Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: nanotech!ems@princeton.edu (Edward M. Strong Jr.) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Synthetic consciences (submission for sci.nanotech) Message-ID: Date: 21 Aug 89 22:09:34 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Trenton Computer Works Lines: 152 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu In article yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu writes: >> I proposed conditioned responses to avoid misuse of nanotechnology. >[ Nanobot disassembler launcher status : Armed/Ready :-] > I *knew* somebody was going to try to take me apart over this :-) Let me state that I personally prefer a "maximum of looseness" myself in human affairs. I only proposed this idea because it appears to be technically workable, and it may be the *only* way the world can enjoy the fruits of nanotechnology while avoiding the worst pitfalls. Of course "mind control" causes knee-jerk response in most of us when we hear the term. It's *bad*, Orwellian, an unholy twisting of the human spirit that produces rigid zombies, etc. (Hmmm...isn't it funny how we all have the same associations about this subject? Could it be we've already *been* programmed?) >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). The reason people will use these arguments is because they have some merit. So far the counter-arguments are lacking in rationality. They amount to "lets not do this because *I* don't like it". How about something with a little more meat in it, along the lines of "It won't work because...."? >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). Let me point out that accepting the conditioning is a lot less invasive than having some government bureaucrat watching you 24 hours a day. (Since the G-man can't read your mind he is going to inevitably wind up watching you at times when you're not even thinking about nanotech). As far as the controls being mandatory, you'll only need them if you intend to work creatively with nanotechnology. You're free to choose, both or neither. And the controls would be applied to all nanotechnologists, without exception. [ Some text elided .... ] >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. Wow! This is a pretty emotionally loaded sentence. Brian cleverly sets up an either/or dichotomy, with "security forces" on one hand and "freedom (loving) individuals" on the other. We all know which kind we want to be, right? The reality is that the security-freedom scale is a continuum. All societies fall somewhere on that scale, and change their positions based on the decisions they make. Absolute freedom, as well as absolute security, is impossible. (Just as an aside, note that American society in recent decades has been growing conservative and sliding towards the "security" end of the scale in recent decades. I don't have any opinion on whether this is a "good" thing or not. If pressed, I would hazard a guess that the slide is caused by the aging of the population. As for myself, my slogan is "Bring back the sixties!" :-) >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. Sorry Brian, in this scheme there isn't an elite, in the sense you mean, exempt from the conditioning. For this conditioning plan to be workable at all, there have to be no exceptions to the nanotech design knowledge=conditioned rule. In addition, if you're faced with the task of designing the "bit" to go in your own mouth, you'll make that design as comfy as possible. By the way, the "leading force" idea is not mine, it is described in Drexler's book. Drexler evidently hopes that the leading force will be benevolent by virtue of being steeped in (read: conditioned by) traditional Western mores and Judeo-Christian ethic. My conditioning proposal is merely an attempt to take some of the gamble out of that hope, and make it more of a sure thing. >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. Again, wow! Isn't this a little extreme? Those conditioned nano- technologists may be a little misguided by your lights, but is it necessary to jump right to the "final solution" of assassination? You seem to be justifying yourself here by labelling your opponents as a "totalitarian regime", but that heinous term clearly does not apply here. I looked up the definition. To be a totalitarian, you have to by trying to control *all* aspects of human behavior. That is *not* what I have suggested, clearly. Also, realize that conditioning goes on today all the time, in commercials, etc. Did you know that many department stores embed subliminal messages in their Muzak to try to prevent shoplifting? Do these businessmen deserve assassination? >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 I don't think option 3 is very workable, either. The conditioned nanotechnologists can't let the unconditioned techs go free, simply because they, or their descendants, might return some day, and they would be like the fox in the henhouse. (Unless of course, the combination of no laws and nanotechnology did the "exiles" in before they got back, but we can't count on that :-) A workable alternative would be to establish a "Botany Bay", that is, a prison planet, where the rogue nanotechnologists (see, I can use loaded terms too :-) would be free to do whatever they want, as long as they didn't try to leave. But this is clearly not the adventure you have in mind. The main reason your option 3 doesn't work is because nanotechnology will make space travel too easy. Of your 3 alternatives, only option 2 appears to be workable, and I think that option, assassination, looks pretty drastic. Stepping back a bit from our discourse, (after all this is about a science that doesn't exist yet), I notice some uncanny parallels. It's already been observed by myself and others that nanotechnology will bring on Clark's Law with a vengeance, and will look like magic to the uninitiated. Now it seems likely that the nanotech "wizards" will split into two opposing camps, based on their philosophical differences. One side are the white wizards, who will bind themselves irrevocably to Law (with a capital L :-) for the good of all mankind. On the other side are the black wizards, who acknowledge no Law over themselves, and embrace Chaos for the sake of the unfettered freedom and power it brings. Hmmm.... seems to me I may have read a fantasy novel or two with this plot in it....:-) Ed Strong {princeton,attmail}!nanotech!ems