Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!ukma!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: lovejoy@alc.com (Alan Lovejoy) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Is this stuff for real? Keywords: reality nanotech questions Message-ID: Date: 26 Mar 91 23:19:20 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Ascent Logic Corporation; San Jose, CA Lines: 45 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu In article landman@eng.sun.com (Howard A. Landman) writes: >Note that it is wholly inadequate to counterargue that we "can" do >this or that to prevent problems. You must argue that people "will" >do this or that, even under pressures of schedule, budget, politics, >war, etc. This is a much harder argument and I haven't seen anyone >attempt it yet. An excellent argument that hits an unarguable bulls-eye at precisely the right target. Before one learns to run, one must first master walking. Before one lears to walk, one must first master crawling. And so on. This argues that we should strive for extremely tight safety procedures and secure environments for nanotech experimentation and practical usage that the FDA or its equivalent will obsessively require until such time as we have mastered a practical (i.e., usable, cheap, fast, simple, reliable and accepted) method (methodology?) for keeping our nanotech fire under control. Safe nanotechnology is like safe sex. Until the safety technology is so user-friendly that no one would consider doing things the unsafe way, we had better assume that people will be tempted to do things the unsafe way. Given the fact that the nanotech genie cannot be kept in its bottle indefinitely--no matter what precautions we take--it behooves us to make viable safety methodology and technology our number one development priority. Another priority issue is this: at what point does the current situation with respect to nanotech research and experimentation--where there are essentially no controls or safeguards--become significantly dangerous? That time is arguably decades away. But perhaps there are those who feel an even greater urgency? (Genetic engineering is admittedly already a potential problem in the case of malicious or intentionally-inimical activities). -- %%%% Alan Lovejoy %%%% | "Do not go gentle into that good night, % Ascent Logic Corp. % | Old age should burn and rave at the close of the day; UUCP: lovejoy@alc.com | Rage, rage at the dying of the light!" -- Dylan Thomas __Disclaimer: I do not speak for Ascent Logic Corp.; they do not speak for me! [There is one very serious danger to this approach: If responsible people inhibit themselves too much in developing nanotechnology, irresponsible people are certain to beat them to Breakthrough, and all hell will be out for noon. There are no simple black-and-white issues here. --JoSH]