The Law And Nanotechnology

YIAAL writes: "An article in Smalltimes raises the issue of legal implications of nanotechnology in all sorts of areas. Would nanoweapons be treated as chemical or biological weapons, or do they need a new treaty? If you can use nanotechnology to copy anything and then share the "plans" with friends who can use nanotechnology to make copies of their own, is it like Napster for the material world?" The gray goo problem - accidentally releasing a self-replicating device that turns the entire world into copies of itself - is going to be a huge spur for close regulation of nano-devices.

Biological, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

To build anything small enough yet powerful enough to self-replicate as well as do something (non)useful, it would necessarily have to cross the threshold of life, or at least straddle it in the same way viruses do.

Wouldn't it be nice to actually have demonstrations of this nanotech that everyone's so worried about?

diamond age

[gr3g]

an interesting thought about nanotechnology is being able to use it to feed everyone from suplies as simple as seawater. One thing that would prevent Grey-Goo is the massive amounts of energy required to produce nanotech machines and the fact that no-one has developed a self-replicating machine outside of theory. Neal Stephenson did a good book on nanotechnology called The Diamond Age.

Re:Yes, no different than any other "poison".

[Dixie_Flatline]

The obvious quick fix (although still not guaranteed) is not to make the nanotech devices SELF-replicating; only have a 'constructor' build the nanotech devices, without them having autonomous replication. This reduces their effectiveness somewhat, but makes them a little more safe. (Although random faults can still give rise to a self-replicating device, and it only takes a few of them to start an exponential growth).

The problem with this solution is not that it reduces their effectiveness 'somewhat', it removes their effectiveness all together. We currently find it very difficult to manufacture things at that level. These nanomachines will have to be built, basically, atom by atom. The whole point to nanomachines is to do the work for us at that level. Given that, they are the perfect solution for our problem of building machines that small.

It seems to me that the best solution is to build and test these things in rooms that either have very hot walls and floors, or create them in an environment that is magnetically sealed. When we've figured out how to make constructors, the next thing we figure out how to make is 'killers'. Much like our immune system, these 'killers' would make sure that rogue machines were destroyed before any harm was caused. Like our bodies, there is the possibility of 'cancer'...an out of control growth that can't be handled by simple 'killers'. However, at that level, chemical (acids?) and radiation (EMP) therapies would be quite effective.

If you haven't already, read 'The Diamond Age', by Neal Stephenson. He doesn't go into any great detail, but you sort of get the idea that the world has coped with nanoweapons and such merely by escalating the level of nanotechnology until there is some sort of balance. What we appear to be trying to create is a whole new ecology, and as such, we'll need to try to build in the natural checks and balances that any properly functioning ecology has.

Missing the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Nanotech will initially cause incredible chaos. Millions if not billions will die. Think about it, if I had a machine that could create anything from an atomic pattern I wouldn't need to work would I? I wanna eat an apple so I go in my back yard and come back with some dirt. Since dirt and apples are the same atoms the machine would reorganize them into an apple. The machine would cover other things too like clothing, medicine etc... It would also reclaim matter like crap and left-over food. Anyhow parts of society would start falling apart because segments of the working force would stop working. Hence the chaos. Eventually everybody will have these machines because I'll have my machine replicate itself and give it to my neighbour who in turn will give it to his etc...

Laws about nanotech will not concern themselves with material issues like copyright and money since nobody will care anymore. We'll all just lay back and take it easy for a year until we get bored and ask ourselves what we really want to do with our lives. Then we'll get back to working except it won't be for the man but rather ourselves and the only reward will be a sence of contribution.

That's assuming we even get this far. I'm sure this kind of future is not in the interest of the following people:

- gangsters
- politicians
- rich people
- anybody else who enjoys living the high life and doesn't want to lose their Mexican maid.

Re:diamond age

[Bearpaw]

One thing that would prevent Grey-Goo is the massive amounts of energy required to produce nanotech machines ...

What "massive amounts of energy"?

and the fact that no-one has developed a self-replicating machine outside of theory.

... yet. Why does the fact that no one has done it yet mean that it can't happen?

That said, it's not clear how likely accidental "grey goo" would be. I'd be more concerned about intentional grey goo.

