Regulating Disruption

I was asked to provide an answer to a new question in the "Brain Parade" series posted at the Meme Therapy blog. Here is the question, and my answer follows:

Do you think the global economy and already existing regulatory structures will be able to adapt to the impact of nanotechnology without large-scale negative disruptions?

Probably not, or at least not without far greater anticipation and preparation than we’re seeing today. It’s not clear yet whether new administrative or regulatory structures will be needed, but in any case the existing structures will need to be highly flexible and forward-thinking if severe disruptions are to be avoided.

It’s not hyperbole to say that molecular manufacturing (which is part of nanotechnology’s fourth generation of development, due in 10 years or so) represents the next Industrial Revolution. We’re talking about a manufacturing technology that could turn out low-cost, highly advanced products from a desktop appliance: a personal nanofactory. And one product of that nanofactory could be another nanofactory, and another and another.

We'll have the possibility for exponential proliferation of the manufacturing capacity. Think about all the transformative change of earlier tech-based revolutions — from steam power, electricity, the automobile, plastics, and computers — packed into the span of just a few years. It’s that rapidly accelerating pace of change that makes nanotechnology potentially so disruptive.

Patrick Lin, a member of the CRN Global Task Force, also gave an answer, which included this point:

Now, some people believe that when nanotechnology advances, molecular manufacturing techniques will enable us to create virtually anything we want: we just need to program these little black boxes with the right blueprints, and they will crank out the desired product, one molecule at a time. If this happens, then there may be severe disruptions on many levels. The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN) is the only organization looking into this, as far as I know.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Comments

[Jose]

Thanks for that answer Mike, it was good to have you on the site.

We broke into 1,000+ plus hits territory today for the first time (well we've been there before but we're not counting the times we got Boing Boinged). Cheers for the nudge over the top.

[Michael Anissimov]

Global benevolent dictatorship or Friendly AI, they're the only long-term solutions to dealing with MNT.

[John B]

Or other forms of dictatorship, or perhaps a malthusian 'solution', Michael. *sour grin*

[Phillip Huggan]

A MNT sensor treaty would only be a dictatorship over ultra-low temperature and ultra-high vacuum environments (analogous to an Arms Treaty rather than a wrold government). Dumb AI sensors connected via a quantumly encrypted network.

With the friendly AI, the main risk is that a program assumed to be friendly turns out to be Skynet.
A MNT dictatorship imposes high tyranny and WWIII risks.
A MNT sensor treaty imposes low tyranny and moderate WWIII risks (at the cost of lower arms control efficacy than dictatorship facilitates).

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

Phillip, I repeat: vacuum/cryo is not the only way to develop MM.

Chris

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

Sorry, that was a bit rude, especially since I didn't read all the comments before writing it. I see you've continued the discussion in another thread, defending your position, and I've given an answer there.

Chris