The Law And Nanotechnology 188
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.
great quote (Score:1)
Been there, done that (legally speaking) (Score:2)
For example, the US Supreme Court held that any human creation under the sun is patentable as long as it meets the statutory requirements of novelty, usefulness, and unobviousness. Thus, the creations of nanotechnology, like biotech and computer software are patentable. (Believe it or not, there was a serious question as to whether software was patentable until recently - it still is not in most countries).
As for the specific uses of nanotech-created devices, I think that people will find that new devices fit nicely into the old legal boxes. This is not to say there will not be argument over which box it should go in, but it will most assuredly be fit into some box.
Re:Been there, done that (legally speaking) (Score:2)
For example, the US Supreme Court held that any human creation under the sun is patentable as long as it meets the statutory requirements of novelty, usefulness, and unobviousness. Thus, the creations of nanotechnology, like biotech and computer software are patentable. (Believe it or not, there was a serious question as to whether software was patentable until recently - it still is not in most countries).
As for the specific uses of nanotech-created devices, I think that people will find that new devices fit nicely into the old legal boxes. This is not to say there will not be argument over which box it should go in, but it will most assuredly be fit into some box.
This has GOT to be a troll, or the most amazing display of cluelessness I have EVER witnessed on Slashdot.
1) You use patents as an example of a "good" outcome of the "useful" tool of law wrt technology.
2) You assume the reader thinks there is NO serious question as to whether software should be patentable.
2a) You ALSO assume the reader then agrees software should be patentable.
3) You ask then ask (based on these premises) the reader to have faith that our legal system is capable of producing GOOD laws regarding technology, despite reams of evidence to the contrary (do I even have to MENTION the DMCA?)
You don't read
Either that, or I have been horribly trolled.
Grey goo? (Score:1)
But for grey goo? Hmm, I don't think I can help you there...
Biological, of course (Score:2, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be nice to actually have demonstrations of this nanotech that everyone's so worried about?
Re:Biological, of course (Score:2)
Great! So instead of worrying about Code Red shutting down the Internet, we'll have to worry about Code Green turning the whole planet into a giant puddle of mud...
Re:Yes, no different than any other "poison". (Score:1)
More than poison: death. (Score:1)
Feel free to ignore me - I don't really care. AI presented what would happen when machines as intelligent as us would be let loose on the world, imagine what would happen if machines which were indescriminately able to reproduce were let loose on the populus?
Chaos, death, and destruction. Seeing as these machines wouldn't know any better..
Re:Yes, no different than any other "poison". (Score:3, Interesting)
Darwinian evolution is based on survival of the fittest, driven by a variation in population characteristics generated by mutation. Replication errors are for the most part fatal to an organism, but there's a chance that an error accidentally makes something useful, which gives that organism an advantage, and so it begins to propagate across the population.
The two big advantages that a nanotech devices would have to gain by mutation are:
Given that nanotech devices would have to be deployed in large populations to be useful, such effects have to be very carefully considered; the principles of evolution apply to even very simple mathematical representations of living populations.
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).
Re:Yes, no different than any other "poison". (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Premature Prognosication (Score:1)
diamond age (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:diamond age (Score:3, Insightful)
What "massive amounts of energy"?
and the fact that no-one has developed a self-replicating machine outside of theory.
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]
Re:Diamond Age (Score:1)
In ARISTOI, the great, forbidden danger was "mataglap nano", which apparently served to break everything down into component molecules for later use as raw material. An inattentive nano designer who didn't put adequate controls on the bugs' self-replication capacity could accidentally create mataglap, so therefore all new nano designs were to be reviewed closely by computer programs and more-experienced superiors.
Re:Diamond Age (Score:1)
Try "Builders of Infinity". This book, can't recall the author, contains the good and bad of nanotech. The gray goo problem pops up as does a nifty way to colonize a new solar system.
Nanoweapons are 1 year away at most (Score:1)
Re:Nanoweapons are 1 year away at most (Score:1, Interesting)
The ultimate "green" invention (Score:1)
Out of left field here (Score:1)
I know these questions are a bit off, but if we get to the point where we can perform medial manipulations to regrow limbs, I figure it'll only be a matter of time before people start using this technology for fashion/style purposes.