Neal Stephenson did a good book on nanotechnology called The Diamond Age.

That was not a book on nanotechnology, that was a novel that had a particular version of nanotechnology as part of the context.

Some people have written good books on nanotechnology, Here's a list. [foresight.org]

Scarce Resources Aren't Fixed By Nano-magic

[St. Intrope]

What about power? Sure, nano machines could make gasoline for you, if you had wads of power to make it with.

In other words, the laws of Thermodynamics haven't been repealed. You'll still have to plug into something to make it all go...

Nano-magic doesn't get you away from scarce resources, just moves a lot of things out of the scarce column.

The things that will stay in the scarce column:
Energy.
Land.
Intellect.

There are probably others, but I can't think of them right now.

Re:Hello!

[Raging Idiot]

I'll congradulate you.

Shut the fuck up you whiny little twit. Someone should have shoved a giant dildo in your mouth years ago. Fucking faggot scum.

There, do you feel better now?

Gray goo

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop for a moment, and think it over; why hasn't any organism yet managed to turn the entire world into copies of itself? Cause they've sure been trying - for a long time now. This makes me think that even if we tried our best, we would no be able to create a nanomachine that did this. It would face the same challenges that natural organisms do - e.g. competing organisms (that may well evolve into nanomachine-eating organisms or at least thrive on their by-products), local resource depletion, maybe even mutation.

Re:Nanotechnology will conquer

[praedor]

Huh? Nowhere in the US Constitution nor Declaration of Independence (as examples) which are the BASIS to US government in any way mention money as the keystone to government. Government is about shared ideals and mores among a group of people. The people who form that government agree on some basic foundations upon which the society is to be run.

Nanotech doesn't destroy this. You can have all the nanotech you want and it wont eliminate the need for housing (and the property upon which it sits). It wont eliminate any of the social/interactional problems that are NOT based on scarcity. Scarcity is merely the basis of our present ECONOMY, not our government or many (not all) of our social structures. They will remain.

Having nanotech wont make it suddenly "cool" to pave thousands of acres for new buildings. It wont magically make more space available for living on without totally dicking up the ecosystem and biosphere around us. Government will still remain necessary to fight against nano-attacks, regulate land use, and so forth. Just because you might have plenty of food because of a nano replicator system doesn't make ALL problems, social or environmental, suddenly vanish. You will need government and some of its machinery to handle/regulate/mediate that.

All Bill Gates' wealth would become crap, however, as would his empire, and this would make him cry like a little girl - which is reason enough to have nanotech tools abound.

Almost enough to stop living...

[srvivn21]

Isn't it tragic that legislation and treaties are needed to control stuff like this? I find it very depressing that "common sense" and "good of the community" are such hard concepts to follow. I know all about the "tragedy of the commons" and understand that it is a reality, but it just seems absurd that an intelligent (maybe that's my mistake?) species can't see that we would make much more progress and be much more comfortable (albeit as a species) if we could cooperate.

It's tough being an idealist.

Re:Paradigms, apples, and oranges.

[CommieLib]

I disagree that nanotechnology abolishes scarcity. It does nothing at all to abolish the scarcity of land, and only abolishes only some services. It ameliorates it certainly, but many elements of the modern economy will remain scarce. Assuming non-nuclear manipulation and assembly of objects, we can create 90% of our world with a bucket of sand, carbon and rust. What we can't create, however, is 100 acres of land on which to build the house whose raw materials we just created. Or, for that matter, the labor still required to assemble the house.

To pursue a more relevant line of logic, I cannot nanoassemble the experience of hearing a concert pianist... I must have something that the pianist wants and is thus willing to give up that portion of his time and effort.

Arthur C. Clarke has argued that the form of currency in the distant future will be the kilowatt hour. In a world where energy is the ultimate limit on production, this makes perfect sense. So while capitalism undergoes an sea-change transformation under those conditions, it's basic ability to distribute goods and services and signal scarcity is unchanged.

Interestingly enough, it seems to me that the last thing that could be effectively assembled in this way is food. Food has an incredibly complex structure with an incredibly sensitive error-detection process (taste).