Janus
2nd May 2008, 08:35
Nanosocialism by David M. Berube
Nanotechnology is much more than a technology. It's a revolution and a paradigm shift. We would leave a world of limited for one with limitless growth. Conceptions of value would lose most of their meanings. Work would no longer be the yardstick against which careers were measured. Off world and non corporeal existence would be likely. Institutions would become anachronistic and social systems would be completely redefined.
As such, nanotechnology will need to be ushered in by systemic change. One of the main reasons there is such a dark side to nanotechnology: we are speculating about a revolution from within the present world view. Can we reasonably expect terrorists and rogue leaders to restrain from using nanoweapons? Can we hope that a "good" nation becomes the leading force and set up active shields for everyone? Can anyone anticipate a beneficent technosociety establishing a nanarchal net to restrain dangerous nanoglap attacks?
When Drexler discusses social change, he does so as an afterthought, as a consequence of the breakthrough. If history has taught us anything, it is that forethought and systemic redesign may need to precede monumental change. The arrival of nuclear energy led to horrendous weapons and a generation of Cold War apprehension and insecurity. We shouldn't hope for the best as Ed Regis suggests. We should plan for systemic change as a precursor to the breakthrough.
For that matter, it is highly unlikely nanotechnology will ever see the light of day in this country without systemic change. Furthermore, if nanotechnology arrives without systemic change as a prerequisite, nanotechnology will be dark, dangerous, and most probably the product of military research.
The U.S.A. is a corporate capitalist state. Most recently, we went to war with an underarmed and overzealous Middle Eastern nation to help maintain the price of oil for some of our corporate capitalist allies, Western Europe and Japan. It is likely that wars in the future will be fought less on principle than on profit. Our failure to resolve the issues associated with ethnic violence in the Balkans demonstrates our inability to make decisions based on the intrinsic worth of ideas like freedom and livelihood. On the other hand, profit is calculable.
There is a clear incentive for the military to develop nanotechnology as a weapon, both offensive and defensive. Military logic dictates that there is always some unseen enemy who is preparing some attack based on some unknown motive with some bizarre new weapon. If nanotechnology can be used as a weapon, our security analysts will assume it will be and they
will use that reasoning to support initiatives to develop nanoweapons of their own. They will argue that a workable defense will require a prototypical weapon against which a defense can be designed and deployed. In comes as no surprise that the Office of Technology Assessment, the U.S. Army, and other government organizations have begun to seriously study nanoweaponry. For that matter, Drexler himself recently spoke with N.A.T.O. planners about nanowar issues.
The argument found in the nanotechnology literatures suggests that if nanotechnology can be developed in the public arena (the market), that forum might be able to lift the veils of secrecy and expose military applications making the genie impotent. Arguably, weapons of openness are not secret but they can be no less provocative and deadly. The assumption ignores the fact that not all nation states are led by rational leaders. If nanotechnology is released as simple household products, reverse engineering guarantees the likes of Gaddafi, Kim Il-Jung, Castro, and Hussein would fairly easily be able to make their first nanoweapons soon thereafter.
Returning to an earlier premise, it is improbable the U.S.A. capitalist technocorporations will research the breakthrough. First, there is little advantage to develop a technology which would slash profitability. Once the limits to growth are lifted, the price associated with limits vaporizes. Second, corporatism is founded on designed obsolescence and the aftermarket, both
of which are irrelevant in a nanoeconomy. Nanoproducts do not break down, and repairs and spare parts are product inclusive. Third, corporatism has a nasty habit of killing the competition. We are about to enter the next millennium chained to the internal combustion engine (ICE). Competitive engines are available, but the empowered corporations have acquired the patents, and these engines will never run until the ICE has outlived its profitability. But corporations are researching and developing nanoproducts! Foresight Update, Ed Regis, magazine, and newspaperslist such applications. Wrong! As everyone who has read more than a handful of material on the subject knows, advances have been in micromachinery and microelectronics. As developments and applications have grown smaller, they entered the nanorealm and marketers and reporters have adopted the term nanotechnology as a scalar reference. Nanotechnology, in terms of Drexlerian mechanosynthesis, may be inevitable and may be right around the corner, but it isn't here. At least not in the public corporate arena.
The answer may be systemic change as a foresight imperative. We need to reconsider fundamental political economic change. One of the most plausible options would be a rediscovery of socialism as a precursor to the breakthrough. Both economic and ideological socialism would offer a restructured system which would rein in the capitalistic self-interests of
corporatism. It would also renegotiate international rivalry and reduce the motives for warfighting. Wedded to nanotechnology and limitless growth, it would reduce the resource competition which is the foundational cause of nearly all aggression.
http://marukuwato.multiply.com/journal/item/162
What are your thoughts on this essay and the concept of "nanosocialism" in general?
