In article <3fmkn0$5f8@planchet.rutgers.edu> Ralph Merkle <merkle@parc.xerox.com> writes:
> ...
>In "The Risks of Nanotechnology" published in "Nanotechnology,
>Research and Perspectives" (B.C. Crandall and James Lewis, editors,
>MIT press 1992), I argued that the development of (a) artificial
>self-replicating systems (b) able to function in a natural environment
>and which are (c) designed to evolve; appears both very difficult and
>extraordinarily dangerous.
>It would seem prudent, when the ability to develop such systems is
>imminent, to be prepared to establish an appropriate regulatory
>framework to prevent the rather obvious risks that are in principle
>possible. This would likely include mechanisms to prevent the
>development and uncontrolled release of such systems.
>I hope it is clear that the use of evolutionary principles in the
>design of systems should not normally pose any extraordinary risks,
>and hence it would be inappropriate to regulate such activities. When
>we combine points (a), (b) and (c) above, however, appropriate
>regulation would seem desirable.
> [Much thoughtful discussion deleted]
I tend to agree. However, I am a good deal more pessimistic.
Life as a computer programmer has taught me the wisdom of Murphy's Law: Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong, in the worst possible way. Or, if you like, the Law of Universal Totalitarianism: That which is not forbidden, is compulsory. Or, Whatever can happen, will happen, sometime, somewhere.
If it is not ruled out by the laws of physics, I think we must take it for granted that sometime, somewhere, someone will loose a plague of nanomachines upon the world. Governmental regulation, codes of ethics, security measures, etc., may postpone the day, but nevertheless it will come. One cannot predict whether it will be done by some future Saddam Hussein, or by some pre-adolescent prankster, or by some disgruntled former lab technician, or by some klutz absent-mindedly emptying the wrong beaker down the drain. Once it happens, prevention and blame become largely moot issues; the issue becomes one of defense. We had better hope that, at that moment, effective defenses will already be in place. Careful thought should be given, as early as possible, to what sort of defenses will be required.
Some preliminary thoughts of my own: Nanotechnology should be thought of, not merely as the economy of the future, but as the ecology of the future. A plague, once set loose, may never be quite eradicated. It must be assumed that the plague devices will be capable of evolving in some sense - Murphy's Law again. Recent experience with antibiotics versus evolving disease organisms suggests that no defense that cannot evolve can long defeat a menace that can evolve.
We should be prepared for the possibility that the defense mechanisms that are provided will themselves become a plague - consider, by analogy, the auto-immune disorders. Nevertheless, I do not believe that we dare dispense with them.
David Stoner
dms@atlantis.utmb.edu