Anonymous Coward writes "The Global Green Parties are discussing common policies regarding artificial intelligence and artificial life. Please come contribute."
Richard B. Cathcart writes "The World Development Federation's FIRST Virtual Global Super Projects Conference has many interesting reports posted at its temparary WWW site–available probably through the end of December 2001. GO TO: www.conway.com/wdf/gspc/virtual2001. In Session #3 a molecular nanotechnology-produced super-rope is proposed a a means to block the Strait of Gibraltar with a tensioned-fabric curtain. Such protective submarine screen would be made even more effective if it were held in place with braided nanotubes."
An article in the Houston Chronicle ("Nanotech encounters new barrier: Environmental risks rise as costs decline", by Eric Berger, 11 December 2001) provides brief coverage of the workshop on "Nanotechnology and Environment: An Examination of the Potential Benefits and Perils of an Emerging Technology" held by the Rice University Energy and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI), which co-sponsored the workshop with the Office for Science and Technology of the French Embassy USA. Rice hosted the workshop in affiliation with its new Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN).
According to the article, "Scientists working in the realm of the ultra-small are concerned about the artificial material becoming an environmental pollutant. During a conference Monday at Rice University, nearly a dozen scientists spoke of nanotechnology's potential environmental risks, such as increasing the amount of pesticides a fish might ingest." The article consistently refers to possible nanotechnology devices as "the material", as if it were a single uniform substance . . . (sigh). The article did include some interesting quotes that highlight the current lack of knowledge on the possible environmental impacts of nanotechnology:
[Note: The Houston Chronicle cuts off access after a certain period. If the above link is broken, the article is also available on the Hoovers News website.]
from the mean,-green-technology dept.
A strongly-worded editorial by science and science-fiction writer Spider Robinson ("We can rewrite Genesis", 7 August 2001) on the potential for advanced nanotechnology to provide a high standard of living while reducing and even reversing human damage to the global ecosystem appeared in the Toronto, Canada Globe and Mail. Not surprisingly (if you are familiar with Robinson), the piece reads as if it might have been written by Robert A. Heinlein:
"The human race must pursue that glorious vision — if necessary, die trying. We dare not throttle back the machine at this point. It's a cranky old machine, jerry-built, run by committee, and very low on fuel. If we permit it to so much as stall, we'll never get it running again: there just aren't enough metals and fossil fuels left in the ground to start over.
"All we can do is pray it will run on fumes long enough to get us to nanotech, the Ultimate Gas Station."
from the adapting-to-Mother-Earth's-tantrums dept.
Senior Associate Douglas Mulhall has authored Preparing for Armageddon: How We Can Survive Mega-Disasters in the May-June issue of The Futurist: "A host of resilient technologies based on genetics, robotics, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology — GRAIN for short — will help us adapt to environmental extremes" including possibilities such as rapid-escape vehicles, extreme engineering, robotic work crews, environmentally benign products, and disaster-proof people. Not available online, you'll need to buy a paper copy (neither futuristic nor environmentally benign — why can't The Futurist get online?).
from the think-green dept.
Glenn Reynolds, professor of law at the University of Tennessee and a member of the Foresight board of directors, has writen an essay titled "Environmental Regulation of Nanotechnology: Some Preliminary Observations", which appeared in the June 2001 issue of the Environmental Law Reporter.
As Glenn notes in his introduction, "This all-too-brief essay will outline the basic nature of molecular nanotechnology. It will then discuss the likely environmental benefits … and harms … of this technology, and at least seek to begin the discussion of how nanotechnology might be dealt with in a way that will maximize the environmental benefits — which are likely to be enormous — while minimizing the potential harms, which, if allowed to materialize, are likely to be large as well."
The essay is available on the Foresight Institute web site, as an Adobe Acrobat PDF file (~112 KB), and is posted with the permission of the journal's publisher, the Environmental Law Institute in Washington, D.C.
from the dealing-with-uncertainty dept.
GregEderer writes "An article running in the current issue of American Scientist "Ecology of Transgenic Crops" presents more evidence to the effect that we simply do not know what the human health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops are likely to be. Nevertheless, the engines of transgenic creation continue to steam right along (e.g., ~15 million acres of Bt corn were planted in the US in 1998, et cetera) as though the risks associated with the technology were fully known. In fact, as Dr. Marvier aptly points out, some of the harmful effects may not become apparent for decades, and could not, therefore, be known ahead of time. If nanotech regulation mirrors the regulation of transgenic crops, then there will be practically no regulation at all. This is bad news for those of us who suspect that there might be some dangers associated with advanced nanotech." Read More for Greg's full comment.
from the apocalypse-not dept.
An AP report "Study eases fears of modified plants" says "A 10-year look at genetically modified crops found that they survive no better than their conventional cousins, easing fears that superplants could stray from farm fields and crowd out natural species." The original report was published in Nature [subscription required] "Transgenic crops in natural habitats." The Economist [subscription required] reported on "Genetically modified weaklings."
IMHO, there are parallels to the issue of the likely fragility and vulnerability of future nanomachines in natural environments. Alarmism about "superweeds" has some analogies to the fixation on "gray goo" dangers, rather than taking a broader view of safety issues in desiging nanomachines. – Bryan
