|
New!
Nanotech Scenario Series
Join the
conversation at
CRNtalk!
| |
Results of Our Ongoing Research
These pages, marked with
GREEN headings, are published for
comment and criticism. These
are not our final findings; some of these opinions will probably change.
LOG OF UPDATES
CRN Research: Overview of Current Findings
Why Early Development May Be Safest
Overview: Early development of
molecular
nanotechnology (MNT) increases some risks, but reduces others; overall, we think it's safest to
develop as soon as possible. This is a preliminary conclusion, and we may change
our opinion, but there are solid reasons for taking this position. The
development of MNT seems inevitable sooner or later. If development is delayed,
it will rapidly become easier and cheaper, thus harder to control. Also, it's
probably the case that early development will allow more time to develop
MNT-based protective technologies—which may be necessary to cope with some
dangerous MNT-based technologies. Finally, if it's done right,
molecular
manufacturing could save
millions of lives per year and greatly decrease the
environmental damage we're
already doing. The costs of delay (opportunity costs) are significant, and may even outweigh the
risks of development.
| MNT is inevitable; the
question is when. |
Science and technology are rapidly gaining competence at
the nanometer scale. According to Ray Kurzweil's recent
testimony to the US Congress, "most of technology will be
'nanotechnology' by the 2020s." In other words, before 2030, most fields of
technology will make routine use of nanometer-scale components. At some
point after that, the seemingly miraculous
MNT will be
commonplace: regardless of whether
Drexler-style nanosystems are ever built, automation and
miniaturization will have duplicated the important aspects of the
technology. But MNT almost certainly will be developed earlier. There will
be strong economic pressure to develop it as soon as the cost of development
falls within the range of corporate R&D. Given the national security
implications, it's likely that governments will be working on it well before
then. And, as we explain here, there may be reasons to develop it
internationally, before national programs can get started. |
| Development will rapidly
become cheaper. |
Technically, the development of MNT depends on a design
and on a molecular manipulation capability. Chemistry, scanning probe
microscopy, optics, lithography, and a variety of other fields are rapidly
advancing our ability to design, create, and manipulate molecular
structures. Just in the last few years, several new families of large
designer molecules have been discovered. Computer simulation is also
developing rapidly as computers become more powerful and new algorithms are
discovered. These trends, and several others, will continue. As more
options become available, the design of a molecular manufacturing system
will become easier. Development efforts will require far less investigation
of fruitless possibilities. Today, an MNT development program would cost
many billions of dollars. Sometime in the future, probably well within this
century, it will be a science fair project. Between the two extremes is
either a rapidly falling curve or a sudden, unpredictable decrease in cost. |
| Delay may lead to multiple
MNT projects. |
If MNT is not developed as soon as possible, the rapidly
falling cost will allow several players—corporations and/or nations—to
pursue independent development projects. A delay could happen for several
reasons. Overly pessimistic opinions about the feasibility of MNT could
reduce initial interest. Environmental or social concerns, or simple
Luddism, could delay the research. Spending large amounts of money requires
either political will or corporate boldness, which could be lacking at the
crucial time.
|
| |
If MNT development is significantly delayed for any
reason, then by the time a project is started, development will be
considerably easier. Political and economic pressure for development will
rapidly increase. The rapidly falling cost of development will allow more
groups to enter the race, while also greatly improving the cost/benefit
ratio. Similarly, there will be a rapid increase in the number of foreign
powers who could make a credible attempt at developing what is (among other
things) a massive military force multiplier; once one program starts, a
perceived "nanotechnology gap" could lead to crash programs in a number of
countries that do not fully trust each other. As the number of contenders
in an arms race increases, the risk of preemptive strikes probably increases
as well. |
| One early project is easier
to control. |
If MNT is developed in several projects almost
simultaneously, each owner will be able to choose what to do with it. There
will be less scrutiny of each project. Any controls that need to be imposed
will require much more effort. Conversely, a single project provides a
single point to monitor and control. An early project, started when the
resources required are still quite large, reduces the uncertainty about who
else could be working on MNT development. It may also reduce the incentive
for other projects to start later; many intellectual property rights, and
some national security benefits, of an MNT program will be lost if it can't
keep up with the first project. |
| Early MNT gives us a head
start at defensive technologies. |
Some of the problems that MNT could create may only be
dealt with effectively by MNT-based technologies. For example, as noted by
Robert Freitas, widespread detection networks may be necessary to deal
effectively with grey goo. A system that can sample large volumes of air or
water for sub-micron particles, and respond with sufficient speed to clean
up an infestation, could probably only be built by MNT. Nanotech-built
weapons may pose a far greater threat to human well-being. It would be a
good idea to start practical engineering on defensive MNT-built technologies
well in advance of the development of aggressive or dangerous technologies. This might be helped by developing MNT early, on the theory that early
development will allow more selection—at least at first—of who gets to do
research with the technology. |
| Early MNT can solve tangible
problems. |
Technology, applied appropriately, can mitigate many
current problems. Large areas of the world currently suffer from a lack of
technological infrastructure. This is currently a self-perpetuating
problem. Portable, rapid, flexible manufacturing could solve it quickly. Health requires sanitation; efficient trading and democratic government
require communications. Sanitation and communication could be supplied
almost trivially with MNT. This would save millions of lives in the poorest
areas of the world, and greatly increase global prosperity (which would
provide vast new markets for commercial enterprises).
|
| |
Advanced technology can reduce much of the current
environmental burden. From a hut heated by a smoky dung fire to a mansion
with kilowatts of incandescent lights (which are only 1% efficient), people
worldwide throw away most of the energy they consume. The same is true of
potable water—most of it is used for industry and agriculture. In
countries fortunate enough to have modern medicine, present-day techniques
require awesome quantities of material and labor to keep their populations
somewhat healthy. |
| |
MNT will not magically invent the solutions for most of
these problems. But once a solution is developed, it can be applied quickly
and globally at very low cost. If MNT is developed even a few years early,
and used well, tens or hundreds of millions of lives will be saved. Any
risk that is exacerbated by early development must be balanced against this
very significant benefit. |
DEVIL'S ADVOCATE —
Submit your criticism, please!
If it's so dangerous, why allow development at all?
As we said above, sometime in the next few decades, MNT will
become very easy to develop for any country or large corporation. We don't
believe that development can be prevented forever.
Wouldn't it be better to wait until we know more about
how to deal with the risks?
Some knowledge can only be gained in the lab. If we wait,
people will be thinking up new kinds of weapons, and getting better at using
MEMS and other small technologies. MNT will be disruptive, and hard to
control, whenever it happens. We think that there'll be less disruption if
it's developed early enough that it's only developed in one place. We're open
to argument on this point. But remember that millions of people will die
tragically and preventably each year that it's not developed. That's a
certainty, not a risk, but any risk must be balanced against it.
[Comment submitted by Noah Ennis]
Very interesting series of articles. I wonder, though, if "millions of people
will die each year nanotechnology isn't developed" is not a false dilemma. After
all, the choice is not strictly between developing nanotechnology and letting
millions in the third world perish. The choice is between those two extremes and
the middle ground of alleviating poverty through existing technologies -- for
example, vaccines and mosquito nets -- which are already well within the West's
technological and economic capabilities to produce in large quantities. The
reason they don't is not economic at all, but political. The conclusions drawn
by CRN about MNT point to far more powerful intellectual property protections,
as well as centralized control of the manufacturing, which seem to make the
situation worse, not better. So although MNT has a huge amount to offer for
mitigating the effects of poverty and developing third world infrastructure,
posing its development as a moral imperative is somewhat of a red herring when
there are alternatives within our means that are subject to the same imperative
without any of the relevant moral risks. There are many superlative reasons for
advocating MNT, but the moral implication that failure to do so costs X many
lives, inasmuch as MNT is a technological instead of political solution, strikes
me as misleading.
Thanks, Noah. Your point is well taken. Millions of people
around the world are suffering and dying needlessly today, not because
we lack basic technologies that could help them, but because we lack political
will to implement basic solutions. A large part of CRN's work is aimed at
understanding these political mechanisms and the underlying
social systems that drive them. We agree that
creating a powerful new technology, like MNT, is only half the battle -- or
maybe much less than half. The real challenge is in finding effective ways to
guide the development and proliferation of the technology so that the most
beneficial outcomes can be achieved, while the
greatest risks can be averted. We've said all along
that it won't be easy, and that's why we urge
responsible government agencies, educational institutions, concerned
businesses, and civil society groups to adopt some or all of CRN's
Thirty Studies as an important first step toward
clarifying the many issues involved.
Next Page:
The Need for International
Development
Previous Page:
A Solution that Balances Many Interests
Title Page:
Overview of Current Findings
|
