ems1@att.att.com (08/11/89)
In article <Aug.4.23.31.03.1989.20337@athos.rutgers.edu> pmb@swituc.uucp (Pat Berry) writes: >> >day, just *might* be possible thru nanotechnology. The leading force >> >might use their time advantage to design an artificial conscience, >> >and apply it to *everyone*, to modify behavior. The artificial > >And who is going to play God and decide what my conscience is to consider >right and wrong? What if this decision-maker happens to admire Hitler? >(or any of an inumerable list of individual-specific "evils") > >No, leave me out of your mass conscience... I prefer to find my own way >to Nirvana. > >Pat Berry At the present time parents, and various other role models, play the major part in the initial shaping of a person's conscience. As we get older, we either take the responsibility for conscience shaping to ourselves or cede it to various religious or moral leaders. In the future, the leading force will inevitably have to make major ethical decisions (in your parlance "play god"), even if their decision is, "we're going to do nothing and let the first tyrant with a will to power take over". Perhaps the word "conscience" is loaded with too many other connotations. What I really described earlier would be a form of conditioned response to the use of nanotechnology. It should be no more obtrusive (into other areas of life) than automatically donning your seatbelt when you go driving. 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. [ 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
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (08/15/89)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Synthetic consciences Summary: Expires: References: <Aug.10.22.26.32.1989.11862@athos.rutgers.edu> Sender: Reply-To: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu.UUCP (Brian Yamauchi) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY Keywords: In article <Aug.10.22.26.32.1989.11862@athos.rutgers.edu> 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 _______________________________________________________________________________
ems@princeton.edu (Edward M. Strong Jr.) (08/22/89)
In article <Aug.14.20.20.52.1989.14082@athos.rutgers.edu> yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu writes: >> I proposed conditioned responses to avoid misuse of nanotechnology. >[ Nanobot disassembler launcher status : Armed/Ready :-] > I *knew* somebody was going to try to take me apart over this :-) Let me state that I personally prefer a "maximum of looseness" myself in human affairs. I only proposed this idea because it appears to be technically workable, and it may be the *only* way the world can enjoy the fruits of nanotechnology while avoiding the worst pitfalls. Of course "mind control" causes knee-jerk response in most of us when we hear the term. It's *bad*, Orwellian, an unholy twisting of the human spirit that produces rigid zombies, etc. (Hmmm...isn't it funny how we all have the same associations about this subject? Could it be we've already *been* programmed?) >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). The reason people will use these arguments is because they have some merit. So far the counter-arguments are lacking in rationality. They amount to "lets not do this because *I* don't like it". How about something with a little more meat in it, along the lines of "It won't work because...."? >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). Let me point out that accepting the conditioning is a lot less invasive than having some government bureaucrat watching you 24 hours a day. (Since the G-man can't read your mind he is going to inevitably wind up watching you at times when you're not even thinking about nanotech). As far as the controls being mandatory, you'll only need them if you intend to work creatively with nanotechnology. You're free to choose, both or neither. And the controls would be applied to all nanotechnologists, without exception. [ Some text elided .... ] >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. Wow! This is a pretty emotionally loaded sentence. Brian cleverly sets up an either/or dichotomy, with "security forces" on one hand and "freedom (loving) individuals" on the other. We all know which kind we want to be, right? The reality is that the security-freedom scale is a continuum. All societies fall somewhere on that scale, and change their positions based on the decisions they make. Absolute freedom, as well as absolute security, is impossible. (Just as an aside, note that American society in recent decades has been growing conservative and sliding towards the "security" end of the scale in recent decades. I don't have any opinion on whether this is a "good" thing or not. If pressed, I would hazard a guess that the slide is caused by the aging of the population. As for myself, my slogan is "Bring back the sixties!" :-) >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. Sorry Brian, in this scheme there isn't an elite, in the sense you mean, exempt from the conditioning. For this conditioning plan to be workable at all, there have to be no exceptions to the nanotech design knowledge=conditioned rule. In addition, if you're faced with the task of designing the "bit" to go in your own mouth, you'll make that design as comfy as possible. By the way, the "leading force" idea is not mine, it is described in Drexler's book. Drexler evidently hopes that the leading force will be benevolent by virtue of being steeped in (read: conditioned by) traditional Western mores and Judeo-Christian ethic. My conditioning proposal is merely an attempt to take some of the gamble out of that hope, and make it more of a sure thing. >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. Again, wow! Isn't this a little extreme? Those conditioned nano- technologists may be a little misguided by your lights, but is it necessary to jump right to the "final solution" of assassination? You seem to be justifying yourself here by labelling your opponents as a "totalitarian regime", but that heinous term clearly does not apply here. I looked up the definition. To be a totalitarian, you have to by trying to control *all* aspects of human behavior. That is *not* what I have suggested, clearly. Also, realize that conditioning goes on today all the time, in commercials, etc. Did you know that many department stores embed subliminal messages in their Muzak to try to prevent shoplifting? Do these businessmen deserve assassination? >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 I don't think option 3 is very workable, either. The conditioned nanotechnologists can't let the unconditioned techs go free, simply because they, or their descendants, might return some day, and they would be like the fox in the henhouse. (Unless of course, the combination of no laws and nanotechnology did the "exiles" in before they got back, but we can't count on that :-) A workable alternative would be to establish a "Botany Bay", that is, a prison planet, where the rogue nanotechnologists (see, I can use loaded terms too :-) would be free to do whatever they want, as long as they didn't try to leave. But this is clearly not the adventure you have in mind. The main reason your option 3 doesn't work is because nanotechnology will make space travel too easy. Of your 3 alternatives, only option 2 appears to be workable, and I think that option, assassination, looks pretty drastic. Stepping back a bit from our discourse, (after all this is about a science that doesn't exist yet), I notice some uncanny parallels. It's already been observed by myself and others that nanotechnology will bring on Clark's Law with a vengeance, and will look like magic to the uninitiated. Now it seems likely that the nanotech "wizards" will split into two opposing camps, based on their philosophical differences. One side are the white wizards, who will bind themselves irrevocably to Law (with a capital L :-) for the good of all mankind. On the other side are the black wizards, who acknowledge no Law over themselves, and embrace Chaos for the sake of the unfettered freedom and power it brings. Hmmm.... seems to me I may have read a fantasy novel or two with this plot in it....:-) Ed Strong {princeton,attmail}!nanotech!ems