Responsible Nanotechnology

Systems of Mass Disruption

A few days ago, I was privileged to make a presentation on "Nanotechnology and the Future of Warfare" to a group of senior officers and affiliated civilian researchers at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. We had an enjoyable, wide-ranging, three-hour discussion about molecular manufacturing, climate change, global politics, and the ways in which wars are fought.

Although I would never presume to lecture professional service officers on military history or military science, they seemed to appreciate some of the insights I offered, not just about nanotechnology, but also about the future of weaponry and warfare in general.

One of the points I made (which is not original to me) is that in modern warfare, the real target of attack is not the opposing military -- it is the will and capacity of states to make war.

Similarly, the real target of weapons of mass destruction is not the victims, but the survivors.

A useful way to look at this is to consider WMD to stand not only for destruction, but equally for disruption.

And if you think about it even further, you can see that WMDs are more than just weapons; in fact, they comprise whole systems.

I've broken down these systems of mass disruption into four distinct components:

1. Payloads
2. Modes of delivery
3. Methods of targeting
4. Means of production

So, how will advanced nanotechology affect these SMDs?

First, "signatures" of WMD will be reduced at the same time as payloads are increased. We could see much smaller signatures -- nearly vanishing -- and far more destruction, thanks to nanotechnology.

In place of nuclear, chemical, or biological warheads, huge numbers of simple, low-tech, but still highly damaging devices could be produced. You might think of them as the equivalent of the Molotov cocktail, but delivered simultaneously by the millions to precision targets.

Nothing more exotic than that is needed to create mass destruction and mass disruption. Such weapons could be made cheaply, in nearly unlimited numbers, and with almost no detectable signature unless nanofactory technology is effectively regulated.

Modes of delivery -- whether they are UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), armies of small robotic crawlers, or space-based -- will be equally inexpensive to produce and deploy in vast quantities. Ubiquitous sensors for surveillance, target tracking, and weapons control, enabled by low-cost supercomputing and also produced by molecular manufacturing, will greatly enhance methods of targeting.

Of the four components I mentioned, the most important and potentially most disruptive is the last: means of production. Advances might be made in the other three areas without reliance on nanofactory technology, but they will have relatively limited impact by comparison. However, when we reach the point that an atomically-precise general-purpose manufacturing system can be reproduced exponentially, then systems of mass disruption will take on a whole new meaning.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Solving Spam

Is the spam epidemic finally under control?

Bill Gates was wildly optimistic when he said in 2004 that the problem of spam would be "solved" by 2006. The volume of junk e-mail transmitted worldwide is still enormous. But a remarkable trend is underfoot, according to Brad Taylor, a staff software engineer at Google: The number of spam attempts -- that is, the number of junk messages sent out by spammers -- is flat, and may even be declining for the first time in years.

Google won't disclose numbers, but the company says that spam attempts, as a percentage of e-mail that's transmitted through its Gmail system, have waned over the last year. That could indicate that some spammers have gotten discouraged and have stopped trying to get through Google’s spam filters.

Other experts disagree with Google, pointing out that overall spam attempts continue to rise. By most estimates, tens of billions of spam messages are sent daily. Yet for most users, the amount of spam arriving in their inboxes has remained relatively flat, thanks to improved filtering.

(Hat tip to Cory Doctorow.)

Obviously, this is very good news for anyone who uses email. It appears to be a triumph of market response -- as opposed to a government imposed solution -- to a pervasive distributed problem. Three cheers for Google and all their anti-spam programmers!

I wonder, though, if a similar approach will work when spam can be delivered not just as email, but as 3D objects?

When your home or office includes a desktop nanofactory as a standard appliance, how easy will it be for hackers to steal (or buy) your machine's unique address and send instructions to produce unwanted physical products?! It could be something as "innocent" as a clever marketing ploy to get you to try a new product. Or it could be something as dangerous as a smart bomb designed to look like a toy or a new electronic gadget.

