Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Synthetic consciences (submission for sci.nanotech) Message-ID: Date: 15 Aug 89 00:20:53 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 101 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Synthetic consciences Summary: Expires: References: Sender: Reply-To: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu.UUCP (Brian Yamauchi) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY Keywords: In article mtuxo!ems1@att.att.com writes: >In the future, the leading force will inevitably have to make major >ethical decisions (in your parlance "play god"), >What I really described earlier would be a form of >conditioned response to the use of nanotechnology. >Why do computers have security systems? Why don't we just leave >it up to everyone's conscience? The answer is that it takes just >one immoral computer user to damage/destroy the system for everyone. > >To put it another way, your freedom is, (or should be) an inverse >function of the population density. With the advent of true >nanotechnology, I'll think we'll find the world is very small indeed. The "is" part may have some basis in history, but I disagree completely with the "should be" part. >[ Well thats a big enough pile of "flammables" for now. Think I'll > just hunker down into my nanotech heat-suit (with diamond fiber > heat conductor channels). ] > >Ed Strong {princeton,attmail}!nanotech!ems [ Nanobot disassembler launcher status : Armed/Ready :-] While I disagree strongly with almost everything in Ed's post, I'm glad he posted it. There *will* be people using exactly the same arguments when nanotech starts to have practical applications (and visible dangers). I'll call the people who will favor centralized control of nanotechnology and psychological/biological/nanotechnological controls on individual behavior "pro-security". I'll call the people who will oppose them "pro-freedom". (Of course, they may end up calling themselves different -- maybe something like, say, pro-life and pro-choice :-). I anticipate that the pro-security forces will succeed in having tight government regulation of nanotech, but not in forcing mandatory behavior controls on the population (at least, not in this country). Until... the first major nanocrime or nanoterrorist attack. Regardless of how many safeguards are taken, one of these is bound to happen eventually. Hopefully, people will value their freedom highly enough that this will not cause them to overreact. Unfortunately, this is the same society which has banned lawn darts and three-wheeled ATVs, so the outcome is far from guaranteed. If the pro-security forces succeed, what are the options for pro-freedom individuals who do not want to be psycho/bio/nano programmed? I see three. 1) Join the elite. In every totalitarian regime, there is always an elite -- Ed's "leading force" above. This is okay as long as (a) you don't mind aiding such a regime and (b) you are Machiavellian enough to stay at the top (or at least in the favor) of the power structure. 2) Join the underground. The same elements that make nanotech dangerous make it an extremely effective weapon against a totalitarian regime. Imagine a nanomachine designed to search and destroy government records. Or a nanovirus designed to assassinate leaders of the regime. This might require a getting a tissue sample first, then a nanovirus designed to hunt down a specific genetic code. 3) Leave (the planet, that is) If the leaders of the regime have a sufficiently elightened concept of their self-interest, they may take the "population:freedom inverse ratio" to heart, build some spacecraft, give them to the pro-freedom "troublemakers", and say "Go! Do whatever you want, but leave us alone!" I think most of the pro-freedom people would find this an acceptable compromise. (As an aside, ever notice how many of the members of the pro-space movement are libertarians?) _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________