Policy Debate

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

Comments

[cdnprodigy]

If the the future holders of non-MM military and police powers feel that it is not in their interest for MM to exist, they may take pre-emptive miltary/police measures on a suspected MM operation, be it private or rival national. Though maybe not the most likeliest contingency, this is perhaps the hardest to defend against. If we can make it to the point where we're bickereing over who has the legal rights to control non-weapons MM industrial capacity, I will be somewhat relieved.

[Tom Craver]

Mike:

If you want a model of the default MNT future, look to the oil rich nations. Concentrated wealth, most people poor, and an economy getting by only because the wealthy "generously" pump a lot of "their" money into the economy.

The path to the default MNT economic system will be fairly straight-forward. Recognizing the "vast potential dangers of uncontrolled access to MNT", all MNT installations will have to be licensed, registered, regulated, monitored, etc.

That will create artificial scarcity (licenses) and artificial "economies of scale" (small businesses won't be able to afford the overhead of the piles of paperwork and other requirements), allowing those with "old economy" wealth (if they move quickly) to convert it into "new economy" wealth and power.

Those on top will of course have strong incentives to maintain that system, avoiding another upset as threatening to them as the one they just went through. As nanotech gets better, the wealthy will realize they don't need the masses, but still must fear the masses getting MNT. Expect the system to get far more repressive and hopeless for the disenfranchized masses.

I'd love to hear why that future won't happen. White-hat "underground railroad" types spreading nanofacs? Expect them to be treated as terrorists by all civilized nations. Idealistic wealthy types setting up legal and licensed MNT enabled communes? Expect bad things to happen there, to prove that model isn't workable, so the masses don't start getting dangerous ideas that they could live outside the artificial economy. Sea-going free colonies trying to form their own independent MNT-enabled communities? No, those will be "dangerous potential sources of nano-weapons of mass destruction", that must be broken up before they turn to piracy and selling nano-weapons to terrorists.

[Tom Craver]

I should say - I do think there is a way to avoid that future: Insure that there will not be a government-controlled/assigned monopoly on MNT by getting MNT into everyone's hands as quickly as possible.

Maybe that doesn't mean "un-restricted MNT" - but I think we have to start from that position and consider what restrictions are absolutely, minimally necessary, rather than taking total restriction as the starting point and considering what we can safely allow people to have.

[cdnprodigy]

Nah, I'd much rather die from the result of a nano-tyranny than from a nano arms-race. I'd much rather have my head in a cage with a giant rat and then later by snipered by CIA/KGB types, than die from a massive neutron bomb attack.

[todd]

OK were talking about the future something I give a great deal of thought to every day the way I see it we have molecular manufacturing on the horizon the device arrives tabletop 3 x 3' capable of producing anything based on file and input the device has USB hard drives serial cable wireless connections and any other form of connection including a CD-ROM. The device converts the file which is essentially an AutoCAD file of a particular item in to through the use of convergent assembly and carbon the prescribed useful item. The device can self replication. The device uses electricity dissipates minimal heat. The device can self replicating two hours. I think it will probably be black and color ).

The files will be easily created and spread to the Internet as file sharing is done today. It will be impossible to monitor the Internet short of shutting the entire Internet down for these files. Collections of files will be created on CD-ROM and sold through distribution points whether these points be the corner of 5th and main or on eBay. There will be some minimal size restrictions for the products they can be manufactured that is to say you will not be able to produce an entire battleship with a single replicator. Although you will be able to produce each individual part and in time put the entire ship together.

The device cannot be detected other than to be standing next to it and see one. With a two-hour replication only a handful of the devices will be able to supply the entire planet within a few days every single person will have one. If units are rounded up or some sort of organized military operation this will fail. As if only one were left behind the one device will be able to replicate itself again be spread throughout the entire planet within just a few days.

This in my opinion is an inevitability and cannot be stopped. There is hope from one Avenue in that in general it is my opinion that large complex devices will not be easily designed by individuals. So complex useful items capable of causing great harm and destruction will not be available to terrorists for some time in the initial months post molecular manufacturing. What will be available is a wide variety of pots hands so where and spare parts for cars. A short useful items that require only a few hours of time with minimal training using the design software to create set item. A collection of hobbyists will put together useful items of greater complexity with each generation each generation will however take some time for the design. I for see considerable use of plug-and-play devices adding to existing designs where individual components are interchangeable and the overall useful product becomes more complex as they are implemented.

This is the future and I would not describe this as alarming. The delay in the timeframe for developing complex useful products should allow time for the vast majority of people to become accustomed to the new technology and its ramifications on the market economy, government, and the military.

I cannot see a situation where any group even large governments can maintain any sort of monopoly over the technology given the above variables. And any attempt to restrict the technology will fail. I do believe though that the general set of laws will still be in play post molecular manufacturing these laws will defined the punishment for criminal activity through the use of the technology. Specifically genocide will be dealt with strongly.

todd

[Tom Craver]

Todd - I tend to agree, but I think it's important to examine possible ways that that scenario might be thwarted.