Missing the issue (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Though I'm usually the eternal cynic...read (Score:1)
You are missing the point of why such people exist. Leaving politicians out of it (too many contradictions both ways), the other "catagories" you are referring too are "generally" doing what they do for power, and/or they like to feel superior to someone else. You could almost call it part of the human condition. We like feeling superior to someone (anyone) else. That's why we like disaster news shows. Though it is never said, and rarely thought, when we see a whole state/country/region flooded, we say to ourselves "At least i'm superior to THEM!".
It is all about being/feeling superior. That's why your idea that those "groups" will try and prevent utopia is probably not true. Those groups will probably go along with whatever happens, but will try and control the change so that they remain on top. If that doesn't happen, then other groups, usually those on the leading edge of the change will position themselves to take power in some new way, usually by means that were not available at the beginning of the massive societal change. Microsoft's position now is a perfect example of this. IBM was the "old-school" group that specialized in mainframes, and couldn't recognize the importance of PCs. Because of this, Microsoft, being the "new guy" on the leading edge of the technology was able to take control. And it will take an equally significant change to the computer industry (quantum computers maybie?) to displace them.
So while I believe that the somewhat-utopian change from nanotech will come, there will ALWAYS be those trying to be above or "superior" to others, just from basic human domination instinct.
Eriol
P.S. I guess I still AM the eternal cynic. Oh well. :)
It does not make sense (Score:1)
Many points come to mind, here are the biggies:
1) First the rules for genes and clones contradict the rest of common law. If I can own land, my own body, and even ideas and do whatever I please with them, why can't I investigate my own body if it violates someone's patent on a gene, and why can't I investigate making copies of (cloning) myself? Both of these uses of my own body come under "fair use" - Good lord I hope so - so why is the government holding me down?
2) Further, the rules seem to contradict each other. If it makes sense to be able to own exclusive rights to a gene, then why not copies of the gene? And if copies of a gene are okay, then why not copies of sets of genes - aka chromosomes? And if it makes sense to have copies of sets of chromosomes - aka
Imagine the fun that comes to reality when systems similar to the gray goo are available. Governments are usually slow on imagination, and with innovation occuring so fast these days, it will probably take nothing short of a revolution to make things make sense again. But, then again well-formed democracies last a long time because they go through constant phoneix rebirths, and better ideas are encouraged to the top. Maybe not one big revolution, but lots of little ones.
Conclusion: The gray goo is gonna cause people to go through more revolutions in thought because things have to make sense eventually.
Tangent Point:
I would also like to point out that Native Americans had civilized culture for thousands of years without any real concept of land ownership [americanwest.com]. As today's civilized culture becomes more nomadic, maybe property in general is passe? Maybe that is why many slashdoters fight so hard against anything - patents, copyrights, DMCA, Microsoft - that keeps innovation low: it is not natural and nature always finds a way.
The world does not make sense when it can't make cents.
What if it's learned behaviour? (Score:1)
It's not like you anticipated that it would decide to break the law.
The same goes for something designed for tissue repair - what if it starts fixing things you don't want fixed, like someone who had a tubal ligation or other operation to shut down reproductive capability, and it just fixes it. You didn't intend for pregnancy to occur
What if it's a security bot, repairing data links to increase signal capabilities. And it runs across an uber-Carnivore screen tap that the uber-NSA put in, to intercept info it's not supposed to intercept. So the bot cuts it out of the circuit, since it doesn't belong. Did you do that intentionally? What if when you designed it, such things were illegal, and then they made it legal? What if it was legal and then they made it illegal?
Ah, the possibilities are astounding in their implications.
No, we are not doomed to gray goo (Score:2)
http://www.foresight.org/NanoRev/Ecophagy.html
You Mean Human Beings? (Score:2, Funny)
Sounds like people to me. Well, other than the accidnetly part, we were "released" quite intentionally.
Facinating Nanite Novel (Score:1)
Why not adopt the three laws of Robotics? (Score:5, Interesting)
1) A robot shall not through action or inaction allow a human come to harm.
2) A robot shall always obey the orders of a human unless it violates the first law.
