Nanotechnology—the precise engineering of tiny but powerful machines—is advancing quickly, leaping from the pages of science fiction into world-class research laboratories, and coming soon to a desktop near you.

Love hear from you guys if you have anything to say

By Douglas Mulhall

Most students of artificial intelligence are familiar with this forecast made by Vernor Vinge in 1993[1]: "Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended."

That was thirteen years ago. Many proponents of super-intelligence say we are on track for that deadline, due to the rate of computing and software advances. Skeptics argue this is nonsense and that we're still decades away from it.

Eleven original essays about the implications of molecular manufacturing — an advanced form of nanotechnology — were posted here last month. Written by members of a Global Task Force on Implications and Policy, some of the essays offered promising opportunities, while others raised troubling concerns.

By Tom Craver

Those responsible for the safety of a nation — leaders and military and police forces — might be hard pressed to deal with a world in which any weapon or dangerous device could be manufactured in large quantities at the press of a button, at the same time that economic and social norms are being overthrown by rapid change.

We can expect that — by default — authorities will want molecular manufacturing (MM) to be tightly restricted — kept out of private hands, and limited to the few nations that initially have it. That approach might provide some added security — or it might simply create such incredible pent-up demand that any barriers and restrictions are quickly overcome by black markets, intellectual property piracy, rogue-nation programs to duplicate MM, etc.

By Giulio Prisco

In this essay, I wish to raise my concern over some of the problems of today's world, and try to suggest how they can be eliminated, or at least their negative impact be reduced, by developing operational worldwide molecular design and manufacturing capabilities.

By Brian Wang

This essay looks at some existing trends in military capability and technology development, and considers the impact of nanofactory-level nanotechnology (NN). A nanofactory[1] is a proposed manufacturing system that could be built if molecularly precise manufacturing technology is developed. Current projections indicate that a nanofactory should be able to fabricate its own mass of advanced products—including duplicate nanofactories—in just a few hours.

By Deborah Osborne

The anticipated emergence of molecular manufacturing (MM) within decades requires new conceptualizations about crime and new strategies to address it. The seeds of possible solutions are planted in the United Kingdom where formal policing began. These seeds are called “crime science.”[1]

Early policing stressed that the principal duty of police was to prevent crime rather than detect it.[2] Crime science focuses on using science in creative and unprecedented ways to prevent crime.

By Mike Treder

Conflicts, clashes, battles, and wars: this is the stuff of which history is made. The world as we know it today is largely a product of wars fought and peoples conquered.

We like to look back admiringly on other things our species has produced: great works of art, brilliant inventions, sage philosophers, brave explorers, and selfless peacemakers. But the real star of the human story is war. In fact, very often those things we admire—philosophy, technology, leadership, superb writing and speechmaking—are put to maximum use in the service of war.

By Ray Kurzweil

The first half of the 21st century will be characterized by three overlapping revolutions—in Genetics, Nanotechnology, and Robotics (GNR). The deeply intertwined promise and peril of these technologies has led some serious thinkers to propose that we go very cautiously, possibly even to abandon them altogether.

By Don Maclurcan[i]

Despite limited literature discussing the global implications of molecular manufacturing (MM), the seeds for certain key debates are starting to be sown. They essentially mirror those presented for current and near-term nanotechnology[ii]: for what purposes will the technology be developed and used, by whom will it be created and owned, what is the nature of the risks it will bring, and what kind of impact will it have upon the global economy and developing world?

By Thomas J. Cowper

One of the fundamental questions driving any attempt at forecasting the future is: what kind of society do we want to live in? Or, for the farther future: what kind of society do we want our children to live in? How would widely available nanofactories change our lives and our world? Will multi-national corporations gain exclusive control of molecular manufacturing (MM), using it to dominate social institutions and dictate public policy from a purely capitalist and/or monopolist perspective? Will personal nanofactories foster global anarchy and create a form of modern tribalism based upon religion, ideology, or culture, and pit independent city-states or autonomous regions against one another?

By Steve Burgess

For centuries, we have built cultures and economies around scarcity. Economics is the "study of how human beings allocate scarce resources" [1] in the most efficient way and conventional wisdom agrees that regulated capitalism results in the most efficient allocation of those scarce resources.

By Patrick Lin, Ph.D. and Fritz Allhoff, Ph.D.

Human enhancement – our ability to use technology to enhance our bodies and minds, as opposed to its application for therapeutic purposes – is a critical issue facing nanotechnology. It will be involved in some of the near-term applications of nanotechnology, with such research labs as MIT’s Institute for Soldier Technologies working on exoskeletons and other innovations that increase human strength and capabilities. It is also a core issue related to far-term predictions in nanotechnology, such as longevity, nanomedicine, artificial intelligence and other issues.

By Michael E. Buerger

On top of my physical desk sits a copy of Pandaemonium: The Coming of the Machine as Seen by Contemporary Observers, 1660-1886, Humphrey Jennings’ “imaginative history of the Industrial Revolution.” On my computer desktop are essays by the authors of this volume (and the previous one[1]), the possible precursors of Pan-nano-daemonium: The Coming of the Micro-Machine.

By Nick Bostrom

1.

Some eleven thousand years ago, in the neighborhood of Mesopotamia, some of our ancestors took up agriculture, thereby beginning the end of the hunter-gatherer existence that our species had lived ever since it first evolved. Population exploded even as nutritional status and quality of life declined, at least initially. Eventually, greater population densities led to greatly accelerated cultural and technological development.

By Michael Vassar

The development of molecular nanotechnology (MNT) promises to lead rapidly to cheap superior replacements for a large majority of durable goods, a substantial fraction of all non-durable goods, all existing utilities, and some services. For this reason and due to the relatively low expected cost of developing nanofactories,[1] MNT represents the largest commercial opportunity of all time. Unfortunately, the very size of the opportunity—combined with its extreme suddenness, military significance, potential for disruption of existing institutions, and ease of duplication—creates certain severe complications that lead to difficulties in capturing the value created.

By David Brin

INTRODUCTION

In order to give you pleasant dreams tonight, let me offer a few possibilities about the days that lie ahead – changes that may occur within the next twenty or so years, roughly a single human generation. Possibilities that are taken seriously by some of today’s best minds. Potential transformations of human life on Earth and, perhaps, even what it means to be human.

By J. Storrs Hall

consistently has predicted 2029 as the year to expect truly Turing-test capable machines. Kurzweil's estimates[1] are based on a broad assessment of the progress in computer hardware, software, and neurobiological science.

Kurzweil estimates that we need 10,000 teraops for a human-equivalent machine. Other estimates (e.g. Moravec[2]) range from a hundred to a thousand times less. The estimates actually are consistent, as Moravec's involve modeling cognitive functions at a higher level with ad hoc algorithms, whereas Kurzweil is assuming we'll have to simulate brain function at a more detailed level.

By Damien Broderick

Can civil societies absorb the impact of MNT without degenerating almost instantly into Hobbesian micro states, where the principal currency is direct power over other humans, expressed at best as involuntary personal service and, at the worst, sadistic or careless infliction of pain and consequent brutalization of spirit in slaves and masters alike? It is a disturbing prospect, more worrying than crazed individuals or sectarian terrorists. Are we, indeed, doomed to this outcome through frailties in our evolved nature, unsuited to such challenges, or perhaps to the rapacity of the current global economy?