|
by Ralph C. Merkle, PhD
This is the English original of an article
translated into German and published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine
Zeitung of Monday, September 11 2000 on page 55.
In the coming decades nanotechnology could make a supercomputer
so small it could barely be seen in a light microscope. Fleets
of medical nanorobots smaller than a cell could roam our bodies
eliminating bacteria, clearing out clogged arteries, and reversing
the ravages of old age. Clean factories could eliminate pollution
caused by manufacturing. Low cost solar cells and batteries
could replace coal, oil and nuclear fuels with clean, cheap
and abundant solar power. New inexpensive materials over fifty
times stronger per kilogram than those used in today's rockets
could open up space and make lunar vacations no more expensive
than vacations to the South Pole. Material abundance for all
the people of the earth could become a reality.
Not long ago, such a forecast would have been ridiculed.
Today, the President of the United States has called for a
$500 million National Nanotechnology Initiative and invites
us to imagine “...materials with ten times the strength
of steel and only a small fraction of the weight -- shrinking
all information housed at the Library of Congress into a device
the size of a sugar cube -- detecting cancerous tumors when
they are only a few cells in size.” Scientists around
the world agree this is all possible (though with big disagreements
about exactly how long it will take and exactly what it will
look like).
At its heart, the coming revolution in manufacturing is a
continuation of trends that date back decades and even centuries.
Manufacturing has been getting more precise, more diverse
and less expensive for over fifty years. Looking ahead, in
a few decades we’ll be able to manufacture products
with the ultimate in precision: the finest features will be
made from individual atoms and molecules -- the fundamental
building blocks of matter from which all the objects in the
world around us are made. The diversity of products will be
staggering: we’ll be able to make almost any arrangement
of atoms consistent with physical law. And we’ll be
able to make things inexpensively -- a dollar a kilogram or
less.
The remarkably low manufacturing cost comes from self replication.
Molecular machines can make more molecular machines, which
can make yet more molecular machines. While the research and
development costs for the first such systems are likely to
be quite high, the incremental manufacturing costs of a system
able to make more systems like itself can be very low. Wood,
for example, is a complex product made from tens of thousands
of proteins and a host of complex molecular machines. Yet
we think nothing of slicing a piece of wood into a convenient
slab and using it for a table. The reason, of course, is that
wood is inexpensive, and it is inexpensive because it is made
by self replicating systems: trees.
While nanotechnology does propose to use self replication,
it does not propose to copy living systems. Living systems
are wonderfully adaptable and can survive in a complex natural
environment. This is much more than we need, much more difficult
to design and much less economical than simpler alternatives.
Instead, nanotechnology proposes to build molecular machine
systems that are similar to small versions of what you might
find in today’s modern factories. Robotic arms shrunk
to submicron size should be able to pick up and assemble molecular
parts like their large cousins in factories around the world
pick up nuts and bolts and put them together.
Now that the feasibility of nanotechnology is widely accepted,
we enter the next phase of the public discussion: what policies
should we adopt to best deal with it? The Foresight Institute
(www.foresight.org)
was founded in 1986 primarily to facilitate public understanding
and discussion of the policy issues surrounding the development
and deployment of nanotechnology. The Foresight community
knew, even then, that nanotechnology was feasible. This allowed
discussions over a decade ago about the best policies for
dealing with this new technology. Policy discussions were
effectively impossible elsewhere because they would almost
immediately be sidetracked by debates about feasibility. For
those of us who participated in those earlier discussions,
today’s can at times produce an overwhelming sense of
deja vu.
Self replication is at the heart of many policy discussions.
Unfortunately, our intuitions about self replicating systems
can be lead seriously astray by a simple fact: the only self
replicating systems most of us are familiar with are biological.
We automatically assume that nanotechnological self replicating
systems will be similar. Nothing could be further from the
truth. The machines people make bear little resemblance to
living systems, and molecular manufacturing systems are likely
to be just as dissimilar.
Consider, for example, the difference between a bird and
an airplane. Both fly. Yet the image of a 747 going feral,
swooping out of the sky to clutch an unsuspecting horse in
its landing gear, seems incongruous. Machines lack the wonderful
adaptability of living systems. A 747 requires Jet A fuel,
a refined source of energy that is delivered to it by an elaborate
system that includes oil fields, pumps, tankers, refineries,
fuel lines, and trucks. It can convert this artificially refined
fuel into energy using engines that can run on little else.
Cut off from refined fuel, airstrips, maintenance crews, spare
parts, navigational systems and all the other paraphernalia
that keeps it flying and a 747 is just a large piece of scrap
metal. A bird, in contrast, can live on berries, seeds, worms,
insects, small rodents, fish and bits of bread tossed to it
by amused tourists. Its living and remarkably adaptable digestive
system can convert all these and more into energy and essential
raw materials for power and self repair. It thrives in the
complex and ever changing natural world.
Much of the discussion about self replicating molecular machine
systems is concerned with the possibility that they might
accidentally replicate uncontrolled and so destroy the world.
This fear is based heavily on the assumption that artificial
systems will, in some deep sense, resemble living systems
and will be able to function effectively in the complex and
ever changing natural environment. Yet this premise is far
from the truth, and the conclusion is at best suspect. Artificial
self replicating systems, designed for economic objectives,
should be as unable to function in a natural environment as
a 747.