3) A robot shall attempt to save itself, unless this violates the first and second laws.
Now, this was developed for robots with positronic brains, much more advanced than your average nano bot is likely to be. But when you take into consideration the complexity of what a nanobot has to do, there must be something controlling them, right? Well, I'm not sure a computer of today could really comprehend the idea of human life, or how its action could affect it.
Going completely offtopic now
But, if a hoarde of nanobots gets out of control, we do have a way of stopping them, an Electro Magnet Pulse wreaks havoc with pretty much every electronic device, and to shield the little buggers would be an act of utter stupidity.
Basically, if a destructive force of nanobots gets released, that can duplicate themselves, is immune to EMP, and is self sufficient. Well, we are quite screwed, you have to rely on the fact that no one in their right mind would design such a doomsday device.
Re:Why not adopt the three laws of Robotics? (Score:2)
Because making the nanomachines understand the Three Laws requires a solution to the Strong AI Problem. This will not be a cakewalk, and will be overkill for the vast majority of applications of nanomachines.
Building in an "off" switch or a dependence on a specific environmental factor would work at least as well and would be far easier.
Re:Why not adopt the three laws of Robotics? (Score:2)
Re:Why not adopt the three laws of Robotics? (Score:2)
Easy - because they're too dumb to modify their own designs.
Designing a system that can design or improve the design of systems as complicated as itself is another task that's comparable to solving the Strong AI Problem.
You could argue that mutations might let them evolve, eventually, but nanomachines would be much less suceptible to mutation than biological replicators (by design - you don't want a cosmic ray to cause future generations of nanobots build houses without foundations, for instance).
You'd probably give nanobots the hard-coded pattern for replicating themselves, and the ability to download large structure designs from your database when building things. That way you don't have to give your nanobots the designs for every structure you could conceivably want to build, and they wouldn't have to do any design work at *all*.
Now, someone could deliberately build nanobots that would try to replicate ad infinitum, but that's for another thread.
Taking over the world with nanomachines. (Score:2)
...And this feeds back to the whole Gray Goo question: _can_ nanobots be built that could turn most matter into copies of themselves?
I personally think that this is very unlikely to be a problem. Special-purpose nanobots - e.g. ones optimized for construction given external power and matter supplies - can be very efficient. General-purpose nanobots would be less so. If you try to adapt a nanobot to the task of replicating as much as possible using ambient sources of matter and energy, you'll get something with performance characteristics much like existing replicators with similar design goals - bacteria.
I have yet to see a convincing argument that general-purpose nanomachines could be more efficient than bacteria at spreading and transforming the world about them. Both have abundant supplies of raw material, but both are limited by energy and by competition with other life forms.
Re:Taking over the world with nanomachines. (Score:1)
Re:Why not adopt the three laws of Robotics? (Score:2)
Basically, if a destructive force of nanobots gets released, that can duplicate themselves, is immune to EMP, and is self sufficient. Well, we are quite screwed, you have to rely on the fact that no one in their right mind would design such a doomsday device.
Let's follow this (albeit extremely far-fetched, sci-fi, paranoid) idea to it's logical conclusion. What do you do when this "horde" redesigns itself to be shielded from EMP?
Re:Why not adopt the three laws of Robotics? (Score:2)
These nanobots would be unique, so you could make nanobots (A) that seek out and destroy the gone-wrong nanobots (B). Granted, the nanobots (B) would likely be able to protect themselves, and could probably even modify themselves to appear like the other nanobots (A).
*weak Dr. Evil impersonation* (Score:1)
I suggest constructing a giant "laser" on the moon. With this "laser" we will bust open a can of whoopass on the little buggy-bot creatures. If that doesn't work, I'll have myself cryogenically frozen and launched into orbit while the rest of you die a horrible, buggy death.
Doesn't that require initial cognitive abilities? (Score:1)
Re:Why not adopt the three laws of Robotics? (Score:1)
2) A robot shall always obey the orders of a human unless it violates the first law.
3) A robot shall attempt to save itself, unless this violates the first and second laws.
How in the world are we going to build robots that follow these laws, when even most humans can't? These robots would have to be 100% perfect psychic. Also, if you had really read those novels, you would have noticed that the plot was usually about how the robots somehow did harm anyways, even when following these rules.