For example, suppose the government tells people it has MNT and nanofacs - but also says that if it finds anyone possessing one, they will be instantly put to death - no trial (the risks of MNT escaping their control being more critical than the risk of killing someone who has been framed, for example). Backed up with propaganda that makes nanofacs sound like a cross between weapons of mass destruction and meth labs, and people might accept the situation.

That requires a repressive government - so let's suppose that one government isn't sufficiently ruthless, and their people get nanofacs. Wouldn't it spread from there? However, other more ruthless nations would likely demand that that nation "take steps" to eliminate those nanofacs - or "have it done for them". That way lies war.

Now if war appears inevitable, the target nation MIGHT take the unusual step of a "first strike" consisting of covertly distributing nanofacs within the nations that threaten them, so sow dissent. On the other hand, knowing that possibility exists, the repressive nations might not even warn the less repressive nation, but simply attack.

I think nanofacs may spread rapidly - but there appear to be ways that the spread could be suppressed, if governments see it as critical to maintaining order (keeping power).

[Tom Craver]

Another point worth considering - the first nanofacs are likely to be somewhat limited - requiring special feedstock (making secret use difficult), perhaps only producing things made of carbon, probably somewhat slow, hot, energy inefficient, etc.

Early designs are likely to be somewhat simple and conventional - i.e. "ports" of electronic gadgets to nanofac design rules, purely structural objects (cups and plates made of diamond), etc. No killer robots, ray guns, conventional explosives, etc.

Given that, just how dangerous could nanofacs be in their first incarnation and first year of availability? What's the worst someone could make in that first year or two of limited nanofacs, without extreme design skills - just simple stuff? (i.e. no laser pumped hydrogen bombs or jet assault fighters or chemical plants to produce poison gas).

Maybe a carbon-oxygen bomb - an oxygen separating mill that compresses O2 into a sparse matrix of diamond, plus a spark igniter? Maybe a water vapor condenser and electrolysis unit, to make an H2-O2 bomb?

How about a centrifuge bomb - spin up a very strong disk to extreme angular velocity, then trigger releases along fracture lines, to let it shatter and spray shrapnel. Could enough power be packed into nano-springs or capacitors, to power an explosion or at least a projectile weapon?

Nanofac security is going to be an important issue - even if most hackers wouldn't distribute viruses to build such extremely dangerous objects, criminals might pick up on hacker's technologies to create more threatening objects.

[todd]

The question how quickly one could create destructive products using a simple and basic molecular manufacturing device is a good question. It is my opinion it will not take long to develop a single device a weapon using basic physics and the significant improvement in structural strength of diamond. However the development of a single handheld device capable of killing a handful of individuals within proximity of the user already exists and no additional development would be necessary i.e. the gun. The greater concern and the one which we have spoken of is how long will it take for the development of products which kill by the millions not by the individual. Although certainly there will be products developed in my opinion that are lethal and ingenious in their use of simple geometry and physics these products I do not consider threats to our way of life.

It is in fact the products third or fourth generation where developers have purposely utilized aspects of the technology to develop weapons of mass destruction. Chris has in the past stated there will be a shortened prototyping of useful products as individual products can be designed on computers and printed out in their fully functional states. However it would seem that a weapon of mass destruction would require more than just a few parts and thereby representing considerable man-hours in development.

Not to counter my own argument but there could be a scenario where a simple device is manufactured I will describe one here. The device is roughly 1 foot circular all of diamond the device has a single 8 inch-long dagger protruding from one side the device is coated in solar cells the device has three rotating blades at its top which provide motion the device possesses a motion detector and a random movement software device simply flies in one direction for random amount of time looking for anything moving. Once a moving object is identified the device accelerates to maximum velocity and penetrates the dagger into the object moving. Additional software modifications could be implemented that would allow the device to extract the dagger after a certain period of time and continue with a random search for additional moving targets. The device can be manufactured in wholesale quantities using manufacturing perhaps millions of them could be let loose on a single day over metropolitan area. Indeed even proximity to a area of considerable population would be close enough.

Although this device is more complex than a plate or knife or cupholder it is nonetheless not overly complex that it could not be developed by an individual given a few weeks time. This individual will likely use a set of preprogrammed software pieces where for instance the helicopter blades and their corresponding parts are already designed for toys for young children. And where motion detectors are already designed for household security. And where the dagger is already designed in a cutlery software package. And indeed the solar cells are available as well as a simple software addition to a useful product. These elements although not harmful in themselves are brought together to form a massively destructive product.

[Tom Craver]

Todd:
I think there are a few problems with the specific design you describe - solar powered flight would mean it'd have to be pretty light - perhaps lighter than air - limiting it's speed and momentum.

