The Nature of Civilization

What is human civilization and what are its origins? How has it evolved and how quickly can it change?

These are big questions, and I think they are fundamentally important for an organization like CRN to at least try to understand. If, as we suggest, molecular manufacturing (MM) could have a transformative impact on human civilization -- potentially changing it as much in the next few decades as all other technologies have changed it in the previous two centuries -- then our advice on how to deal with MM must take into consideration the nature of civilization itself.

"Greatest Mysteries: How Did Human Culture Evolve?" is the title of an article posted recently at LiveScience.com:

"We really know very, very little about the kind of roots of culture, and the biological origins of culture, and how the forms of culture we see in our species are similar to or different from those seen in animals," said zoologist Alex Thornton of Cambridge University...

The missing link is how intelligence and language—exclusively human characteristics—played a role in moving us from the simpler traditions seen in animals to the incredibly complex cultures seen in humans...

To trace the exact effects of language and intelligence on the development of human culture will require a multi-disciplinary effort examining ancient human cultures, animals in the wild, human psychology and many other areas of science, Thornton said.

Only then, he said, will "the breakthroughs start to emerge."

In CRN's foundational papers on "Safe Utilization of Advanced Nanotechnology" and "Three Systems of Action: A Proposed Application for Effective Administration of Molecular Nanotechnology" (both published back in 2003), we perhaps somewhat naively proposed the development of a global nanofactory infrastructure overseen by a central authority, and, before that, the formation of a "collaborative international administrative council" to design and implement that infrastructure and its management system.

These are admirable ideas, proposed with the best of intentions. But are they at all realistic? Could such a system ever be agreed upon and implemented? Or, even if it could, would it stand any chance of working as desired?

To our credit, CRN has always insisted that there are "No Simple Solutions for Nanotechnology Risks." It turns out, though, that the more we learn about the history and nature of human civilization, and the more we try to understand the complex interplay between science, technology, economics, politics, and society, the more we see how truly difficult a challenge we have chosen for ourselves.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Comments

[Tom Craver]

No doubt MNT will have a big impact. But even if it is quite abrupt in historical terms, we *should* get lots of warning that MNT is about to break. Even if the first to succeed has been working in secret, there'll very likely be public work that parallels the secret work. There'll be key development stages that will take some time to work through.

Of course, warning may not be enough to cushion the blow. We've had plenty of warning about the global economic disruption we'll likely experience within the next few years - but it will probably still be surprising and harsh for most people. At least in developed nations, we will likely experience major, uncomfortable changes in how we live and work. Perhaps these adjustments will be sufficient that any additional social change needed to adjust to MNT will be less painful.

[Michael Deering]

"We've had plenty of warning about the global economic disruption we'll likely experience within the next few years..."

You've been watching too many MONEX commercials.

[Tom Craver]

Perhaps - we shall see. But if you don't think we're sitting on the edge of big economic trouble, just waiting for something to come along and shove us in, you haven't been paying attention.

[Nato Welch]

With the progressive political momentum building in the US, I could see some moves being made to a more republic-style world federalist government that actually might have some teeth. Now that things like the rejection of the proposed International Criminal Court and unilateral crime-fighting in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq have proven to be disastrous policy, perhaps a Democratic majority will be better suited to strengthening international cooperation, on MM and many other issues.

But how would you get China to the table? As one of the world's 880 lb gorillas, they don't even have a functioning democracy internally.

But I wonder if the considerable threat to their industry posed by MM might be just the carrot to get them to reform, and come to the international table.