

Already we're hearing sabers rattle and drums beat with the proposed weaponization of space. From there, it's a short step to military use of molecular machine systems with exponential manufacturing potential -- and at that point we're right on the edge of a very steep cliff.

Mike Treder

Education Choices

What should I study if I want a career in nanotechnology?
Which universities offer the best educational and research opportunities?

Frequently we are asked these questions, or something similar.

Answers are now available from Small Times magazine. Or, at least, some answers.

If you want to know which U.S. universities rank highest in categories such as research programs, industry outreach, courses and facilities offered, and so on, this is a good place to start. If, that is, you are planning to study in the United States.

For those of you in other countries, no educational institutions were consulted or ranked. That's too bad, because in the very same issue of the magazine, you can read several articles about the globalization of technology and its impacts. Perhaps Small Times will follow up this U.S.-centric guide with one for the other 95% of the world.

To be fair, the magazine did publish short articles highlighting educational programs in Singapore and Switzerland. So, now there are only about 190 nations left to cover.

Oh, and one more thing. Everything described in the article falls into what we call "nanoscale technologies" -- not molecular manufacturing, the most promising and transformative field of nanotechnology.

As time goes by and continued progress is made, this will change. When it does, and universities in the United States and around the world are ready to study this vital subject, we have some suggestions for where to begin.

We only hope that by then it's not too late.

Mike Treder

Space Weapons Race?

After a long period of detente between the United States, Russia, and China, things may be heating up again.

A national-security directive that could move the U.S. closer to fielding offensive and defensive space weapons has been requested by the Air Force from President Bush, according to a report last week in the New York Times...

The proposed change would be a substantial shift in American policy. It would almost certainly be opposed by many American allies and potential enemies, who have said it may create an arms race in space.

Sure enough, reaction came quickly. From Moscow News...

Russia would consider using force if the U.S. put a combat weapon into space, a senior Russian official in Washington has said.

China will not sit back and watch either. Experts say the Chinese first will seek an agreement to ban space weaponization. If that fails, they likely would respond with countermeasures aimed at neutralizing any perceived threat.

Almost immediately, a scientists group warned against weaponizing space, saying it could set off a new arms race...

The Union of Concerned Scientists said the United Nations should consider drafting a treaty that would prohibit interfering with unarmed satellites, taking away any justification for putting weapons in space to protect them.

An arms race in space appears to be a real possibility.

Regarding U.S. deployment of offensive and defensive space weapons, supporters argue that it's going to happen anyway, so...

"The critical question we must ask is not whether the United States should be the first to weaponize space, or if space weaponization is inevitable, but rather can the United States afford to be the second state to weaponize space?'' asked Everett Dolman, a professor at the Air Force School of Advanced Air and Space Studies at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama.

While opponents warn...

"If the United States chooses to go the route of space dominance, other countries will look at ways to make sure it doesn't happen, and we'll be back in another arms race,'' said Mike Moore, contributing editor of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

To complicate matters...

India has announced that it will test-fire its longest range (3,000 kilometers) surface-to-surface missile, Agni III, capable of delivering nuclear payloads, by the end of the year. This range effectively covers China and Pakistan, unlike the earlier two versions. The development of India's missile program is a contravention of missile control and test-ban treaties, which India opposes as being biased toward major powers.

Long-range missiles carrying nuclear warheads is only one part of India's ambitious plans. Their unmanned satellite launch program also is moving ahead rapidly. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh says they seek to affirm "the emergence of India as a major space power."

Last year, President A. P. J. Abdul Kalam called for India to develop nanotechnology -- including nanobots -- because it will revolutionize warfare. In a speech to his military research scientists, Kalam asserted that "this would revolutionise the total concepts of future warfare" and reportedly "asked the country's scientists to make a breakthrough."

Nations racing to weaponize space, combined with the potential for competing programs to develop nano-weaponry, is clearly a formula for disaster.

The international treaty on space warfare put forward by the Union of Concerned Scientists is a good idea. But it's not enough.

Now more than ever, all nations with the intention or the interest to develop exponential manufacturing with nanotechnology must come together to form a collective, non-competitive program of development. It may be the only hope we have for a safe and survivable future.

Mike Treder