At 1:50 PM -0500 3/16/00, Trei, Peter wrote:
>I've been very pleased at the responses to the posting that
>started this thread. Clearly these are topics people have
>been thinking about for some time.
>
>But saying that "we've been over this before" or "Bill knows
>computers, but doesn't understand *this* field as well as *I*
>do") doesn't help to much to still my worries. Can anyone
>provide pointers to convincing counter arguements?
I certainly never said there's no grounds for worry. My views on the
likelihood of an engineered virus/plague have been discussed by me.
(However, if I were to write an opinion piece for some magazine, my
opinions would not carry much weight, which is the whole point of
saying that Bill Joy should stick to Unix.)
And saying it's been discussed before is not saying it's not worth
discussing now. It's saying the topic isn't new. There have been many
books, both nonfiction and fiction (which isn't always bad, as
novelists do extensive research and then present scenarios) about
"runaway technology." Too many to list here.
Biological Risks:
From Jack London's "The Scarlet Plague" to Stewart's "The Earth
Abides" to Preston's "The Cobra Event." And about 20 other novels. I
expect I've read most of them.
Nonfiction includes Laurie Garrett's book, books on AIDs and emerging
viruses, Ken Alibek's book on Biopreparat, etc. Amazon will have
dozens, including lots of reviews.
Within sight of my house is the Asilomar Conference Center, where a
1975 conference on the then-new recombinant DNA field resulted in a
temporary, self-agreed-to moratorium on recombinant DNA research on
anything that could live outside the gut (if I recall it correctly).
A circa 1980 t.v. movie dealt with the city of Cambridge, MA's plans
to ban DNA research.
My point is that this is well-trod ground.
Nuclear Risks:
Again, a vast number of novels. Familiar to most of us.
And Herman Kahn's date, but still good, "On Thermonuclear War." I
used to get strange looks when carrying around this fat volume in
high school, in the 60s.
Risks of proliferation, escalation, etc., are covered from many perspectives.
AI Risks, and Computer Risks in General:
Also an old topic, from "R.U.R." to "The Forbin Project" and so on.
Marvin Minsky's "In 20 years, will they keep us around as pets?"
nonsense. AI is well-trod ground, and my reading of Bill Joy's
article tells me he hasn't given the field much critical thought.
Nanotechnology Risks:
This is what I mentioned as being covered in great detail in the
"Assembler Multitudes" in the 1991-95 period. Lots of scenarios, more
exhaustively dealt with than Bill Joy has dealt with.
Several books on nanotechnology are available. Ed Regis wrote an
overview. Much discussion of "gray goo," "blue goo" (cop assemblers
that purport to attack rogue goo), and the role of enryption.
Available at a URL? Hardly. These were hundreds of hours of discussions.
Have others done as much? Probably. The sci.nanotech newsgroup will
have tens of thousands of articles, I expect (it's been awhile since
I checked it.) Try searching on the relevant phrases.
The M.I.T. Nanotechnology Study Group was active for several years
(and may still be), and the L.A. area had one as well.
The point is not that there are not risks. The point is that there
are no simple answers, and "declaring a moratorium on research" is a
simple answer that generally won't work.
(Cf. work on human cloning, how the Chinese burned their ships, and
so on. Lots of cross-links.)
>We don't have to much time to provide safeguards against some
>of these problems, either. What's the betting that some military
>lab is, at *this* moment, creating a bug (if they have not already
>done so) with the lethality of Ebola and the ease of transmission
>of flu? Or how about a racially targetted disease (too much/not
>enough melanin and you're dead)?
>
>Moore's Law applies to other fields of research too. What can be
>done only in a highly funded lab today will be a high-school
>project in ten years.
>
>I still maintain that this article will be used by statists and
>authoritarians to justify their control.
Yes, so?
On a non-flippant note, you might try contacting the Foresight
Institute, www.foresight.org. They are of course active in nanotech
and related work, and they have an attitude more consistent with
trying to rebut politicians than most of us have.
(A couple of years ago they decided crypto was an issue to get
involved in. They felt that David Brin's new book, "The Transparent
Society," would be used by statists and polticians to impose
Orwellian methods on society. They solicited my help in creating a
formal rebuttal position. Thanks, but no thanks, I told them. Writing
a rebuttal book is the best rebuttal, and those who want to write
books are in for a huge project. If they wish to, great.)
So, there will be jeremiads published about the dangers of this or
that technology. And shorter articles written by newcomers like Bill
Joy. Such has it always been.
Detailed studies or rebuttals will be done by some. Such has it always been.
Sounds good to me.
--Tim May
--
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