Will such things happen? It seems inevitable that someone, probably many someones, will try it. The real question is what kind of response will keep that new and potentially deadly problem under control -- will market solutions be sufficient, or will it require government involvement?

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Call for Papers

MINUS 9, the online student journal of nanotechnology, is now accepting papers from graduate and undergraduate students on the epistemological, societal, ethical, and legal implications of nanotechnology (and its convergence with biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science) for its next issue.

Deadline for submissions is Tuesday, December 18, 2007. Articles, reviews, and papers of any length will be considered.

For more information, see their website or this PDF.

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Risk Perception

Commenting on a recent study of nanotechnology risk perception, our friend Michael Berger at Nanowerk writes:

The benefits of new technologies, whether they are new medical treatments, an innovative approach to farming or new ways of generating energy, almost always come with some new risks as well. In the emerging stages of a new technology, experts and the public generally differ in their perceptions of risk.

While this might be due to social and demographic factors, it is generally assumed by scientists who conduct risk research that experts' risk assessments are based more strongly on actual or perceived knowledge about a technology than lay people's risk assessments. Nevertheless, whether the risks are real or not, the public perception of an emerging technology will have a major influence on the acceptance of this technology and its commercial success. If the public perception turns negative, potentially beneficial technologies will be severely constrained as is the case for instance with gene technology.

It is not surprising that a new study found that, in general, nanoscientists are more optimistic than the public about the potential benefits of nanotechnology. What is surprising though, is that, for some issues related to the environmental and long-term health impacts of nanotechnology, nanoscientists seem to be significantly more concerned than the public.

The following chart (from the University of Wisconsin-Madison) illustrates the different levels of risk perceived by nanotech scientists versus the general public:

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

What I think this shows is that scientists and the public are talking about two different kinds of nanotechnology. Health-related risks and pollution issues are both more typically associated with current and near-future nanoscale technologies, while concerns about privacy erosion, economic disruption, and a new arms race are more often connected with longer-term advanced nanotechnology, i.e. molecular manufacturing.

So, the differing responses are not really a surprise at all, if it's understood that each group is considering risks related to technology levels that are vastly different in terms of power and potential.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Secrets of Life

Not Necessarily Relevant Quote of the Week:

The two secrets in life are: 1) Don't tell everything you know.

— Anonymous

Tag: quotes

On the Road Again

I'm on the road for a bit, visiting friends and family in Florida (today) and in Texas (tomorrow and Monday). After that, I head for Newport, Rhode Island, to make a presentation to a group of senior officers and affiliated civilian researchers at the U.S. Naval War College. I'll stay in touch as much as I can here on the blog, but if I miss a day, you'll understand...

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Green Tomorrows

On his Open the Future blog, CRN's Director of Impacts Analysis Jamais Cascio writes:

The four boxes [below] represent a variety of "response" scenarios, each embracing elements of the prevention, mitigation, and remediation approaches to solving the climate crisis. Certain approaches may receive greater emphasis in a given scenario, but all three types of responses can be seen in each world. And while individual readers may find some scenarios more appealing than others, none of these stand out for me as indisputably "bad" response models...

Which scenario is most likely? It depends a bit on how fast the truly disastrous manifestations of climate change hit. Climate catastrophe happening earlier than currently projected would push towards the more proactionary worlds. It also depends a bit on whether governments and corporate leaders continue to lag community and activist groups in terms of willingness to embrace big changes to fight environmental risks. Centralized responses may end up being too little, too late if wide-spread bottom-up models take root.

Ultimately, which one of these scenarios comes to dominate depends on the choices we make today. We simply can't go on pretending that we don't have to deal with this problem for awhile yet, that "the market" or "the government" or "new technologies" will fix everything in time, that we aren't responsible. The more we abandon our responsibilities, our agency, the more likely it is that the world that emerges will not pay attention to our interests. Acting now is no guarantee that we'll get the world we want -- but not acting is as close as you'll get to a guarantee that we won't.