- Steeltoe
Re:Why not adopt the three laws of Robotics? (Score:3, Informative)
Not necessarily. Nanobots could be built that have the capability to detect a certain chemical, seek it out, and absorb that chemical, and then shut down. No outside control would be necessary.
But, if a hoarde of nanobots gets out of control, we do have a way of stopping them, an Electro Magnet Pulse wreaks havoc with pretty much every electronic device, and to shield the little buggers would be an act of utter stupidity.
In order to be vulnerable to EMP the nanobots would have to contain semi-conductors. Here's some useful info:
"Society has entered the information age and is more dependent on electronic systems that work with components that are very susceptible to excessive electric currents and voltages."(15) Many systems needed are controlled by a semiconductor in some way. Failure of semi-conductive chips could destroy industrial processes, railway networks, power and phone systems, and access to water supplies. Semiconductor devices fail when they encounter an EMP because of the local heating that occurs. When a semi-conductive device absorbs the EMP energy, it displaces the resulting heat that is produced relatively slowly when compared to the time scale of the EMP. Because the heat is not dissipated quickly, the semiconductor can quickly heat up to temperatures near the melting point of the material. Soon the device will short and fail. This type of failure is call thermal second-breakdown failure. Source [geocities.com]
But there are several different possibilities for the future of nanobot production. Some of these are entirely mechanical, some entirely chemical, or even biological. An EMP would do nothing to these types of nanobots.
The Diamond Age (Score:1)
It's good scifi/cyberpunk stuff.
My questions would be, in a world where physical objects can be duplicated easily, would property rights stop meaning as much? and would property laws become more like intellectual property laws?
Imagine a DNCA (N for nano), anti-nano-copying... this car is nano-righted 2092. Any attempt to duplicate it is a violation of our nanorights...
Re:The Diamond Age (Score:2)
Imagine a DNCA (N for nano), anti-nano-copying... this car is nano-righted 2092. Any attempt to duplicate it is a violation of our nanorights...
Of course, this is exactly how it was in Diamond Age. Matter compilers could make anything, but the instructions necessary to actually produce something were incredibly complicated. A team of designers would have to work months to write to instructions so something as simple as a chair could be produced. In a world like this, intellectual property is everything and physical property is near worthless.
Of course, it's also important to note the limitations to compilers had in Diamond Age as well. The products they produced were limited in what materials could be used, they couldn't produce a wood chair for example, they could only produce a chair that felt like wood. Hence they couldn't really produce food.
I personally think Diamond Age is the best thought out book I've read on the subject of nanotechnology and it's uses, I recommend it to everyone who might be interested in such a subject. Neil Stephenson made reasonable assumptions about the first stages of nanotechnology (they won't be self replicating) and avoided the whole "nanomachines are magic" concept. He paints a world that is very similiar to our own, with it's own problems and own solutions.
Support for Open Source (Score:1)
Objections to gray goo scenario. (Score:2)
Maybe so, but there are arguments to be made against the gray goo scenario based on energy availability, such as this one [foresight.org]
I think it's most likely that this will degenerate into the kind of global warming he-said she-said which lets lawmakers do whatever the hell they want, and justify it with the science they prefer.
A Question (Score:4, Funny)
so what else is new? (Score:1)
Its far more likely that nanotech will go the way of biotech... that is -- make the stuff first and spread it all over the world and _then_ worry about the moral, socio/political, implications of what we just did. Of course the motivation is primarily profit-- possibly taken at the expense of the lives of many and for little overall benefit- and that motivation is what I think needs to change.
Re:so what else is new? (Score:1)
It's hard work, and it takes money to do it. Do you imagine, for a single minute, that biotech research could have happened out of purely alturistic desires? The writing, the time, the labor, sure (witness OpenSource). But how about the multimillion dollar hardware? Where is that going to come from?
Biotech saves lives. FUD kills.
Little over-all benefit... Christ man, do you put a dollar value on human life? If it costs a billion to save a family, it's worth doing. But you're not going to see that billion spent, without there being some benefit to the doer. You cannot feed a family on ideals. And, specifically, you should read the recent UN report on Biotech. Oh, wait, you don't want hard facts. Nevermind.
