In a commentary written for The Globe and Mail, Canada's leading newspaper, environmental lawyer David R. Boyd says:
Proponents of nanotechnology describe a future straight out of science fiction. Ultramicroscopic cameras flow through your bloodstream to identify constrictions or blockages. Supercomputers the size of a grain of salt with unprecedented speed, memory and power. Limitless, pollution-free energy. Deserts transformed into lush gardens with cheaply desalinated sea water. Bulletproof clothing the thickness of spandex. . .
Have we opened Pandora's box by manipulating material at the molecular level? Will the dystopian vision portrayed in Michael Crichton's science-fiction novel Prey come to pass, where self-replicating nanorobots develop independent intelligence and rebel against their human makers? Or will nanotechnology deliver the utopian future promised by its proponents, including human lifespans of 200 years and beyond?
These are good questions and they deserve serious answers. Let's take them one at a time:
(1) Have we opened Pandora's box by manipulating material at the molecular level?
Yes, we have, or at least we are in the process of doing so. Researchers have not yet achieved the full capabilities of molecular manufacturing -- using high-performance nanotech machines to manufacture high-performance nanotech-based products on a large scale -- but it's only a matter of time until they do. Once that point is reached, probably in the next 10-15 years, then we will indeed face a future of unprecedented potential for destruction, domination, and disruption, as well as new opportunities for health, prosperity, and abundance.
It will not be possible, nor even desirable in our view, to prevent this research from going forward. What we must do now is set a high priority on understanding the profound societal and environmental implications of advanced generation nanotechnology, and begin developing strategies and policies to maximize the benefits and avert the most dangerous risks.
(2) Will the dystopian vision portrayed in Michael Crichton's science-fiction novel Prey come to pass, where self-replicating nanorobots develop independent intelligence and rebel against their human makers?
No, because what Prey depicts is strictly fiction, not science-based, and what the book presents could not actually happen. (Read an extensive critique of Prey by CRN's Chris Phoenix here.) Having said that, we should not dismiss the possibility that advanced nanotechnology could contribute to expanded machine intelligence, and we should acknowledge that some scenarios of runaway systems are plausible. These risks must be accounted for, but they also must be placed in the context of more probable and more imminent dangers, such as an unstable nano-based arms race.
(3) Or will nanotechnology deliver the utopian future promised by its proponents, including human lifespans of 200 years and beyond?
A good deal of the hype associated with nanotechnology is plausible and should be taken seriously. The potential benefits of this technology are extreme, but so are the risks. A utopian future will not be reached unless mankind is successful at handling the enormous challenge of navigating a safe and responsible transition into the nano era.
Boyd concludes:
Given the profound implications of nanotechnology, it is imperative that we do our best to get it right the first time.
We could not agree more.
Mike Treder
Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog
Recent Comments