Global Admin debate
From Wise Nano
Advanced nanotechnology will be incredibly powerful. Some say it will threaten society, or even survival, and must be kept in check by some kind of global administration. Others say that a global administration is simply too dangerous: too much concentration of power that could be too horribly abused.
Contents |
Arguments for global administration
General-purpose manufacturing of intensely powerful products means that any room could contain a WMD factory. Improved robotics and avionics means that weapons can be used at a distance. If people can kill each other easily and untraceably, it doesn't take many destructive people to cause intolerable loss of life.
As technology gets more powerful, it will require more wisdom to avoid misusing it disastrously. The world has billions of people and millions of groups, and we can't expect them all to be wise. Therefore, access to the raw power of the technology must be restricted somehow. And it must be done worldwide, since any spot on the globe is "next door" to someone with sufficiently advanced weaponry.
Global administration does not have to imply restriction. Global administration could mean insuring global access to the technology and managing global resources like the atmosphere, the oceans, near Earth orbit, and the earth's core. Also managing global infrastructures of communication, transportation, trade, and a global legal system would be useful functions for a global administration. The concept of "unless everyone is safe, no one is safe" requires a global administration of security concerns. A global administration could establish a universal standard of human rights that would supersede those guaranteed by individual nations.
Arguments against global administration
Central control seldom works. Attempts to control such a useful and desirable technology would inevitably fail, leaving it in the hands of the "bad guys." Meanwhile, an administration with a huge technological advantage would become far too powerful to be trusted.
It is unlikely that you will be able to have a global administration for MNT before the development of the first nano-factory.
Other options
Disperse into space. Sometimes this is called the "Linus Van Pelt" solution, after a comic strip character who claimed that "No problem is so big or so complicated that it can't be run away from".
Deterrence, Vigilantism. Rather than enforcing prior restraint a nation, alliance, or NGO could announce a standing threat against anyone commiting specific violations. The classic case is the US threat of massive retaliation against an attack with WMDs. A smaller scale case would be a group of people pledged to contribute money to a bounty for the killing of anyone who releases a "gray goo" replicator. Pros: Easy to implement. Cons: Doesn't work against suicidal terrorists. Can lead to wars. NGO threats are illegal under most governments. This may be the default scenario.
See Dr Nick Bostrom's "Existential Risks" paper. Surveillance nanotech may be a primary precursor to a "scream" scenario.
Conclusions
No conclusion yet...