Putting the cart before the horse a little... (Score:2)
-Adam
Remember: If you want to get your story posted to slashdot mention nano-tech and law in your blurb. Submit early, submit often.
Self-replication and nanotechnology (Score:1)
http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/selfRepNASA.html [zyvex.com]
Seems like a lot of people are taking this stuff pretty seriously. I especially like the part about machines that feed on moon dirt.
_Would_ scarcity be eliminated? (Score:2, Interesting)
Dr Seuss and the Grey Goo Problem (Score:2)
Re:Dr Seuss and the Grey Goo Problem (Score:2)
No fear (Score:2)
I'll get worried about nano-replicators after they build the first self-replicating machine factory even with human workers. It's hard.
But then, the certain Lexx episode made a nice demonstration what could happen with enough self-replicating robot arms... ;-)
Gray goo (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gray goo (Score:2)
However, it doesn't remove the possibility: it just says that one design methodology (which we'll assume is undirected evolution) has failed to produce the gray gooifier.
Human directed design has been able to produce lots of things that didn't occur naturally: nuclear weapons and the back street boys, for example (and if gray goo were music, you know what it'd be...).
Plus, even turning a large portion of Utah into gray goo would be mighty inconvenient. Or having a dark-colored goo plague that spread over Europe and only turned 90% of people into goo (not unlike Ebola). That goal seems much more attainable....
In short, the obstacles you mentioned to destroying the world are present, but the basic danger is still real and requires some serious vigilance.
Re:Gray goo (Score:1)
Whoa boy! I LIVE in Utah for the moment and I must object to you claiming that it would be inconvenient to turn Utah into a "gray goo". On the contrary, that would be the BEST thing you could do to Utah. Please. Start at Temple Square in Salt Lake.
Re:Gray goo (Score:2)
Do people think its going to be easier to make self-replicating machines that are tiny? "Well, they're about the same size as cells, I guess they could reproduce like cells!" Whatever.
Re:BINGO! Nail on Head (Score:2)
3d copying, digital fabbing (Score:2)
This is already an issue. Digital fabbers (3d copy machines) are being produced by companies like Ennex [ennex.com]. Check their faq [ennex.com] for info, like fabbing in full color (pictures [ennex.com]) and discussions on fabbing food 8-)
Re:3d copying, digital fabbing (Score:2)
Almost enough to stop living... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's tough being an idealist.
That's not the issue (Score:2)
Re:Almost enough to stop living... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
What you're asking for is exactly what laws are supposed to be: Cooperation. Agreements about how to behave regarding things that affect the "good of the community."
And it's often good to decide such agreements up front, since different individuals can have very different ideas about what's "good for the community."
Re:Almost enough to stop living... (Score:2)
Against such threats, laws are of limited use (zero, in many cases). I'll take my own shield of nanites designed to intercept and destroy gray goo nanites instead, thank you very much.
The boring people of Star Trek: TNG (Score:2)
Presently, we are not fit to play with the toys we have, let alone the ones we are developing.
It's by the skin of our teeth that we survived the 50's and 60' without nuclear holocaust. Not to mention the times around the KAL007 incident, when according to some reports, Cherynenko (sp?) was within 15 seconds of pushing the Big Red Button. We haven't really gotten into more dangerous toys yet, like biologicals and nanotech.
I argue that we have to improve as a species, or give up our more dangerous toys. (or 'damage' ourselves out of that capability, or go extinct.) From another perspective, giving up some Power because you acknowledge that you lack the Wisdom to properly wield it, is another step on the road to attaining the Wisdom needed.
the "gray goo" scenario (Score:1)
What I want to know is... (Score:2, Funny)
Neurotic
Aggressive Defense! (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:What I want to know is... (Score:1)
Dues Ex (Score:1)
Re:Dues Ex (Score:2)
Re:Dues Ex (Score:1)
No need for laws! (Score:2, Interesting)
If nanotechnology were real and we could actually copy things, it would be an apocolypse. There would be no need for any kind of work any more. You want food, say "Let there be food," and there's food.