Nanotechnology is much more than a technology. It's a revolution and a paradigm shift. We would leave a world of limited for one with limitless growth. Conceptions of value would lose most of their meanings. Work would no longer be the yardstick against which careers were measured. Off world and non corporeal existence would be likely. Institutions would become anachronistic and social systems would be completely redefined.
As such, nanotechnology will need to be ushered in by systemic change. One of the main reasons there is such a dark side to nanotechnology: we are speculating about a revolution from within the present world view. Can we reasonably expect terrorists and rogue leaders to restrain from using nanoweapons? Can we hope that a "good" nation becomes the leading force and set up active shields for everyone? Can anyone anticipate a beneficent technosociety establishing a nanarchal net to restrain dangerous nanoglap attacks?
When Drexler discusses social change, he does so as an afterthought, as a consequence of the breakthrough. If history has taught us anything, it is that forethought and systemic redesign may need to precede monumental change. The arrival of nuclear energy led to horrendous weapons and a generation of Cold War apprehension and insecurity. We shouldn't hope for the best as Ed Regis suggests. We should plan for systemic change as a precursor to the breakthrough.
For that matter, it is highly unlikely nanotechnology will ever see the light of day in this country without systemic change. Furthermore, if nanotechnology arrives without systemic change as a prerequisite, nanotechnology will be dark, dangerous, and most probably the product of military research.
The U.S.A. is a corporate capitalist state. Most recently, we went to war with an underarmed and overzealous Middle Eastern nation to help maintain the price of oil for some of our corporate capitalist allies, Western Europe and Japan. It is likely that wars in the future will be fought less on principle than on profit. Our failure to resolve the issues associated with ethnic violence in the Balkans demonstrates our inability to make decisions based on the intrinsic worth of ideas like freedom and livelihood. On the other hand, profit is calculable.
There is a clear incentive for the military to develop nanotechnology as a weapon, both offensive and defensive. Military logic dictates that there is always some unseen enemy who is preparing some attack based on some unknown motive with some bizarre new weapon. If nanotechnology can be used as a weapon, our security analysts will assume it will be and they
will use that reasoning to support initiatives to develop nanoweapons of their own. They will argue that a workable defense will require a prototypical weapon against which a defense can be designed and deployed. In comes as no surprise that the Office of Technology Assessment, the U.S. Army, and other government organizations have begun to seriously study nanoweaponry. For that matter, Drexler himself recently spoke with N.A.T.O. planners about nanowar issues.
The argument found in the nanotechnology literatures suggests that if nanotechnology can be developed in the public arena (the market), that forum might be able to lift the veils of secrecy and expose military applications making the genie impotent. Arguably, weapons of openness are not secret but they can be no less provocative and deadly. The assumption ignores the fact that not all nation states are led by rational leaders. If nanotechnology is released as simple household products, reverse engineering guarantees the likes of Gaddafi, Kim Il-Jung, Castro, and Hussein would fairly easily be able to make their first nanoweapons soon thereafter.
Returning to an earlier premise, it is improbable the U.S.A. capitalist technocorporations will research the breakthrough. First, there is little advantage to develop a technology which would slash profitability. Once the limits to growth are lifted, the price associated with limits vaporizes. Second, corporatism is founded on designed obsolescence and the aftermarket, both
of which are irrelevant in a nanoeconomy. Nanoproducts do not break down, and repairs and spare parts are product inclusive. Third, corporatism has a nasty habit of killing the competition. We are about to enter the next millennium chained to the internal combustion engine (ICE). Competitive engines are available, but the empowered corporations have acquired the patents, and these engines will never run until the ICE has outlived its profitability. But corporations are researching and developing nanoproducts! Foresight Update, Ed Regis, magazine, and newspaperslist such applications. Wrong! As everyone who has read more than a handful of material on the subject knows, advances have been in micromachinery and microelectronics. As developments and applications have grown smaller, they entered the nanorealm and marketers and reporters have adopted the term nanotechnology as a scalar reference. Nanotechnology, in terms of Drexlerian mechanosynthesis, may be inevitable and may be right around the corner, but it isn't here. At least not in the public corporate arena.
The answer may be systemic change as a foresight imperative. We need to reconsider fundamental political economic change. One of the most plausible options would be a rediscovery of socialism as a precursor to the breakthrough. Both economic and ideological socialism would offer a restructured system which would rein in the capitalistic self-interests of
corporatism. It would also renegotiate international rivalry and reduce the motives for warfighting. Wedded to nanotechnology and limitless growth, it would reduce the resource competition which is the foundational cause of nearly all aggression.
http://marukuwato.multiply.com/journal/item/162
What are your thoughts on this essay and the concept of "nanosocialism" in general?