Re: [Sci.nanotech] Re: Too much concern for "safety" and"morality"and"ethics"ofNANO


Perry E. Metzger wrote:

Toby Kelsey <toby_kelsey@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Perry E. Metzger wrote:

Better not let anyone bake bread then -- it involves "unconstrained
replicators".

I think a lump of dough is a fairly constrained environment.


Then why is the air full of yeast spores almost everywhere on the planet?

They only reproduce in well-known limited circumstances, and we have co-evolved
with them so we know a lot about them and can co-exist. The problem with
nanotech replicators is that we don't know how they might reproduce and spread
and what damage they could do if introduced into our system. This isn't just an
irrational "anti-technology" fear. If I found a plant or mushroom I didn't
recognise, I wouldn't eat it for the same reasons.

I'm afraid that doesn't happen much. Generally speaking, policy is
made by frightening ignorant people until they will go along with
anything one suggests. See the current bans all of the world of
genetically modified crop plants, for example.

I thought they were legal in the US? I think most people have no problem with
GM crops as long as a) food products are labelled so consumers can make an
informed choice, and b) they can't contaminate non-GM crops. Breaking these
rules is what is upsetting many people, rather than the existence of GM crops
per se. I agree that many policy decisions are irrational by the way, that
doesn't mean we should give up on making policy altogether.

Some people seem to have a supernatural belief that 'progress' or 'market
forces' will solve every problem without effort.


Market forces are not a supernatural concept. They're a very well
understood and well characterized set of mechanisms that constrain
human behavior. Ignorance of the last couple of centuries of the
economics literature is common, but not a good excuse for odd beliefs
on the subject.

Market pricing is an efficient way of solving some problems. The mysticism
comes with the belief that the "invisible hand" is the answer to all social
problems on its own. Even Adam Smith didn't believe that.

In reality a lot of human planning and, yes, regulation is needed to
cope with the effects of new technologies.


That is a bald assertion, not a set of well reasoned arguments. I've
yet to see terribly well managed regulatory regimes. I'm told very
often about how well, for example, the FDA manages to "protect" us,
but my father had to have his most important anti-Parkinsons drug
smuggled in for him from Europe because it was only approved in the
US a decade after it was legal elsewhere. How many other people
blindly followed the law and died? I don't know.

The current regulatory environment (in the US and elsewhere) is certainly not
perfect, but that doesn't mean total deregulation would be better. The FDA is
probably heavily influenced by big-pharm (aka "regulatory capture"), so in a way
your experience is evidence againt the market knowing best.

With food and drugs, there is a credible libertarian argument that people should
be able to do what they want to their bodies. With GM crops and nanotech, the
possibility of negative effects on third parties means regulation should be
considered.

As for being just a bald assertion, many of the gains since the industrial
revolution have been the result of regulation, from preventing six-year-olds
working down mines to Clean Air regulations (about 12000 people died because of
the 1952 London smog). I think the case for (some) regulation is good, but I
don't expect to convince a libertarian.

The regulatory mindset is very interesting. It claims that there are
these supernatural entities, called "regulators", who unlike humans are
not subject to human foibles, economic pressures, political pressures
or ignorance, and are thus capable of making life and death decisions
on other people's behalf. I'm not sure I buy that idea.

Regulators are subject to pressures, which is why transparency, accountability,
and democratic control are all necessary. "Power corrupts" is true in all
spheres of life, including commerce and industry. I suspect the head of the
FDA is more democratically accountable than the CEO of Monsanto.

If someone dumps neurotoxin (or nanites) into the river upstream and
kills you and your family, what should be done?


They should be arrested for manslaughter and then tried, of
course. What else do you do with people who kill other people?

And if companies or individuals who pollute the environment are prosecuted for
any indirect damage, isn't that a form of regulation? With regard to tort law,
the problems of showing intent, the possibly dispersed and statistical nature of
the damage, the ability to enforce precautionary measures and the availability
of inprisonment all mean that criminal law provides a better basis for
regulation than tort law.

On the contrary, there is nothing voluntary about the market, any more
than there is something voluntary about gravity or the human sex
drive. People try to deny all three at times, of course, but they're
rarely successful.

It's getting off-topic, but I'm not sure what you mean here. If I'm a
subsistence farmer, is someone is going to put a gun to my head and make me go
to the market and trade? If I've created pollution, how do "market forces"
enforce restitution or punish me?

Toby

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Amalgam and Mercury Pollution
    ... The issue here is that we are ingesting it from our environment (ie ... What I am saying is that our environment has a fixed quantity of Hg, ... by adding regulation of waste disposal you are not going to decrease ...
    (sci.med.dentistry)
  • Re: Dems totally in charge now
    ... ultimately they have to cut the social conservatives loose and compete ... explain why free markets are better for the citizens than a government ... It's 'regulation lite' since transparency doesn't imply anything ... notion of "keeping the market playing field level". ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)
  • OT ~ More Regulation?
    ... like Bobby Fiction who advocate more government interference in the ... free market ought to read it carefully. ... Mistaken regulation contributed greatly to ... The Federal Reserve agreed to take $30 billion of risky ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Deregulation posterboy Greenspan: In "shocked disbelief" in the industrys inability to regulate its
    ... Alan Greenspan, the formerchairman of the US Federal Reserve, has ... need for more regulation of the finance industry. ... The housing market was inflated tounsustainable levels, ... on mortgage payments in record numbers and as house prices slumped. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: Microsoft just fined US$ 1.35 billion by European antitrust regulator
    ... The only way a free market works is ... All markets *require* some form of regulation. ... Free markets rely on consumers being able to choose between ... If a company increases their wages, ...
    (alt.html)