This if fundamentaly different from Napster, because it reverses the the curse placed on Adam and Eve. With Napster, artists who need the money to buy food don't get it. With nanocopying, there's no need to have money.
But, then again, I'm sure we can all count on corporate greed to obfuscate that obviousness, and we'll all get horribly entangled in weird copypatent laws.
Nano Technology (Score:1)
Nanotechnology will conquer (Score:2, Interesting)
I find it ironic that people want to place laws and regulations on this technology, even though there is no way that this technology can be controlled once it unleashed to the world. All forms of government will cease to exist because of (self-replicating) Nanotechnology, and this is due to the fact that all governments exist on the foundation of monetary gain; if this variable is taken away, the bulk sitting on what used to be a solid foundation will come crashing down. Of course, there will always be power hungry individuals out there who will try and rebuild the monetary foundation and all the crap that sat upon it, but they will fail miserabley.
Nanotechnology is the next step in Mankind's evolutionary process...but if people aren't willing to change and stop acting like a bunch of Neandarthals, then they deserve to be destroyed by the gray goo.
Re:Nanotechnology will conquer (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Have a clue (Score:2, Interesting)
Who cares? They are weapons and that's it.
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?
Well yes. Do you really need to ask
Internet isn't above any law, nanomachines won't either.
What about privacy? (Score:2, Interesting)
Won't it be in the best shareholder interest to have little nano-trackers keeping tabs on ALL the company's resources, including human? How would The Law stop this? Why would they really want to if they're using the same tech. to ferret out law-breakers?
Re:What about privacy? (Score:1)
Given how much time we spend at work, going to work, coming from work, recovering from work, and getting ready for work, our rights in the workplace should contrast more favorably with our Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
We need to push the issue before the monitoring techniques become *too* efficient. It's already scary enough, depending on what kind of management culture is installed in your office.
Of course, the "make work more fun and relaxing" lobby doesn't have the resources of the ruling class behind it.
OpenNano (Score:2, Interesting)
With freely copied software, you gain status for having released really cool or seriously functional product into the net. With nano-tech, the same social structures will invade the world of hardware. Mindshare will become important in more than just operating systems. Instead of having to buy our shoes from an established vendor, we'll have OpenSneakers with downloadable skins, and people will be running themeable screensavers on the smart paint in their bathrooms. (Which is cool until your bathroom crashes right before your next big party, and instead of your favorite theme, they get the blue screen of death.)
What this means is that style will continue to increase in importance. Lots of people can make music, but most folks would rather download the music of a professional. If you do it without paying them, the people who make money of the professional music get all cranky. As ease of copying invades the physical realm, there will be an attempt to extend copyright to the design of everything, in order to keep the money flowing to the companies that figured out, say watches or ballpoint pens.
Ultimately, we'll come up with some secure way to do micropayments to the people that generate cool designs, probably right before the old way of doing things collapses completely. And we'll probably have standard libraries full of the designs of everyday things and we'll pay people to make them look different and cool, just like we do today. Fashion will always make money.
Huh? (Score:1)
To offer a contemporary analogy, I can design a new process for refining gasoline. My design documents are (automatically) protected by copyright, which means that only I have the right to authorize copying of said documents. Copyright does not, however, prevent someone from studying my documents and building their own refinery based on my design. I need a patent to protect against that. And the copyright certainly has nothing to do with the finished product.
I fail to see how nanotechnology changes this situation. It's just a new means of manufacturing.
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
Forget the process. What do you do when the physical representation (atoms linked into a specific configuration) is equivalent to the informational representation? For instance, if I make a printed book out of a copyrighted data file, does the copyright not protect the printed work? Similarly, if I make a physical substance out of an informational atomic pattern, does the copyright no longer protect the substance?
You might, of course, argue that the printed book is not what's protected by copyright law, it's simply the information expressed by the book that has restrictions placed upon it. But what about the information contained in a physical substance? If I redistribute the substance, am I violating copyright?
All questions we can't really answer, most of which will be made more complex by the continued expansion of IP protections.
