Congress and the Singularity

"Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think" is the title of a report [PDF] published this month by Representative Jim Saxton (R-NJ), Ranking Member of the Joint Economic Committee, United States Congress. The paper, authored by Dr. Joseph Kennedy, Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University, says:

Enhanced abilities to understand and manipulate matter at the molecular and atomic levels promise a wave of significant new technologies over the next five decades. Dramatic breakthroughs will occur in diverse areas such as medicine, communications, computing, energy, and robotics. These changes will generate large amounts of wealth and force wrenching changes in existing markets and institutions.

And that's just the beginning of a surprisingly stark assessment of nanotechnology's transformative potential. The first section opens with this paragraph:

In 1970 Alvin Toffler, noted technologist and futurist, argued that the acceleration of technological and social change was likely to challenge the capacity of both individuals and institutions to understand and to adapt to it. Although the world has changed a great deal since then, few would argue that the pace of change has had the discontinuous effects that Toffler predicted. However, rapid advances in a number of fields, collectively known as nanotechnology, make it possible that Mr. Toffler’s future has merely been delayed. In fact, some futurists now talk about an unspecified date sometime around the middle of this century when, because of the accelerating pace of technology, life will be radically different than at any prior time.

Yes, it is "The Singularity" that's being alluded to there. In a later section, the report describes it this way:

Every exponential curve eventually reaches a point where the growth rate becomes almost infinite. This point is often called the Singularity. If technology continues to advance at exponential rates, what happens after 2020? Technology is likely to continue, but at this stage some observers forecast a period at which scientific advances aggressively assume their own momentum and accelerate at unprecedented levels, enabling products that today seem like science fiction. Beyond the Singularity, human society is incomparably different from what it is today. Several assumptions seem to drive predictions of a Singularity. The first is that continued material demands and competitive pressures will continue to drive technology forward. Second, at some point artificial intelligence advances to a point where computers enhance and accelerate scientific discovery and technological change. In other words, intelligent machines start to produce discoveries that are too complex for humans. Finally, there is an assumption that solutions to most of today’s problems including material scarcity, human health, and environmental degradation can be solved by technology, if not by us, then by the computers we eventually develop.

It is remarkable to find officials at this level of the U.S. government, or any large government, openly discussing dramatic possibilities that most often are dismissed as science fiction. However, the report does caution about making an uncritical assumption that suddenly "everything will change":

Looking forward, science is likely to continue outrunning expectations, at least in the medium-term. Although science may advance rapidly, technology and daily life are likely to change at a much slower pace for several reasons. First, it takes time for scientific discoveries to become embedded into new products, especially when the market for those products is uncertain. Second, both individuals and institutions can exhibit a great deal of resistance to change. Because new technology often requires significant organizational change and cost in order to have its full effect, this can delay the social impact of new discoveries. For example, computer technology did not have a noticeable effect on economic productivity until it became widely integrated into business offices and, ultimately, business processes. It took firms over a decade to go from replacing the typewriters in their office pools to rearranging their entire supply chains to take advantage of the Internet.

That sounds similar to the points we made last week about the uncertainty of "overnight" changes. Nevertheless, the Congressional report does say:

Whether or not one believes in the Singularity, it is difficult to overestimate nanotechnology’s likely implications for society. For one thing, advances in just the last five years have proceeded much faster than even the best experts had predicted.

CRN's concern is that this accelerated pace of development is likely to make molecular manufacturing technology achievable faster than almost anyone foresees. And if we are not prepared for the consequences -- if the advent of desktop nanofactories catches us by surprise -- then we will not have time to debate, design, and implement sensible and responsible policy for its use.

We should not, however, count on the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) to do this for us. As the report says on page 12:

The NNI is clearly geared toward developing the technology on a broad front, correctly seeing it as the source of tremendous benefits to society. Its mission is not to see whether we should go forward with research and development. It is to go forth boldly, while trying to discover and deal with possible risks.

Much of the rest of the 21-page paper focuses on adequately dealing with health and safety risks of materials containing nanoparticles. Although that is a serious concern, other issues that could and should be addressed in this report -- such as economic disruption from a rapid replacement of manufacturing infrastructure, or the potential for an unstable arms race driven by nano-weapons proliferation -- are either marginalized or not even addressed. That's a disappointment. However, the fact that some of the issues we care about are beginning to be discussed in high places is encouraging.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Comments

[Nato Welch]

Impressive for a politician.

Kurzweil calls views of progress that don't take accelerating change rates into account "the intuitive linear view".

The trouble with this personally is that I've spent so much time contemplating exponential change (making me a "singularitarian" by Kurzweil's definition) that it's effectively intuitive to me. So, from my perspective, I'd call it "the intuitive exponential view".

