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
_______________________________________________________________________________