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
That's right: the copyright no longer protects the substance. The chemical industry has existed for over 100 years. For at least the past 50 of these years, during which chemical quantum mechanics has been well understood, scientists in these companies could specify, to the angstrom, the location of each atom in the product. Does that mean that the chemical products are copyrighted? Of course not. And regardless of how transparently a nanotechnological assembler works, there is some process between the information and the final product.
It's a strech to argue that copyright would even protect the information specifying the atomic positions. Something does not become copyrightable simply due to the fact that it somehow contains "information". Information needs an author in order to gain the privelege of copyright. Current law limits the concept of authorship to written/electronic/spoken communication. It would require a radical change of law to extend the concept of authorship to creation of an object. That's what patent is currently for.
Of course, in a world ruled by shady nanotechnological cartels, such law may become fact. But the argument of the original post was that upon the advent of nanotechnology, material goods automatically become copyrightable. This is simply not so.
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
Re:This Has Massive Consequences For IP/Copyright. (Score:2)
People who fail to grasp how dangerous IP laws are will suffer their shortsighted approach when nanotech becomes common.It may take 5 years or it may take 50 but nano is coming and it will change everything.
The economy will go nuts worldwide as suddenly anyone can make anything for themselves.. but will it matter as nobody will be starving or in need of shelter. You'll have weird things like opensource toasters, opensource pizza, opensource sport cars, etc. We'll eventually move towards some sort of trust economy I'd imagine to help balance out non-material economic needs like services and R&D.
It should be highly interesting to see how they try to govern such changes. Once someone invents something then everyone will have total access to it. Groovy eh?
Re:This Has Massive Consequences For IP/Copyright. (Score:2)
That kind of technology is SO far in the future that we may as well be discussing what kind of treaties we'll sign with the Klingons.
I love science as much as the next geek. Loved it enough to almost finish my MS.
Paradigms, apples, and oranges. (Score:5, Interesting)
When humans shifted from simple agriculture to larger, more complicated cultures that required administration and trade, civilization changed. That's why things like writing, math, governments, and money were invented.
When humans shifted from those cultures to ones we would recognize as 'modern', civilization changed. Something like IP, or Copyright would have made no sense at all in the era before the printing press. And something like modern capitalism would not be able to exist without things we take for granted, like effective transportation and communications systems.
And if (and that's a big 'if' since the 'grey goo' is still science fiction) ever comes to be, guess what? Civilization will radically change to accomodate that shift. Inevitably.
Imagine a world where you could, quite literally, make something out of nothing. A lot of the basic assumptions driving modern capitalism would be violated: No more scarce resources to allocate, since nothing is scarce anymore. Much less power over individuals since (to be brutally honest) the only thing keeping the masses in check under our system is that pesky need for 2000 calories a day.
Honestly, how could IP law be applied? I've copied the gasoline you patented... now what? Will you tell my employer to fire me? Fine, I'll make food from dung. Will you put me in jail? Well, I have 10^6 nanobots in my pocket that will dig me a tunnel in seconds. You'd have to make IP violations a capital offence. Good luck building a stable society on THAT principle, my friend.
My point is that wondering how IP law would deal with the advent of nanotech is roughly like a caveman pondering how the Internet will effect the comings and goings of the herds he follows for hunting: The old way of looking at the world just wont 'stretch' to fit the new technology. This has happened many times before, and it will happen again for as long as we survive.
In some ways you can already see the current paradigm starting to burst at the seams: DMCA, Congress passing laws against cloning (with amusing discussions about souls and cheek cells worthy of medieval thelogians), etc.
It's all going to change. Period.
:Michael
Re:Paradigms, apples, and oranges. (Score:1)
Physical objects could be protected with built-in nanobots encoded to self-destruct if they are created as a copy without an initialization code. It'll make copying things a lot more difficult, but, much like software today, dillegent hackers will always find a way around the copy protection measures.
Carefully devised protection methods will make copying all but impossible, and relagate the copiers to a fringe portion of society, so no one will really have anything to worry about, because we know that w4r3z don't really effect the cost of software.
Re:What really counts (Score:1)
Scarce Resources Aren't Fixed By Nano-magic (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Scarce Resources Aren't Fixed By Nano-magic (Score:2)
BTW, this also removes land as a scarce resource. Physical proximity to pre-existing populations remains a problem, though, but it is reduced in scope.
