Audio file of Drexler

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has posted an audio file of remarks made by K. Eric Drexler, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing and Foresight Board Chair, who spoke on a panel discussion during a symposium on "The War On Terrorism: What Does It Mean for Science?", held on 18 December 2001 in Washington, D.C. (See Nanodot post from 19 December 2001).

Jonathan Despr

from the end-of-an-era dept.
Nanodot notes without comment this item posted on the Atomasoft website on 11 March 2002. Atomasoft operates the NanotechNews website.

Atomasoft announced a major restructuring of itís [sic] operations and budget today as a result of a resignation by Jonathan Després. Mr. Després, one of the founders of Atomasoft and former CEO, will no longer work for Atomasoft and has agreed to hand over all assets and information regarding Atomasoftís operations to the executive team.
Part of the restructuring unfortunately includes the cancellation of Nano Investor Conference 2002. The event was spearheaded by Mr. Després but as a result of the current situation at Atomasoft, it must be cancelled. There have been a number of other nanobusiness conferences planned throughout this year and Atomasoft certainly does not have the resources to make its vision of a nanobusiness conference a reality at the current time. First and foremost, all its efforts will be devoted to continuing the success of the core operations; This includes the growing website portals on emerging technology.
Service to all of Atomasoftís sites will not be interrupted and business will continue as normal; We anticipate no problems with the transition period.

Columnist calls for hard questions about emerging technologies

A lengthy commentary by Richard Louv on the lack of substantial discussion and debate of emerging technologies — including nanotech — appeared on SignOnSanDiego.com, the website of the San Diego (California) Union-Tribune ("Debate should advance with technological leaps", by Richard Louv, 24 February 2002). Louv quotes Daniel Yankelovich, a public opinion analyst: "Overconfidence in technology leads to distraction, lack of attention to the human element, not watching where you're going . . . In any enclosed environment in which people are isolated, you become vulnerable to delusionary thinking. You stop questioning." Louv writes, "Have we stopped questioning? Maybe. Or we've barely begun."

Read more for additional quotes from the article.

UK Govt. drafts laws that may censor nanotech research

Vik writes "According to this BBC article, the UK Government wishes to pass laws that allow it to veto research – even from the private sector – and to censor the publication of results.

While nanotechnology is not explicitly mentioned, it looks like the thin end of an anonymous wedge to curb research into any technology that the UK Government sees as being destabilising.

A list of "sensitive" technologoes is to be maintained, and students using them will have to be licenced by the government. Academics are livid. It is draconian stuff indeed, being one of those dreadful forms of legislation which prohibit a wide range of commonplace acts but are only enacted when the Government or police feel like it.

Vik :v)"

Update: More coverage on this issue appeared in the New Scientist (18 February 2002).

Drexer warns symposium about NT dangers

from the pay-attention-to-reality dept.
Krees writes: "Foresight founder Eric Drexler addresed a terrorism symposium Tuesday [18 December], warning of the "extreme downsides" of nanotechnology and criticizing some nanotech researchers for their apparent failure to consider the negative applications of their technologies. Sandia's Gerard Yonas also spoke on the emerging field of cognotechnology (convergence of nanotech, biotech and IT) for remote brain sensing and mind control."

Dr. Drexler, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing and Foresight Board Chair, spoke during a panel discussion "The War On Terrorism: What Does It Mean for Science?", held on 18 December 2001 in Washington, D.C.

An article on the Small Times website ("Drexler warns terror symposium: Nanotech has ëextreme downsidesí ", by Doug Brown, 19 December 2001) provides extensive coverage:
ìOne of my profound hopes is that the new spirit of seriousness about life and death issues that we see in the wake of Sept. 11 Ö will encourage people to pay a little less attention to politics and a little more attention to reality,î said Drexler. ìThis is a technology which can reasonably be described as extreme in all directions: extreme upsides, extreme downsides.î
Drexler also noted that many scientists who are eager to slapped the term "nanotechnology" on their research when it was viewed as ìsexy,î but became ìa little upset to find that they had a label on their work that was associated with outrageous, science-fictiony sounding claims about the future and scary scenarios and other thingsî, with the result that many members of the nanotechnology research community ìlike to distance themselves from the consequences of their own work.î

For some background, read the Foresight Position Statement on Avoiding High-Tech Terrorism, and an open letter from Dr. Drexler on "Nanotechnology: Six Lessons from Sept. 11".