While this risk seems slight, the Foresight Institute has
none-the-less written a set of draft Guidelines (http://www.foresight.org/guidelines/)
to inform developers and manufacturers of molecular manufacturing
systems how to completely avoid it. If, as expected, it proves
difficult and uneconomical to develop and deploy systems able
to replicate in the natural environment, little explicit enforcement
of the Guidelines would be required. If some developers seek
marginal advantages at great cost and with utter disregard
for safety, the Guidelines could form the basis for a more
formal mechanism of inhibiting such behavior. The Guidelines
include such common-sense principles as “Artificial
replicators must not be capable of replication in a natural,
uncontrolled environment.” Building on over a decade
of discussions of a very wide range of scenarios, the first
version of the Guidelines were based on a February 1999 workshop
in Monterey, California. They have since been reviewed at
two Foresight workshops. Because our understanding of this
new technology is and will continue to evolve, the Guidelines
will evolve with them -- representing our best understanding
of how to insure the safe development of nanotechnology.
Of greater concern than accidental problems created by otherwise
well meaning groups is the possibility of deliberate abuse.
While the development of nanotechnology is likely to take
a few decades, and the early developers are likely to be large
organizations with major resources that can afford substantial
development efforts, in the long run nanotechnology is going
to be available to a wider range of groups -- including terrorist
organizations and others of malign intent.
As a society we have only begun to examine nanotechnology-based
weapons systems. Much further analysis is needed before we
can be confident of our conclusions. That said, the analyses
that have been done to date show that nanotechnology-based
weapons can be countered by the prepared defense. It is worth
emphasizing the word “prepared,” as the scenarios
that pit an aggressor who has developed nanotechnology-based
weapons against a defender who has failed to develop nanotechnology-based
defenses can be stunningly lopsided in their outcome. The
prepared defender, on the other hand, can detect and counter
attacks by smaller groups (e.g., terrorists, mad bombers,
etc.).
These conclusions lead to an obvious policy: be prepared.
Research and development into the basic capabilities of nanotechnology
should continue, and should specifically include research
into the less pleasant capabilities of this new technology
so that we can effectively develop detection systems and countermeasures.
There are many alternative courses of action. The three most
conspicuous seem to be: ban it, guide it, or let the free
market reign.
Banning nanotechnology research and development is based
on the assumption that a ban would let us avoid any potential
downsides, and in particular the downsides caused by an enemy
who deploys nanotechnology-based offensive weapons. Unfortunately,
we have no reason to believe that such an enemy would honor
a ban. A 100% effective ban might accomplish the desired objective,
but a 99.99% effective ban would simply insure that the technology
was developed by the least scrupulous 0.01% of humanity while
the rest of us remained defenseless. This is hardly the desired
outcome, and in fact would make the world a more dangerous
place.
Guiding the development of the technology is a more complex
undertaking, but insures that the more enlightened countries
of the world would be able to use nanotechnology-based defenses
if they were attacked by an opponent. This policy would also
make the economic benefits of nanotechnology available to
all, even those who today live in grinding poverty. For some
of us an improved standard of living might mean only a second
computer and a longer vacation, but for many it would mean
adequate medical care and food. Nanomedicine could improve
the health and well being of the entire population.
For example, higher crop yields could be achieved by intensive
green house agriculture. Plants grown in controlled environments
(with optimal temperature, CO2, water, nutrients, etc) can
grow year round and produce an order of magnitude more food
per acre than existing methods. Nanotechnology could make
the computer controlled environmental enclosures inexpensively.
This would not only provide more food, it would reduce the
total number of acres devoted to growing food. Habitat destruction
caused by agriculture is one of the largest environmental
problems that we have: rolling back that damage would go a
long way in helping us restore the environment.
Finally, we could adopt a laissez faire policy: let the free
market reign. There are strong proponents of the free market
who argue that government intervention is likely to have unexpected
deleterious effects. Slowing the development of nanotechnology
would clearly cause both economic loss and prolong human suffering.
These adverse outcomes could be reduced if regulations and
controls were avoided altogether.
In summary: advances in technology have given us greater
control over the material world and improved our standard
of living. Few among us would wish to go back to the 13th
century and live in a pre-industrial world where food was
scarce, disease common, and early death the rule rather than
the exception. Looking ahead, advances in technology should
give us more powerful computers, better health care, more
abundant food, and a higher standard of living. At the same
time, these new technologies create new concerns that we must
address to insure that they will, on balance, benefit the
human condition.
The discussion about nanotechnology has just begun. As its
power and capabilities are better understood and grow closer
to realization, the discussion will extend to a wider and
wider audience. For the next few years, the public discussion
is likely to be marred by serious inaccuracies and confusions
– this seems to be an unavoidable phase in any widespread
public discussion of a new technology. The most significant
confusions are likely to center on the nature of artificial
self replicating systems designed for manufacturing purposes,
and the capabilities of nanotechnology-based weapons systems.
Fortunately, the full consequences of nanotechnology are unlikely
to effect us for a few decades – providing time for
further research and education. Policies based on open discussions
and a clear understanding of the technology will best prepare
us for the future – whatever the direction we choose
to go.
back
to top
© Copyright 2007-2010, Zyvex Instruments. All Rights Reserved. |
|