Intellect...yeah, I'd have to agree nano doesn't give us a major supply of that. It may allow us to make better use of what little we have, but that's about it.
Re:Paradigms, apples, and oranges. (Score:2)
Nanotechnology would not make it possible to "quite literally, make something out of nothing". It may make it possible to make many things -- but not anything -- out of common material.
Re:Paradigms, apples, and oranges. (Score:2, Insightful)
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).
Re:This Has Massive Consequences For IP/Copyright. (Score:1)
I don't think any law in the world prevent people from copying food to feed the starving.
I mean if it's free it's free.
Perfect 'Assembler' technology would create an virtual infanite supply of materials. If supply becomes infanite, then the value of the supply becomes zero. Therefore, just about every corporation in existance will cease to make a money.
But this won't be a big deal, because money won't be neccessary any more.
Why would you wan't to make money if you could "replicate" a house, a car, food, beer.
The only real scarcity remaining in nature will be space on this tiny blue planet of ours. Who knows how well solve that problem. Maybe we could send some grey goo to teraform Venus.
Re:and we need regulation to protect us from evil (Score:1)
Re:and we need regulation to protect us from evil (Score:2)
Cloning research is necessary to let us figure out how to grow a "heart in a jar." Imagine: you get sick, they take a blood sample, 3 weeks later they have a new heart for you. If we can nail that, then there won't be any need to clone whole bodies, and most of the moral opposition to cloning vanishes.
This would be a Good Thing. Give science a chance to figure it out. Someone you know will need a new organ someday.
Re:and we need regulation to protect us from evil (Score:1)
>Cloning research is necessary to let us figure out how to grow a "heart in a jar."
>Imagine: you get sick, they take a blood sample, 3 weeks later they have a new heart
>for you. If we can nail that, then there won't be any need to clone whole bodies,
>and most of the moral opposition to cloning vanishes.
Way off topic, but...
Supposing as a result of the embryonic stem cell/cloning debate (and yes, I realize
they're two different technologies) we go ahead with the research and find out that
embryonic cells really are"better" than adult derived stem cells for treating the diseases
we now think they might be good for.
We've then created a market for growing and shredding human embryos in order
to obtain biotech raw materials without first giving any serious thought to whether
this is a moral endeavor.
What makes this relevant is that it may well not be possible to grow the "heart in a jar"
from pluripotent embryonic stem cells without the complex chemical signaling environment
which takes place in fetal development. If that's true, then it would likely be easier to "harvest"
fetal organs and grow them in culture after they're already differentiated.
This is a technology with much greater near term possibility, IMO, than nanotech replicators.
But again, is such research something that ethically we ought to pursue?
Or is it a high-tech equivalent of cannibalism?
--
LaoK
Re:Scarcity as a function of economy (Score:1)
VERY rough summary: In a free market, millions of people have the chance to break off into new directions and demand creates markets, but command economies put the decisions into the hands of a few people who (naturally) don't understand everything as well as the specialists in the markets, who don't maintain markets as well, and who rarely create new markets.
Of course, you could just say the goal of communism is to MAKE everyone equal by eliminating the class systems, but it instead imposes classes--negating the possibility of TREATING everyone equal.
Re:Don't get all worked up (Score:1)
What?! There is NO difference between carbon atom x and carbon atom y. That is like saying there is something different about "natural" vitamin C and synthetic vitamin C. No, there is NO difference except in the means of production. Biologically and atomically they are indistinguishable and IDENTICAL.
An atom-for-atom copy of anything is indistinguishable from the parent form in principal. The ONLY way you could tell one from the other is if the copy was made with different isotopes of some of the various component atoms and the isotopic signature was examined. Of course, what would be the point of doing that in the first place except as masturbation?
There is NO way to tell the copy from the original.
Re:What else? (Score:2)
The manufacturing part of technological development may take a pretty bad hit, but there'll still be demand for the design side of things.
Re:What else? (Score:1)
I also did a report in high school, and those were my conclusions then... that was before becoming a little more jaded and sceptical... why would businesses allow this to happen? Would the government allow its precious economy to be torn apart?
Re:Grey Goo (Score:1)