[Michael Anissimov]

You got the jump on me this time!! ;)

[Chris Williamson]

I agree with you, this is a surprise!

So far The Singularity has been on the minds of only a handful of cutting-edge scientists, futurists, and super-geeks.

But this is different.

The Joint Economic Committee (JEC) is made up of 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats from both the House and Senate. They are in charge of producing the information that the U.S. government uses to make high-level economic decisions. They study taxation, IMF reform, Federal Reserve policy, federal expenditures, energy, etc.

And what *really* sets this paper off is this:

“Whether or not one believes in the Singularity, it is difficult to overestimate nanotechnology’s likely implications for society. For one thing, advances in just the last five years have proceeded much faster than even the best experts had predicted.”

[Chris Williamson]

Oh yeah, btw, I got the jump on both of you with this one! :)

[David White]

How Congress could be so forward-looking in this regard, while having its eyes wide shut on the economic front is beyond me -- http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd260.htm -- the question being whether and how we will manage to transition out of the present global financial fraud -- http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1446716.htm -- without technology being directed to military purposes that accordingly threaten humanity's survival.

With the state already being challenged by the Internet -- http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/garris3.html -- it would seem that the battle lines have been drawn, the only question being what lengths the state will go to to hold onto power.

I say it will go to any length it deems necessary, in which case the next few decades will be the most perilous in the history of the world.

[Claire St-Onge]

THis is extremely interesting & I have been watching it even if I am ""just"" a retired high school teacher. How can it be more tremendous than the Internet Revolution? It is hard to imagine that we will be living the Star Trek replication technology more or less & I really hope a lot of efforts will be put in thinking TRANSITIONS from this manufacturing infrastructure to this nanotechnology infrastructure. I hope it will be concentric & not pyramidal with the rich at the top.That is my little bit.

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

The Internet Revolution was driven by computers. Computers are machines that do a few basic things, very fast and programmably and reliably--and can process any type of data once it's digitized.

Molecular manufacturing will give us manufacturing machines that do a few basic things, very fast and programmably and reliably--and can make almost anything once it's designed.

If the manufacturing technology advances as quickly as computer hardware did, and the design capability advances as quickly as computer programming did, then within a few years anyone with the technology will have almost wizard-like capabilities--making things appear or change in the physical world as easily as a player (or programmer) can make things happen in an online game.

Chris

[Dagon]

Kudo's to this politician. He is a single person shouting at a modest voice for attention. Few will listen. I can't see the cabal in control of the US respond rationally to speculations that nanotech may affect average lifespan "by a few decades, or more" To them this may not fit into their snug paradigm bubbles. The potential of nanotechnology conflicts quite a bit with eschatological christianity. And there appear to be quite a few members of congress who still have internal models of internet in victorian pneumatic terms.
I expect next to nothing of politicians. The only thing sensible, careful ad modest voiced transhumanists and singularitarians can do is keep calm, reason softly and extremely patiently, don't wave their arms too much and make sure to impress upon our benevolent leaders that if we won't research subject X, the Heathen Chinese WILL OUTCOMPETE US.

[NanoEnthusiast]

Dagon, that's absolutely correct. If there is one thing the bible thumpers in America love more than God, it's being No.1.

I wonder if the pneumatic thing will comeback en vogue after the invention of MNT. If personal nanfactories are deemed to dangerous to own, maybe we could use a station in our homes that delivers finished products to us via a "network of tubes." Robots with sophisticated AI could make the laying-down of this network practical.

[Nato Welch]

Nanofactory: n.

1) A machine designed to turn the entire planet into a series of tubes.

[Khannea Suntzu]

I am fairly certain the whole ignorance/superstition thing is an intentional ruse. At the highest level in every modern country, from Russia, to China to the US (and even countries less modern, such as Iran) I can see "realisation" peek through. Russians are putting in an effort to go for a potential economical bullseye - Lunar He3. I see similar initiatives to secure exploitation "high grounds" in the near future.

I am convinced that as much as the greater public is criminally ignorant and apathic, the powers that be are securing niches for their favorite memes and grandchildren. I am also sure average people would be in absolute panic if they read some scenario's going around up there.

The big change however, will come when THESE PEOPLE realise life extension is feasible; i.e. several years before it is available commercially. When the obscenely rich/powerful realize they can enjoy their hard won fortunes for a few decades it will mean something to secure access.

I hope they don't see reason, in their elitarian brains, to exclude us lesser beings.

[.nanotech.]

Of course this will be a pyramidal scheme for the rich,.. that is why they are only leaking this out slowly . these concept's have been around since the 60's and really took off mid-90's
They want to control us better through this technology. fused with bio.info.congo.
In order to insure there power and wealth. They must fully control these technologies. in essence, then they will control us. So a New World Order is needed.. Wake Up.