After pondering my Future Brief essay on "War, Interdependence, and Nanotechnology," blog reader and friend Steve Burgess wrote me with a number of thoughts and questions. The dialogue that ensued is worth posting here, in a slightly edited form.
Steve: The safety in interdependence is a system built on scarcity. If we all need each other, we can’t very well do away with each other. The other side of the equation, however, is that the nationalistic fervor against which interdependence is a bulwark, is itself an outgrowth of scarcity.
Might it not be possible that in a worldwide system of plenty, national borders would not mean as much? Isn’t it likely that, if these riches could be distributed widely, there would be no fuel for the megalomaniacs to stoke, that ethnic and religious tensions would not be able to rise to the level of explosion on a large scale?
Mike: The problem, as usual, is how to get from here to there.
The key phrase above is "if these riches could be distributed widely." If the present distribution of wealth is any indication, it does not seem probable that this will happen naturally.
S: I agree. Distribution is almost always a problem. Otherwise, we wouldn't currently have much in the way of poverty, starvation, and a host of other mortal problems endemic to our globe.
M: I can see at least three major issues.
Issue #1 - How can such distribution be imposed with a minimum of force and conflict?
S: How about by giving it away?
I realize that I'm dreaming a bit here, but suppose enough wealth was generated quickly by smart licensing of early nanofactory technology to pay for nano "missionaries" — like the Peace Corps. If the U.S. government would be resistant, then private Nano Peace Corps volunteers (and hired teachers) could travel all over the world, give solar powered desktop nanofactories away. (For the sake of brevity, let me call them DNFs.)
These DNFs could have a satellite uplink for programming (for making clothes, medical supplies, other DNFs, building materials, and so forth). The villagers, urban dwellers, or other needy people could select products available for their DNFs. To account for illiteracy, products would be selected from pictures on something like scrolling LCD readouts. Certain locals could be trained in their use, and trained to train others in their use. If it looks like some people are trying to gain local power over the population (by controlling the means of production), their DNFs could be deprogrammed via satellite also. This leads to its own ethical questions, of course.
M: Providing free (or nearly free) nanofactories has been a major tenet of CRN's tendered solutions since our founding.
The reasoning behind our proposal, in addition to humanitarian benefits, is to remove the incentive for system hacking and for black markets.
Here's Issue #2 - Is it even ethical to attempt to impose a global system of abundance, superseding national sovereignties?
S: Is it superseding sovereignties to give things away? Is it ethical not to? This is probably a more complex question than my flip answers address, though...
[Steve and I did not pursue this particular question any further, but it's one that needs to be debated seriously.]
M: Okay, Issue #3 - As you said earlier, a society based on lack of scarcity is essentially unprecedented in human history. Even if the basis for it exists in the future, will evolved human psychology be able to make the transition without widespread fighting?
S: I agree that low-cost local (desktop!) manufacturing could lead to economic upheaval. That is absolutely so! And the reason it is so is that all economic systems are built on scarcity.
What we need is a new economic system…one based on plenty. If nanotechnology is controlled and in the hands of the few, I maintain that the odds for catastrophe are much greater than if the benefits can be widely distributed to mankind as a whole.
M: Yes, that is arguably true. But how easy will it be to wrest such unprecedented economic, military, and political power from the "hands of a few" who already control so much today?
S: Again, much of the fighting is due to scarcity. But there surely would be resistance from "those-in-power." It's an important question.
It is said that power flows from the will of the people. One must agree to be governed in order to be governed. This is even true when the choice to be governed or not are more clear cut, as in societies where you do what they say or die. If charitable distribution of DNFs for the manufacturing of neccessities came in under the radar, or through some kind of altruistic black market (like the Underground Railroad of the 1800s), there might be more choice for people in those kinds of societies. In most societies, a very large percentage of the military on the ground comes from people making economic choices between hunger or poverty and being a soldier. What if they gave a war and nobody came?
But to me, the question you raise is a most important one. Historically, those few who have it are the most interested maintaining their wealth and power. But imagine a market of 6 billion relatively wealthy people. An argument could certainly be made at the outset that we're looking at a win-win.
How to allow for the distribution of plenty is one of the most important discussions to be had. It's also one of the biggest attractors about nanotechnology for me. I am thrilled by the technical, medical, aesthetic possibilities of molecular manufacturing. Space habitats! A beanstalk to LEO made of diamondoid fibers! Medical devices swimming through my bloodstream repairing my cells!
Still, what really turns me on is the possibility that mankind could turn a corner here. We have had technological breakthroughs for a million years, and though they sometimes get forgotten, they'll keep happening. But we've never had a widespread society based on anything other than scarcity. It's something new under the sun and should be allowed to happen.
M: I agree with this, and I appreciate your outlook.
S: I think we've established that these are the key questions — How can the tech be distributed, who sez, and what are the ethics of the situation?
The distribution of self-powered desktop manufacturing machines to meet the necessities of life will indeed blow up our current system based on scarcity. But it will also blow up the ability for leaders to manipulate systems to create scarcity, and hence the need for those leaders to act aggressively to contain their competitors.
M: Ah, but will those leaders go peacefully? How can we show them that it is in their best interests to do so?
S: You’re right, this is the conversation that needs to happen. Perhaps looking at the win-win will help those who are interested in wealth to see such widespread plenty as desirable. Those who live for power-for-the-sake-of-power are not likely to be so persuaded.
I believe that it is an internal sense of powerlessness that drives most of those. They can't sense their own internal power and so must have an external indicator to keep score. The external indicator is how many people they can make jump at will. Maybe we can find a way for those with a need to impose their will on others to begin healing (I can dream!), or to be marginalized. Wealth-seekers and power-seekers need each other in our present economic paradigm. Maybe a new economic paradigm based in plenty will allow this particular interdependence (unholy alliance?) to wither.
We have already begun to have the debate in this country about the value of manufactured goods. Between NAFTA, outsourcing, and other influences, the manufacturing sector of this country's economy continues to shrink. We are already, in a sense, preparing for a true information economy. When desktop manufacturing becomes a reality, it seems to me that the vast majority of the economy, if maintained as a more-or-less free market, will be information and (personal and professional) services.
So perhaps the conversation has already begun, perhaps the groundwork has (apparently unwittingly) been laid. Perhaps we have been given fertile ground for a conscious and deep look at what is inevitably coming, and how to prepare for it.
M: I hope you're right!
Many thanks to Steve Burgess for his penetrating questions and insightful arguments, and for granting permission to post our conversation. Feel free to chime in with your own ideas.
Mike Treder

Recent Comments