The Small Times article also covers comments by Foresight Executive Director Chuck Piercey on the funding of long-term nanotechnology research, and Gerald Yonas, vice president and principal scientist at Sandia National Laboratories, who described an emerging field he calls ìcognotechnology,î a convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology and information technology. With nanotechnology, he said, itís feasible to use brain implants to moderate behavior or brain functioning; he also discussed a developing field that focuses on remote sensing of brain function, including the intention to commit deception [Progress toward such systems was reported here on 13 November 2001.]
ìThere are two sides to the sword of science and technology, and as we move forward there is no way we can stop any advance from happening, but we should be aware of the implications and the possibilities,î he said, ìand long before these things happen we ought to think about, 'What are the rules?' î

AAAS will hold symposium on national security and scientific freedom

The American Association for the Advancement of Science will hold a day-long symposium on "The War On Terrorism: What Does It Mean for Science?" on 18 December 2001 in Washington, D.C.
K. Eric Drexler, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing and Foresight Board Chair, will be participating in a panel discussion during the symposium.

For some background, read the Foresight Position Statement on Avoiding High-Tech Terrorism, and an open letter from Dr. Drexler on "Nanotechnology: Six Lessons from Sept. 11".

Panel discussion on GNR technologies held in Washington, D.C.

A number of items on the KurzweilAI.net website present comments made by inventor-author Ray Kurzweil during a panel discussion on whether humans are an endangered species held in Washington, D.C. on 19 December 2001. Kurzweil proposed a major new national program to develop defensive strategies, technologies, and ethical standards to address the dangers of emerging genetic, nanotechnology and robotics (GNR) technologies. The panel also included Bill Joy of Sun Microsystems, environmentalist Bill McKibben, and theologian Ann Foerst. Responding to calls for a halt or relinquishment of development of GNR technologies, Kurzweil said, "I believe that implementing such a choice would require a Brave New World type of totalitarian government in which the government uses technology to ban the further development of technology," said Kurzweil. An outright ban "would be destructive, morally indefensible, and in any event would not address the dangers."

Kurzweilís comments were reported in a news item on the KurzweilAI.net website. In addition to a brief news item on the panel, you can read a briefing paper on the issues that have been raised in the debate on how to deal with GNR technologies, as well as a set of questions posed to Kurzweil during panel discussion and his responses.

Article discusses potential dangers, misuse of nanotech

from the shadows-on-the-road-ahead dept.
An extensive article on the potential dangers and misuse of nanotechnology appears on the Small Times website ("Nanotech's dark side debated in the aftershock of Sept. 11", by John Carroll, 2 November 2001). The article quotes Foresight President Chris Peterson, as well as Foresight advisors Glenn Reynolds and Ralph Merkle. Foresightís voluntary guidelines for the safe development of molecular nanotechnology were mentioned as part of the articleís discussion of possible regulation or restriction of nanotech research and development.

Some of these issues were also presented in a New York Times article that appeared in September 2001.

New York Times looks at abuse of nanotechnology

from the worth-reading dept.
In the Sept 25, 2001 New York Times, Gina Kolata has an article entitled "When Science Inadvertently Aids an Enemy" in which she looks at both encryption and nanotechnology. Foresight Director Glenn Reynolds and Advisor Ralph Merkle are quoted. Also: "It is a technology whose consequences could be so terrifying that one scientist, Dr. K. Eric Drexler, who saw what it could do, at first thought that he should never tell anyone what he was imagining, for fear that those dreadful abuses might come to pass…With the Asilomar discussions as a model, a group of scientists and others who worried about nanotechnology formed a nonprofit institute, the Foresight Institute based in Los Altos, Calif. Its goal is to prepare society for the transforming powers of new technologies, and, in particular, of nanotechnology…The institute's chairman, Dr. Drexler, originally thought that the best thing to do would be never to disclose nanotechnology's darker possibilities for fear it might give terrorists ideas. But he soon realized that if he could think of these abuses, others could too. So he decided to try to help society prepare for the good uses of the technology and to protect itself against its evil use. Dr. Drexler, Dr. Merkle and others at the Foresight Institute argue that openness is critical toward developing nanotechnology safely." Thanks, Gina.

Paper Analyzes Human Extinction Scenarios

from the broad-scale-thinking dept.
Nick Bostrom writes "This is a beefed-up version of the presenation I gave in a SIG meeting at the recent Foresight gathering. Comments and suggestions would be welcome. Maybe it can develop into a FI white paper?

The aim is to try to get a better view of the threat picture of what I call "existential risks" – ways in which humankind could go extinct or have its potential permanently destroyed. The paper provides a classification of these risks and argues that they have a cluster of features that make ordinary risk management unworkable. It also argues that there is a substantial probability that we will fall victim to one of these risks. The point, of course, is not to welter in gloom and doom, but to understand where the pitfalls are so we can create better strategies for avoiding falling into them. The paper discusses several implications for policy and ethics, and the potential for destructive uses of nanotechnology is given particular attention.

The text is available in two formats: on the web and as an MS Word document. (Footnotes and formatting are nicer in the M$-version.)"

0
    0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop