Precursory Investigation for a
Bunyip Micromachines & Nanoengineering Policy
:
Not Yet The Official Policy of the Bunyips
Version Dated: 15 March 2001
1. BACKGROUND:
1.1
This document aims to
explore, then address
with policy initiatives, the
opportunities and concerns
around the exciting new
developments of
Micromachines and
Nanotechnology. Traditional
minimization tools like
photo-lithography (used in
the manufacture of
integrated computer chips)
and other techniques of
Microengineering, are now
being employed to develop
Micromachines. In the
context of this document
'Micromachines' is to be
understood as an
umbrella term, or
supper-set of devices that
also includes products of
Nanoengineeringin addition
too those of traditional
microengineering. This is
done to overcome the often
common miss-usage of
Nanotechnology to refer to
any technique able to
work at a sub-micron scale.
Strictly (and the usage in
this document)
'Nanotechnology' is
engineering at the atomic
scale by direct manipulation
of atoms, "A place for
every atom and every atom
in its place.".
For clarity this is called
expanded as "molecular
nanotechnology" (MNT), or
"Drexlarian
nanotechnology" {after Eric
Drexler the father-figure of
the field} the main further
terms
occasional applied
include;
molecular-engineering,
molecular manufacturing,
etc.).
1.2
A nanometer is 1 billionth
(1/10^9) of a meter,
approximately diameter of
ten Hydrogen atoms placed
side by side, and 10,000
times narrower than a
human hair. The growing
fields of nanoscience and
nanoengineering are feeding
the fundamental
understanding and control of
matter's very building
blocks, thus making the
dreams of Micromachines
& Nanotechnology
enticingly close.
1.3
Nanotechnology unlike any
technology since the dawn of
life on Earth, has more
potential for the
realization of Utopia, or
the utter (irreversible)
destruction of all life (on
the planet). More-over
this profound paradox of
unfathomable cataclysm
versus a incomprehensible
golden age, may prove to be
closer than ten years, while
optimists view it as
extremely unlikely to be
more than thirty
years away. But, other
citing the 'Heisenbergs
Uncertainty Principle',
Quantum Mechanics and the
Laws of Thermodynamics argue
that the nanotechnology
concept of a
'universal-constructor'
mechanically jamming atoms
in
desired configurations
is nigh impossible outside
of highly specialized
laboratory conditions.
Notwithstanding any
implausibility of
'universal-constructor's
there is however another
more favorable route to
nanotechnology, via an
artificial synthesis of
life-like chemistries
building devices, akin to
the way natures DNA builds
proteins then cells
organized in living
organisms. While theoretical
well justified, as this is
exactly what
nature does life now,
the research effort to this
tantalizing culmination may,
bear fruit in a short order
of a few years or conversely
take eons. By comparison
while it has only taken a
few years to get a rough
mapping of the Human
Genome, most optimistic
estimates are that it will
take at least forty years of
research to understand the
Human Genome workings! One
last sobering quote before
leaving thorny question of
predicted timing for
a nanotechnology dawn,
in 1932 Albert Einstein
confidently predicted
"There is not the
slightest indication that
nuclear energy will be
obtainable."!!
1.4
Akin to how Genetic
Engineering marks a turning
point in the history of
life on Earth, as the
culmination of a long
process where human beings
no longer see themselves as
part of nature but triumphal
over it. Nanotechnology
promises to reconfigure the
material world molecule
by molecule to create
anything that can be
imagined without defying the
law of physics.
1.5
The dreams began with the
1959 lecture "There is
plenty of room at the
bottom" by the Nobel
laureate
physicist Richard
Feynman who argued the
theoretical possibility of
building directly with
individual atoms. In 1981
his student, Eric Drexler
published "Engines
of Creation" {on line at
http://www.foresight.org/EOC/}the
first major layman's exposé
Nanotechnology ( the
updated web version, is
still one of the best
introductionary reads.) Ten
years later K. Eric Drexler,
Chris Peterson, and Gayle
Pergamit. updated the
thinking with "Unbounding
the Future: the
Nanotechnology Revolution"
{also on line at
http://www.foresight.org/UTF/Unbound_LBW/} .
1.6 The breathtaking potential of Nanotechnology has been heralded as;-
"The ability to
manipulate matter at the
atomic and molecular level
has broad implications.
Imagine the possibilities:
materials with
ten times the strength
of steel and only a small
fraction of the weight --
shrinking all the
information housed at the
[USA] Library of Congress
into a device the size of a
sugar cube--or detecting
cancerous tumors
when they are only a
few cells in size."
USA's President Clinton
speak at the California
Institute of Technology,
early in the year 2000. US
government dream is clearly
spelt out in an official
brochure "Nanotechnology
Shaping the World Atom by
Atom" {on the web
at http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/IWGN.Public.Brochure/}.
The report is by the USA's
'Interagency Working Group
on Nanoscience, Engineering
and Technology' (IWGN)
, from the US's NSTC/CT
(National Science and
Technology Council,
Committee on Technology).
1.7
Unlike all other revolutions
of technology, that
will have preceded the
nanotech dawn (including
Genetic Engineering /
Biotech, one we are just
entering) none have
possessed the potential to
so completely unmake then
rewrite the very material
foundations
of histories'
socio-economic assumptions
and structures. For the rich
variety of chemical stock,
old garbage dumps maybe more
sort after than a mine of
precious metal! "Assemblers"
self-replicating microscopic
machines
are envisaged;- growing
buildings of diamond from
raw carbon (like coal or
charred wood), or as with a
Star Trek "replicator"
synthesizing nutritional
tasty food from stock gases.
When this comes to pass,
where thence are the
old certainties &
meanings of; supply &
demand, consumption &
waste, labour & work,
property & capital??
1.8
While the whole scientific,
cultural dimension of
industrial revolution's
roll across Europe took
just over two centuries
{from 1700 - 1914}. The
climax of this first
industrial revolution, was
only thirty years from 1830
to 1860 when steam railways
went from rumored curiosity
to
ubiquitous transport.
{Between 1850 & 1860 in
the USA, nearly 34,000 km
(21,100 miles) of railway
were constructed during the
westward expansion.} More
recently the accelerating
pace of change is
characterized by the
concept of 'net-time'
where e-commerce has endured
more change in one year,
than the traditional economy
would have expected to see
in seven. Like wise the
nanotech revolution "from
rumored curiosity to
ubiquitous" could
be briefer than five
years, but this time also
requiring social dislocation
to be quenched in the same
few years!. Nanotech
theoreticians are so acutely
aware challenges of
exponential accelerating
change, that they
have labeled the
predicament as
"Singularity". The question
if humanity is physiological
resilient enough to surmount
this 'Future Shock' is still
open to conjecture.
There
still needs to be much more
in this section outlining
the promises and perils of
nanotechnology. Maybe citing
a few books (technical &
Sci-Fi) and websites.
1.9 Charles Banbridge, Rod Logic, Nanocomputers, Alvin Toffler's book "The Third Wave"
1.10 Science Fictions previews of concerns "The Diamond Age" conquered
1.11
Even in "Engines of
Creation" Dexter is at pains
to address some of the
frightening nightmares
that Nanotechnology could
confer.
1.12
With the new millennium only
a few months old (April
2000) we have among others,
the world renowned theorist
Bill Joy (co-founder of Sun
Microsystems) warning
that "Our most powerful
21st-century technologies -
robotics, genetic
engineering, and nanotech -
are threatening to make
humans an endangered
species". Joy in his 'Wired'
magazine article "Why
the future doesn't need us."
{at
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html}
argues that world has only
thirty years left to avoid a
dystopian scenario like
Theodore Kaczynski's ( the
Unabomber) that 'the fate of
the human race would be at
the mercy of the
machines'.Joy naively called
for a voluntary
relinquishment of these
technologies, as the best
first step in guaranteeing
the world for human kind
rather than dictatorial
machines. The debate that
followed the article
marked the depth of concern
existing among independent
scientists about the degree
of risk associated with the
confluence of genetic
engineering (GE), artificial
intelligence (AI) and
Nanotechnology.
Concern primarily is
over the taxing issue of how
difficult it would be to
control nanotechnology,
without stifling innovation
by honorable law-abiding
researches on one hand,
while on the other hand, not
driving
research underground
away from the public gaze,
or just into less scrupulous
hands.
1.13
Alternatively to protect
against the dark-side of
nanotechnology international
licensing bodies have been
proposed by industry.
Sadly the track-record
for the success of
international treaties, has
not been that bright when
national self-interest is at
stake. First is the abject
failure of the "Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty" to
deliver in
any meaningful sense on
its promises (there are more
nations with bombs now, than
when the treaty came into
being). Both the "UN
Chemical Weapons Convention"
and the "Biological and
Toxin Weapons Convention"
have been stymied and
neutered by various
short-sighted legislators,
during the problematic
process of nations being
required to ratifying the
conventions. Once ratified,
treaties are often
effectively rendered
meaningless, by a lack
of money or power for
enforcement, particularly
when faced with the
obstructions by local
authorities. Finally as in
the case USA's planned
anti-missile shield's
unequivocal breach of the
1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty flagrant
demonstrates, there is the
ever present danger that
larger signatories will
simple walk-away from a
critical treat obligation
when the treaty is no-longer
'convenient' for them.
1.14 Unfortunately
the recent history of
managing innovation from the
labs to the street is not
much rosier than the
treaties. The farcical
underestimation of public
concern over the
introduction of Genetic
Modified food-stuff to
the super-markets shelves,
is a clear warning to the
yawning cultural divide that
has open up at the close of
the twentieth century
between a more educated,
cautionary and skeptical
public on one
hand versus big
business, corporate
scientist, the add-men and
big government on the other.
1.15
Unlike the protection
provided in law for other
Intellectual Properties
(copyright & moral
rights), patents
were primarily
developed for economic
reason. The issuing of
patents sort to encouraging
sometimes risky investment
by granting a monopoly
limited in time to exploit
the results of research and
development work
(R&D). Also it was
envisaged that patents would
promote progress by
encouraging the free sharing
of knowledge invested in the
development of the patented
article, so that others in
the market place would be
encouraged to create
competition by bettering the
patented article, with the
additions of their own new
patentable improvements.
1.16
Unfortunately the original
noble aspiration of the
patent systems have become
warped in the
last thirty or so
years. The reasons for this
are varied among the
industrialized nations, but
primarily among them is the
near exponential explosion
of developments, coupled
with the accelerating rate
of change
within Western Society
since the end of the Second
World War. In the original
conception patents were for
protection of novel
inventions. One could not
patent something that was
artifact of common or
traditional
knowledge, that is to
say in the jargon evidence
of "prior art".
The other major restriction
was exclusion of ideas, the
expression of ideas being
the provenience of copyright
law.
To rationally contexualize the hopes & fears some
sort of Taxonomy or Matrix
of;- functionality, by
scale, by benefit &
risk, would be good aid to
focus the readers
response, before getting
into the meat of the
following analysis and
proposals.
2. FRAMEWORK:
This
section the WHAT & WHY
of the document. It spells
out the relevant assumption,
principals were are
operating from.
2.1
From both an ecological and
social perspective, the
sheer possibility that
nanotechnology may deliver a
future utopia, raises very
urgent, generally unseen
problems and threats in our
present world. The most
pressing concern being, the
false legitimacy that
nanotech's promise gives, to
the myth that all the worlds
problems can be solved at
some latter day by
technological fix. That
scarce resources and never
to be repeated opportunities
will be lost, while a
misguided quest for
some future 'silver bullet'
is pursued, rather than
taking wise, prudent
remedial steps now, before
the biosphere is
irretrievably sacrificed to
greed.
2.2
While skillful media,
social, political
and ecological action
may surmount the negative
repercussion of any silver
bullet cop-out, there still
remains another monumental
challenge. How is humanity's
perceptions (particularly
the west's mind-set) to be
moved from a 'survival
of the fittest' paradigm, to
a less aggressive,
ecologically sustainable
'survival of the wisest'.
The severity of any negative
potentials of Micromachines
and Nanotechnology, will be
a direct measure
of humanity's failures
at this heroic educational
and spiritual endeavor now
before these magical
machines have irretrievably
escaped from the laboratory.
So rather than technology
being seen as a means for
our salvation, it now
(in the foreknowledge of
nanotech's aspirations )
needs to be seen as a worthy
mechanism to enrich us, once
we have sensibly overcome
our current menaces
(ecological, sociological,
ethical and moral).
2.3
Any novel technology is
initially neutral in the
public mind. An innovative
technology is readily
associated with benevolent
or sinister overtones in the
popular imagination by how
it is first employed or
promoted. Perceptions
aside even things vital
necessary for life such as
water can take-on qualities
of horror when encountered
or portrayed in life
threatening situations like;
floods, drowning and
water-torture!
2.4
New developments
require funding to proceed.
Typically the returns that
competing investments offer,
balanced against the risk of
the venture, determines the
success of an undertaking in
attracting funding.
Exception to this
superficial business acumen
arise when, the undertaking
is driven by other agendas
like personal goals, dreams,
pride and obsessions, or
more sinisterly
nationalistic jingoism,
paranoia's or fear. In most
cases it is thus
possible to promote or
discourage a particular line
of investment by making it
more or less risky, or
manipulating the parameters
of it's financial
attractiveness (such as;-
tax advantages, limited
liability, government
grants, provision of
infrastructure).
THE BUNYIPS:
2.5
call for the rejuvenation of
the ecological, social,
philosophical and ethical
dimension of societies
educational and cultural
agendas. So that
both, school children
in all grades of formal
education, as well all
adults in all walks of their
daily lives may aspire to
gentler, more creative
life-style harmonious with,
and enriched by their fellow
souls and the
natural world in all
its' diversity and grandeur.
2.6
oppose the patenting &
recognition of other
countries' patents and other
intellectual property rights
over life forms. All
patenting of natural life
forms
involves biological
processes not under the
direct control of the
scientist. They cannot be
regarded as inventions but
expropriations from life.
Many recent patents are
unethical; they destroy
livelihoods, contravene
basic human rights,
create unnecessary suffering
in animals or are otherwise
contrary to public order and
morality. Many biotech
patents involve acts of
plagiarism of indigenous
knowledge and biopiracy of
plants (and animals)
bred and used by local
communities for millennia.
The implications of
centralizing corporate
control of the genetic
'blueprint' of life, and
resulting monopolization of
genetic "intellectual
property" by the
bioengineering industry
are immense.
2.7
oppose the validity or
recognition of any
countries, patenting &
intellectual property rights
(other than the moral right
of attribution) in relation
to artificial life-forms.
2.8
call for the
precautionary principle to
be enshrined in a legislated
seven year moratorium on the
any release of Micromachines
into the broad environment
as a matter of urgency.The
potential risks of
Micromachines to
health and environment
has not been even debated
todate. Axiomatically, the
long-term consequences for
human health and the wider
environment of a general
release of Micromachines
will remain unknown for the
foreseeable future.
2.9
call for development of
legislation at both national
& international to
implement a "Micro-Nano
Threat Quarantine
Practice".
2.10
the "Micro-Nano Threat
Quarantine Practice"should
instigate a rigid
segregation of Micro-Nano
technological &
commercial environments
(funding, staffing,
operatives, institution,
companies, government
departments, research,
development, control of
& stock sources,
suppliers, administration
& regulation,
manufacturing, production,
quality control &
quality assurance, risk
assessment, authorization,
marketing, distribution,
reclamation
& recycling), from
any association or
relationship (commercial
& legal) with
quarantined threat (cursed)
source. The quarantined
threats being;- weapon
manufacturers, military
command & establishment,
surveillance -
investigation - spy &
intelligence operatives
& organizations,
security industry, police,
prison & justice
services, secrete services,
including suppliers of
specialized products (being
those that
exceed normal
utilitarian everyday
functions) to any
quarantined threat,
inclusive of other suppliers
.
2.11
The practical outworking of
the Quarantines would be
that individuals,
stock-holders, departments,
companies, organizations,
among the quarantined
threats would be allowed no
dealings of a technical,
commercial or legal nature
with anyone or thing
involved in the micro-nano
section of society. This
obviously excludes
casual social
interactions, but would
prevent for example a worker
from a quarantined threat
being a common party with a
Micro-Nano worker in say a
housing loan.
2.12
Anybody, firm or
organization that desires to
move from the
micro-nano sector to a
quarantined sector, or
visa-versa is free to do so
after a five year
disassociation in other
sectors and profession
within the society, like
farming, arts, medicine,
mining,
tourism, transport,
housing, etc., etc.
There
still needs to be much more
in this section outlining
promising technical solution
and policy direction to meet
the challenges of
micromachines,
nanotechnology
& singularity.
Citing a few books
(technical & Sci-Fi) and
websites.
2.13 Open Source. Hypalogus al-la Freenet.
praxis custom manner order direction arrangement command bindings praxis Practices Regime
Micro-Nano Threat Quarantines Practices praxis custom manner order direction arrangement command bindings praxis Practices Regime
It
then contains the
analysis of the issue,
developing a justification
and strategies for the
position.
3. POLICY DETAIL:
THE BUNYIPS WILL:
This section
is the HOW where the
theoretical Framework is
projected onto desired
actions in the short-term,
medium and long term to
realize the vision
articulated in the Framework.
3.1.
Universal (Generic) Nanotech
Assemblers should
destructively react with
oxygen {burn, corrode, rust
or decay. The faster demise
being more desirable}.
3.2
Nanotechnology may not use
lead, chlorine or
radioactive elements as a
feed-stock.
3.3
Micromachines may not
contain, or be made with,
organochlorines, known
toxins or carcinogens..
Neither may process in, nor
the activities of, and
eventual decay of the
Micromachines precipitate
further contamination
of the environment with
organochlorines, toxins or
carcinogens.
3.4
Campaign and sponsor at an
international level for UN
resolution, to extend the
"Micro-Nano Threat
Quarantine
Practice" to an
international convention.
The "UN Micro-Nano
Threat Quarantine
Resolution", should
established a process where
breaches of the Quarantine
by a Nation (or organization
or company of that country),
will if convicted
extinguish guilty country as
a sovereign nation.
Forfeiting ownership of all
assets (including
outstanding debt) of the
guilty country not with-in
its previous borders. The
former citizens of the
guilty country
automatically becoming
stateless persons. The guilt
or otherwise of country to
be determined through
prosecution by the
International Court in the
Hague, or by a two thirds
vote of the members in the
general assembly of the
UN supporting the
extinguishment of the guilty
country's as a sovereign
legal entity. Such a
structure over-comes the
historical difficulties of
nations, firstly not joining
or ratifying
international conventions
or treaties, and secondly
with-drawing from or
undermining institutions
that may obstruct their
selfish nationalistic
ambitions, then lastly the
disfiguring effect on
justice of the super-power
vetoes in the UN
security council.
Foresight
suggested Guidelines need to
be recast and expanded to
better integrate with the
broader scope of the policy,
overcome cultural bias,
and most importantly redress
the fallacy of industry
self-regulation. "Self regulation is, no regulation!"
Sid Einfel (founder of the NSW Dept. of Consumer Affairs / Fair Trading)
Development Principles ( FiDP)
ƒ
FiDP #1 .
Artificial
replicators must not be
capable of replication in a
natural, uncontrolled
environment.
FiDP # 2.
Evolution within the
context of a
self-replicating
manufacturing system is
discouraged.
FiDP # 3.
Any replicated information should be error free.
FiDP # 4.
MNT
device designs should
specifically limit
proliferation and
provide traceability of
any replicating systems.
FiDP # 5.
Developers
should attempt to consider
systematically the
environmental consequences
of the technology, and
to limit these consequences
to intended effects. This
requires significant
research on environmental
models, risk management, as
well as the theory,
mechanisms, and experimental
designs for
built-in safeguard
systems.
FiDP # 6.
Industry
self-regulation should be
designed in whenever
possible. Economic
incentives could be
provided through
discounts on insurance
policies for MNT development
organizations that certify
Guidelines compliance.
Willingness to provide
self-regulation should be
one condition for access to
advanced forms of
the technology.
FiDP # 7. Distribution of molecular manufacturing development capability should be restricted, whenever possible, to responsible actors that have agreed to use the Guidelines. No such restriction need apply to end products of the development process that satisfy the Guidelines.
Specific Design Guidelines (FiSDG)
ƒ
FiSDG # 1.
Any
self-replicating device
which has sufficient onboard
information to describe its
own manufacture should
encrypt it such that any
replication error will
randomize its blueprint.
FiSDG # 2.
Encrypted
MNT device
instruction sets should
be utilized to discourage
irresponsible proliferation
and piracy.
FiSDG # 3.
Mutation
(autonomous and otherwise)
outside of sealed
laboratory conditions,
should be discouraged.
FiSDG # 4.
Replication systems should generate audit trails.
FiSDG # 5.
MNT
device designs should
incorporate provisions for
built-in safety mechanisms,
such as: 1) absolute
dependence on a single
artificial fuel source
or artificial
"vitamins" that
don't exist in any natural
environment; 2) making
devices that are dependent
on broadcast transmissions
for replication or in some
cases operation; 3) routing
control signal paths
throughout a device, so that
subassemblies do not
function independently; 4)
programming termination
dates into devices, and 5)
other innovations in
laboratory or device safety
technology
developed specifically
to address the potential
dangers of MNT.
FiSDG # 6. MNT
developers should adopt
systematic security measures
to avoid
unplanned distribution
of their designs and
technical capabilities.
Draft only: Comments and suggestions are welcome.
W. Shaun Gray, e-mail
: greens@NOtinMeats.auzgnosis.com
(PleaseNote: You will need to remove the " NOtinMeats.
" SPAM-trickster part of the
e-mail address before sending anything)
ƒ From
"Foresight
Guidelines on
Molecular Nanotechnology" http://www.foresight.org/guidelines/current.html
|