In the past, all-around computer nerd Bill Joy (among other things, he co-founded Sun Microsystems and created BSD) has been standoffish regarding the potential ramifications caused by the likes of advanced self-replicating nanotechnology systems (e.g., Santa Claus machines).
However, in addition to becoming a venture capitalist with an appetite for investing in the very endeavors he originally loathed, he also seems to have come around regarding State regulation versus market-based solutions:
We could use the very strong force of markets. Rather than regulate things, we could price catastrophe into the cost of doing business. Right now, if you want approval for things, you go through a regulatory system. If we used insurance and actuaries to manage risk, we might have a more rational process. Things judged to be dangerous would be expensive, and the most expensive would be withdrawn. Drugs would make it to market on economic estimates of risk not regulatory evaluations of safety. This process could also be used to make companies more liable for the environmental consequences of their products. It’s both less regulation and more accountability.
Via Foresight Institute. See more on Luddites: 1 2 3 4
{ 3 comments }
Much of this fear about nanotechnology is an unfounded fraud. IMHO, Libertarians need to be sharply aware of this because it is here that the future battle lines will be drawn in the quest to control peoples lives.
As with the fear of mechanical machines, elecricity, computers, and most recently the internet. It is being driven, not by genuine concern or understanding, but by ignorance and entrenched interests who are threatened by progress.
After the information age, society is going to move into the “replication” age where manufacturing shifts away from the factory and into the home. This will not only kill many large monopolies that are closely associated with the government, but will also make it so that the government can not keep it’s all powerfull role as master regulator without forcing its way into every mans home.
They will probably try to co-opt many business interests too – with a master vision. That vision will be that the masses of people manufacture an endless stream of stuff, while the companies get an endless stream of licensing royalities for it. They will likely try to extend patents to infinity in both term and scope. They will also likely require a massive control network to cary this plan out, and unlike the internet, their presence in people’s homes will probably need to be very physical and coercive. It will not be “big brother is trying to watch you” it will be “big brother’s machine is sitting there, in your house ready to take orders” to ensure that you don’t make something “threatening”
IMHO, we need to be aware of their intentions now, to cut them off at the pass and educate the public before it becomes a problem. And also to persue counter-strategies – (IMHO, it will be countered by having the next frontier of freedom at sea). Also, by time the replication age catches on, the information age will be well in progress and the government/media’s ability to control people by controling information will be gone. They will likely resort to more physical, coercive, and overt strategies.
David C –
you’re right. Technology liberates, by placing more and more power into hands of individuals.
Users of the Internet are significantly more libertarian-minded than the TV-watching population.
Faxes and the Internet made the bloodless removal of communist regimes possible.
Now imagine what can happen when the individuals will be able to manufacture any items (including weapons of mass destruction and any chemical compounds) at home, from designs, downloaded from the Internet.
How long can a centralized govenment survive when any seriously disgruntled person can destroy its capital? Or craft an army of robot mosquitoes with a lethal sting seeking a particular ruler? Or something we couldn’t even imagine now.
Advancing technology increases the gap between offensive and defensive capabilities. This gap is still open for nuclear weapons (which so far prevented WW3) and even the state-of-the art tank is vulnerable to the combination of a barrel with explosives and a cell phone hidden in the ground.
Any government-mandated builtin restrictions into the molecular manufacturing machines will be just as effective as the government-mandated copyright protection technologies – in other words, not at all. It’s all software, anyway, and any software can be hacked.
Some interesting points, but I’m not sure this really looks at the history of the issue. How has this come about? And where do we go from here? Look forward to you addressing this in future posts.
Comments on this entry are closed.