I'm sure something dangerous could be made in large quantities with early generation nanofacs. But I really just don't think it's a very common danger, outside of war.

E.g. one could easily use man's oldest geometrically self-replicating technology (Fire) to cause mass destruction, under the right conditions. But instances of arson causing mass destruction are pretty rare. There just aren't enough people who want to cause such destruction, to make it worth worrying much about it.

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

Todd is right: a lot of destruction could be wreaked with relatively simple devices.

Tom is right: we have to consider not just the capability to do harm, but the incentive.

But that cuts both ways: there may be new incentives that aren't very predictable today. For example, graffiti is incentivized by gang territory. At least one large computer infection was apparently the result of some kiddie trying to insult another kiddie. What if new kinds of vandalism are incentivized by similar "games"? If you can destroy a building or kill a person with the touch of a button, what's to stop a group of kids from making a game of it? Or perhaps governments (or political parties) will want to discredit each other by killing random citizens to prove that the party in power can't protect their citizens. Or...

Chris

[Tom Craver]

Chris:
I think the answer to your question is still the same - it can be kept under control by personal morality, fear of getting caught for a minority, and countermeasures where those are insufficient to counter a tiny minority of truly determined and highly motivated criminals, terrorists, etc. While there will be ways to make attacks easier and more anonymous, there will also be ways to correspondingly increase the chances of getting caught.

For example - labelled dust: Sprayed everywhere (bio-safe, of course), labelled with the time and location of spraying, decaying over a week or two. It will be difficult to keep any object from getting some on it from the moment it is created or deployed. To use Todd's example, a few dozen flying killers would be shot down, scanned down to the atoms, and all labelled dust particles statistically analyzed to extract patterns to give clues to where they were launched. And that'd just be one of a number of new ways of back-tracking otherwise anonymous attacks.

Today's equivalent might be to infiltrate the script-kiddie scene with useful tools that infect a system to make it insert a few subtly encoded bytes into anything produced by a range of known scripting tools, and which somehow allow back-tracking to the source of a virus. As that tactic becomes known, there would be a side benefit effect of "poisoning the well" - creating fear to accept new tools among would-be script kiddies.

[Ray]

Naw. Every system is limited by some input, and there is always a smallest input, so scarcity is always an issue.

Raw materials and information will become scarce. Investment will follow the profits, shifting from building factories and distributing products, almost entirely to producing designs and distributing designs and materials.

We have a name for these societies: subsistance societies. As in previous subsistance societies, the people controlling the resources will be on the top, probably for as long as they own the resources. Clever management of capital and techniques (i.e. engineering) are just not going to be as important as they are now.

As in previous subsistance societies, the government/warlords will be near the top, because safety-licensing will be both justifiable and critical to a society with MM.

If Bobbit (read "The Shield of Achilles") is right, and government constitutions compete on efficiency, then the most efficient society will ultimately win the nanotech wars, and such wars are indeed inevitable.

If governments are deeply concerned about MM, the least intrusive regulatory regime will be most economically efficient and therefore win the wars. The least intrusive scheme I'e thought of is to license private "digesters" (to make usable raw materials) and product designs, not factories. A better factory would be universally lauded and rewarded. There will be public-domain product designs, but they will be universally recognized as a sign of poverty- and underused.

The important reason to license digesters is that a militarized MM system will require one, even if it is an innocuous logistic-replacement system to support troops.

Radical decentralization of society is already possible, but not happening because people are social, and don't want it. If we all did, we'd all just buy an EarthShip(TM) house, and withdraw from society. We'll all have solar cells, because they come cheaply with the new roof, but we'll still live in the suburbs.

Everything that is safety-critical, such as medicine, food production, sewage processing, air-travel, etc. will still be highly regulated, and therefore be highly, and expensively engineered. There has to be some regulatory and economic regime to recover the costs of this safety.

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

Ray, I'm not sure you're right that the most economically efficient design of government will win the nano-wars. At least, the analysis is less simple--and useful--than it sounds. For example, instead of increasing their own efficiency, combatants could work to reduce each other's efficiency. A system might be very efficient in the absence of e.g. sabotage, but less efficient when it tries to prevent hostile actions. Especially if those hostile actions result in non-monetizable damage such as the death of citizens.

Also, you say "Everything that is safety-critical ... will still be highly regulated." But regulation today is a hodgepodge. Many states don't outlaw cell phone use while driving. So it's not safety alone that causes regulation.

You distinguish between designs (subsistence products) and techniques (engineering). But engineering is patentable.

In previous subsistence societies, weren't materials more important than design? Without rapid innovation, designs will diffuse naturally and won't be an economic resource (though they will improve the economy). You seem to be saying that the "information economy" is actually a subsistence economy. But information is typically non-rivalrous (and needs artificial scarcity to be useful in economic terms) whereas materials are of course not non-rivalrous. I don't think you can lump them together like you appear to have done.

Chris