READ THE REST

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Thanks for the Giggles

Today is the Thanksgiving holiday in the U.S. of A.

So, what are you thankful for? Me, I'm especially thankful for humor.

To wit:

Thanks!

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Context is Everything

Some recent commenters have noted that entries on this blog sometimes stray from the immediate topic of 'Responsible Nanotechnology'.

For example, Dan S. says:

I've got an impression that these days CRN is more concerned with problems of climate change, privacy, China, nuclear power, etc. rather then safe administration/development of molecular manufacturing.

There are a couple of explanations for this. One is that after years of writing articles on a fairly narrow range of subjects, it's hard to resist the temptation to occasionally throw in something different, like this, or this.

But a more substantive explanation has to do with how we are, over time, coming to see that the issues CRN is nominally concerned with are inextricably linked with a wide range of other topics.

Molecular manufacturing will not be developed in a vacuum, nor will it emerge unhindered into a welcoming world.

How, when, or even whether desktop nanofactories are finally produced will depend largely on external factors that have little or nothing to do with nanotech. This is a big drive behind our efforts to create a series of professional-quality scenarios about the near-future development of molecular manufacturing within the context of projected trends in science, technology, and global politics.

The task of designing effective policy toward safe development and responsible use of advanced nanotechnology is both highly complex and vitally important. A broad base of knowledge is required for that, including as good an understanding as we can get of the rapidly changing social, economic, and political systems that atomically-precise exponential manufacturing eventually will encounter. Those new conditions must be taken into account, because the world of circa 2020 is expected to be vastly different from 2007 -- and in developing responsible global solutions, context is everything.

Jamais Cascio, CRN's new Director of Impacts Analysis, recently wrote a column for Nanotechnology Now that tackled a whole set of issues beyond the purely technical. He considered:

• Designs
• Distribution methods for nanofactories
• Distribution methods for products
• Distribution methods for "toner"
• Physical reliability
• Physical safety
• Health and safety evaluations
• Knowledgeable users
• Ways to avoid abuse
• Political support
• Economic support
• Market acceptance

And that's just one circle of expansion outward from CRN's earlier concerns.

Expect to see much more of this -- including discussions of climate change, privacy, China, etc. -- as we strive to understand the world that awaits the development of desktop nanofactories. We'll try to relate those explorations as clearly as we can to the basic mission of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, but remember, we're on a journey here, a journey together into mostly unknown territory.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Nuclear Revival in Europe

It seems inevitable.

Citizens and leaders all over the world are wrestling with the dual challenges of: 1) a strong demand for cost-effective energy; and 2) a desire to switch away from fossil fuels. One possible solution is nuclear energy. Although it's been out of fashion in the Europe and the United States for a number of years, that could change:

Recent news reports from Europe suggest that a nuclear revival in the European Union is increasingly likely. Soaring hydrocarbon prices and lasting uncertainties regarding hydrogen-based solutions are making the combination between civil atomic power and alternative energy a promising prospect for governments in the European Union.

That's from the Power and Interest News Report, an indispensable source for useful information and opinions on international issues. Here's more:

The bottom line is that as environmental concerns rise in the European Union, and since European states have made ecology a top priority, the above mentioned dynamics are getting stronger: the more that CO2 emissions and global warming become urgent issues, the more atomic energy will be viewed through a new light.

In fact, because China, India, Brazil, and other countries are rapidly emerging as new economic giants in the world, hundreds of millions of people will soon need electricity. As a consequence, great powers will need to decide whether new energy will be provided by hydrocarbons or by other methods, such as nuclear energy.

While the European Union is known to have had difficulties in formulating a unitary energy policy, it is likely that it will soon be called to take a decision on nuclear energy at a continental level. It is also almost certain, in light of recent surveys, that more and more European citizens will be ready to accept a return to nuclear power.

What do you think? Will the the U.S. follow Europe's lead and reconsider their refusal to build more nuclear power plants? Should they?

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog