Re: Nanotech arms race worries: all smoke and no fire?

From: Matthias Sohr (marodeur2020_at_compuserve.de)
Date: 07/16/04 

Date: 16 Jul 2004 03:50:29 GMT

>>Nanotechnology will also remove most of the reasons NOT to go to war,
>>including international (material) trade dependencies and military
>>protection dependencies.
>
> Would it be accurate to say, then, that you believe that absent some
> restraint, nations yearn to go to war?

No, it wouldnt. The capability to wage war (that includes lack of
constraints, even 'soft' constraints like trade dependencies) is
necessary, not sufficient. Lack of constraints *causes* war no more than
holding a sharp kitchen knife causes the urge to stab your neighbor. If,
however, there is unresolved conflict that runs deep enough to be reason
for war, then considerations of going to war or not might be greatly
influenced in favor of war if it becomes more affordable, which will
clearly be the case for MNT.

> No - it will be easier to tackle the remaining motivations because the
> _human_ resources will become more readily available to deal with the
> problem. There will be more people living a more comfortable, peaceful life
> who will be both motivated and free to act in altruistic ways that they
> might not have been able to.

How do you imagine tackling hate ideologies and the hate aspects of some
of the world religions, even with MNT? There is no defined problem to
attack like "provide adequate food, water, housing, and medical supply
to every person on the planet". *That* is the kind of problem MNT will
be able to solve.

I could even imagine a world with digital control of matter that even
*emphasizes* religion and ideology as a way to be different, since
gaining material wealth will probably lose attractivity as an objective
in life. Look at the USA: A high-tech nation, highly industrialized,
but, as an example among many, there is an actual conflict about whether
or not to favor Creationism over Evolution in school. No number of
nanofactories could solve such problems.

>>[...]there exist more than enough people that REALLY buy into
>>this pretext of religious extremism and genocide-ideology and would
>>incorporate it as their way of dealing with the world, if they could.
>>I do not find this extremely unlikely.
>
>
> No argument: the probability of conflict does not go to zero. MNT would not
> eradicate irrational acts.

Argument insofar as such people will have an easier time fulfilling
their fantasies. Put a lunatic (or 'obstinate person', if youre into
euphemisms) into power, which is nothing that hasnt happened before or
will never happen again, and you have a problem.

>>Now if
>>someone with such MNT would have any reason at all bothering about
>>someone without MNT, then it would be a pretty short arms "race", thus
>>as unstable as one can imagine, if it cannot be resolved by politics.
>
>
> Those with MNT would have little to gain by attacking those without MNT,
> but they might have more to gain by giving the technology away.

I think this wouldnt be worst way to go, for the good of everybody.
But, baring the fact it wouldnt be probable to happen under todays
mind set, wouldnt it be pretty much run contrary to the control freak
approach you promote below? Plus, the good of everybody is usually
pretty low on the priority list of someone who believes it may
significantly decrease his own good.

Politicians will have quite an easy time selling this meme to their
people if they can artificially maintain todays politics of scarcity.
This approach wont work forever, of course, but that never stopped them
from trying. Many politicians are pretty good at conserving and slowing
things down.

> Those
> without MNT would have little chance of success and would better use their
> resources and talents either simply asking the MNT holders for the
> technology or develop it themselves! Neither side seems to have much to
> gain (and more to lose) by acting against the other side.

Does a company give away their secret formula that nets them great
material wealth, if only you ask them politely? Would they stand by and
watch while you develop an equally capable product or would they, if
they see any chance of you succeeding, try everything they can to hinder
you? The motivations for blocking someone eless access to MNT can be
quite high (regardless if its right or wrong), thus the actions deemed
necessary to achieve this might be quite extreme, up to the maximum
capabilities. For todays nuclear and tomorrows MNT powers, the
capabilities are almost limitless.

> It is possible in the present to commit murder and get away with it,
> given enough planning. The technology doesn't change the moral equation -
> people aren't being restrained from committing murder and mayhem simply
> because they don't have the technology to get away with it!

Like with war, mentioned above, MNT will not be the cause in itself, but
it will remove or alleviate some of the restraints, which might be
enough to tip the balance for some towards committing murder. Not to
speak of further encouraging people that already commit murder without
particular moral trouble. Think of organized crime or terrorists.

>>Technology influences politics and policies,
>>it always has. Why shoudn't it in the future?
>
> Here's what I believe: People aren't chomping at the bit to commit murder
> and mayhem - but they do want to live comfortable lives to pursue peaceful
> activities.

Thats exactly what I strongly believe too, and I would want to believe
that its enough for looking brightly into the future. But on the other
hand I also believe in the power of propaganda, which can turn a nation
of millions into (at least temporary) supporters of even unjust war,
because people in general are prone to manipulation. That is exactly
what is happening today and what has happened for millenia. I fail to
see why people would change in that respect, just because of MNT.

I would even as far as to say that manipulation techniques will have a
stronger relative impact with MNT, because lazy, controllable people
wont be any different with MNT, possibly worse. Any determined
populist, though, will be happily using the new capabilities at his
disposal.

A world based on trust and the simple commandment "do not unto
others..." is a classical utopia. Human nature simply speaks against its
realization, though, so it is in my opinion that either the utopia will
remain exactly that, or that human nature changes profoundly. MNT and
transhumanism might do the latter, but it remains to be seen whether
that is desirable at all.

> The best way to insure that nanotechnology ends up in the hands
> of bad people before good people have a chance to prepare defenses is by
> promoting policies that centralize any aspect of nanotechnology
> development.

And who would be in charge? Would you give it to islamic extremists?
Well, if, according to you, 'economic inequities' is what really drives
them, then they will be even more pissed if you dont, wont they?
So what about christian extremists? I have a gut feeling that MNT in the
hands of a certain superpower - who shall remain unnamed - would pretty
much be disaster for the rest of the world, because it would go to
*great* lengths trying to preserve its hegemony. Add to that the fact
that for this power, allies and international treaties are only seen as
useful as long as every other nation accepts the leading role of that
power and as long as its god-given 'right' to ignore any currently
inconvenient agreement at a moments notice remains unquestioned.

But even if you gave MNT to a perfectly acceptable, responsible country
thats neutral to the point of invisibility (the Swiss might be such a
candidate), then there remains another argument against strong
centralisation: Considering 'matter as software', I could easily imagine
the real-world equivalent of crackers and, worse, script kiddies. The
longer you try to stay in exclusive control, the more likely will you
lose it eventually, and the more severe the consequences will be in that
case, because of fixed and monolithic structures that are hard to modify
in one fell swoop.

An open source (i.e. bottom up) approach would be the logical opposite
to a 'control freak' (top down) approach, and the MS Windows vs Linux
example might show which approach is more likely to succeed in the long run:

Of all people that work on computer operating systems, the vast majority
works on open source that made the various flavours of Linux so
comparably safe and reliable, and the minority of them work at Microsoft
whose closed source approach made Windows comparably unsafe and
unreliable. Bottom-up safety might be more vulnerable in the very
beginning and it always provides the possibility for a few bad guys
outsmarting the many good guys because both have access to the code, but
in the long run I think its the way to go. I believe so because Im
convinced that vastly more man-years will go into doing good than into
doing harm. And exactly that will be vital, because subtly defending
*everything* is so much harder to achieve than viciously and
successfully attacking *something*.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nanotech arms race worries: all smoke and no fire?
    ... > Nanotechnology will also remove most of the reasons NOT to go to war, ... If you say, MNT will abolish many ... The best way to insure that nanotechnology ends up in the hands ...
    (sci.nanotech)
  • Re: OT Politics: Lieberman and the Real Center
    ... Who is it more rational for the nation as a whole to fear? ... Absolute power corrupts absolutely. ... Ask Israel how much good it does to declare War on something as ... The way to fight terror is to go after the individuals who ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Thoughts on "Tirpitz - Hunting the Beast"
    ... Britain was an island nation and a naval power. ... Around 50 percent of the troops in the Mexican War ... Germany has as many facets as any other society ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)