Mark Lynch

Professor Wade Maki

BLS 363-11D

05 December 2016

 

Fantastic Voyage

(The Future of Nanotechnology)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*The above image (altered) is a promotional still from the 1966 sci-fi film Fantastic Voyage. (Miniaturized humans are piloting a microscopic vehicle through a patient's blood vessels; steering through the red blood cells that appear as discs).

Overview/Thesis:

            Nanotechnology is a combination of science, engineering, and technology conducted on an extremely small scale, the nanoscale, wherein a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. Almost too small to comprehend, a couple examples hint at this miniscule perspective: there are over 25 million nanometers in one inch; a sheet of newspaper is about 100,000 nanometers thick. The science is still mostly in a theoretical phase but shows great potential for real-world industrial, medical, and scientific applications in the near future. Military uses are certain to be significant as well. And as with all new technologies, alongside the benefits loom the possible negative consequences that might affect world economies, human rights, and even the entire biosphere of the planet, in a worst-case scenario.

            Nanotechnology, for these reasons and more, needs to be given careful consideration regarding its impact as it becomes more accessible. Some of the more prudent technological ethicists have recommended relinquishing research and development in this area, but the enforcement of such regulations is impossible, and the financial incentives too tempting. The more realistic approach is therefore to continue to pursue advancements in nanotechnology; it is going to happen anyway. Allowing the top scientists and inventors to carry on (with some government, private sector, and even international oversight) will hopefully result in nanotechnology's future capabilities remaining in the most responsible hands, rather than in clandestine organizations with less than ethical motives.

….......................................

            Nanotechnology is a relatively recent scientific development because the tools needed to work at such an incredibly small scale have only been available since the 1980s. Most important of these was the scanning tunneling microscope in 1981, the first optical device that allowed imaging at the atomic level. (To be able to work at the nanoscale, obviously one first must be able to see with such precision). Another important factor was the efforts of K. Eric Drexler, an American engineer whose 1986 book Engines of Creation was both widely influential and controversial among fellow scientists.

            Drexler hypothesized a world where the entire contents of the Library of Congress can fit on a small sugar-cube sized chip; and where “universal assemblers” (microscopic machines that can build objects atom-by-atom) could create tiny robots capable of such things as clearing blocked human arteries. Impressive though these concepts were, he also postulated some of the unforeseen negative consequences, including the now famous “gray-goo” scenario in which assemblers might replicate out of control, destroying all life on the planet in their wake. Scary stuff…

            The initial conceptual inspiration for nanotechnology has been credited to physicist Richard Feynman, who in 1959 gave a lecture titled “There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom” describing the possibilities of manipulating individual atoms and molecules. Purely conjecture at the time, twenty years later in 1979 the transcript was encountered by the aforementioned K. Eric Drexler, who was inspired enough to devote his considerable engineering acumen in that direction. (A Short History of Nanotechnology. Foresight Institute, Web).       

            One of nanotechnology's leading proponents and visionaries has been Ray Kurzweil, an American futurist who wears quite a few hats: author, inventor, and computer scientist among them. He has pioneered in the fields of text-to-speech technology, reading machines for the blind, and even musical instruments‒ the Kurzweil K250 music synthesizer was one of the first to faithfully emulate a grand piano and other orchestral instruments. His books address such topics as artificial intelligence, life extension, human/machine integration, and biotechnology. Fittingly so, he has been described by The Wall Street Journal as a “restless genius” and by Forbes as the “ultimate thinking machine.” His views on technology, and nanotechnology in particular, are therefore a wonderful reference point for the technophile, while acknowledging the concerns of the techno-phobic. (Ray Kurzweil, Wikipedia).

            Kurzweil offers these astute yet foreboding opening remarks in an essay on nanotechnology: “Our rapidly growing scientific and technological ability to manipulate matter and energy at ever smaller scales promises to transform virtually every sector of society... There will be increasing overlap between nanotechnology and other technologies, such as biotechnology and artificial intelligence. And we will be faced with deeply intertwined promise and peril” (Kurzweil 41). It is a fair yet optimistic assessment of nanotechnology that follows, as he sketches future scenarios that seem straight out of science fiction; mind-blowing applications that would alter all aspects of human life on earth. Among them: the ability to manufacture any product very inexpensively; the software equivalent of the human brain; super-human enhancements to health and fitness; and virtual reality simulations so true to life (and all our senses) that we will not be able to discern the difference.

            Kurzweil's ethical stance seems in line with his optimism regarding the future. He concedes that with all technologies there are risks, as in the cliché he cites of the “double-edged sword”, but he thinks the benefits outweigh the pitfalls. Although referencing a sister field in this observation, it can applied to nanotechnology as well: “The millions of people who need biotechnology advances seem to carry little political weight against a few well-publicized casualties from the inevitable risks of progress... We need a change in public attitude in terms of tolerance for necessary risk.” It is a somewhat utilitarian slant, a willingness to risk individuals for a larger common good. But in light of the almost inevitability of the research continuing, regardless of public opinion, it is realistic.

            In a truly awe-inspiring glimpse at what could await us in mere decades, Kurzweil cites the phenomenon known as “Moore's Law” (the overall processing power of computers doubling every two years) as the basis for the realization of these alternate realities as soon as the 2030s. But is Kurzweil being realistic in such predictions, or is there some wishful thinking involved? I think that even he himself might concede a bit of the latter; (he's a visionary‒ it's what you do). For example, in this essay authored in 2005 he predicts a “full-immersion visual-auditory environment” by 2010. I know that we are indeed getting closer, but not necessarily fully immersed quite yet. But then again, we the general public do not necessarily know how far military and other private research has reached...

            Toward the latter part of his article, Kurzweil examines potential dangers and injustices that might arise from nanotechnology. (In fairness, he devotes less effort there than in making the benefits enticing). One very plausible risk is the use of nano-robots as spies; being so tiny that they could not be detected, they could be used for surveillance, sabotage, or even terrorism. He also shares his colleague E. Drexler's concern about self-replicating machines growing out of control. But, as to be expected of this self-described “technology optimist”, Kurzweil does not advocate any sort of backing off from the research. Instead, he recommends a percentage of the research budget be invested in studying the ethical and social implications. It seems reasonable, given that relinquishment is not feasible.

            Nevertheless, in the 2000 essay “Why the Future Doesn't Need Us”, Bill Joy attempts to be a voice in the wilderness, so to speak‒ to warn his technological colleagues (and technophiles in general, via Wired magazine) of the hazards of pursuing the big three emergent technologies: genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics (GNR). Whether prophetic or paranoid depends on the reader's point of view, but Joy does at least supply an ample list of potential problems that might have to be addressed if science continues down this path. His theme is summed up in the sub-heading of the essay: “Our most powerful 21st-century technologies... [GNR] are threatening to make humans an endangered species” (Joy, Wired).

            Bill Joy was compelled to write this cautionary treatise after a chance encounter with none other than his yin/yang counterpart Ray Kurzweil. Joining in on a conversation Kurzweil was having in a hotel bar, the subject turned to the idea of sentient, “thinking” robots and their possible merger with human beings. Kurzweil saw this as an eminent event, which came as a surprise to Joy. Further reading into one of Kurzweil's books convinced Joy that nanotechnology and robotics might be a threat to humanity. Whether one agrees with that or not, I find it commendable that Joy follows his heart.

            Among the real and/or perceived threats are: intelligent machines which could become independent of human control, and perhaps eventually see humans as a nuisance to be eradicated; weapons of mass destruction that would not be destroyed after one use (such as bombs) but usable again and again by individuals with limited resources (translate almost anybody); others are analyzed but the crux of Joy's essay is that some sort of relinquishment, i.e. abandoning GNR research, might be warranted. He cites a historical parallel from WWII. “We should have learned a lesson from the making of the first atomic bomb and the resulting arms race. We didn't do well then, and the parallels to our current situation are troubling.” It's a point well made and intended, to be sure. But one cannot compare the atomic research of the 1940s, a massive joint military/government/private sector effort, with GNR research which can take place on very small scales; they are completely different beasts to tame.

            Humanity has demonstrated time after time, and often without seeming to learn from its mistakes, that it will plunge full bore into whatever technologies arise. Once we get headstrong and oriented on a certain path, nothing short of disaster (or at least standing at the very brink) is likely to dissuade us from continuing. The development of weapons has progressed steadily from club to spear, crossbow to firearm, and from incendiary to nuclear; to imagine that it will not continue along that progression and embrace nanotechnology would be extremely naive. Agriculture ceded to the industrial age, which in turn has bowed to our current information age— how can we think it will be otherwise as the next level approaches?

            The realist can expect to see some radical changes to the planet in the coming decades, and had might as well embrace them, best as they can. New technologies will be used for both good and evil, same as they ever were. Some small-scale disasters are practically guaranteed to occur. People with limited resources will be shut out or exploited; the rich and powerful will grow more so. Privacy will become a rarer and rarer commodity. Moore’s Law and Murphy’s Law will come into play…

            And maybe, just maybe, nanotechnology and other emergent technologies will also make many aspects of our lives better. Hopefully the scales will tip at least slightly in that direction.

 

Works Cited

 

A Short History of Nanotechnology. Foresight Institute, Web.

            http://www.foresight.org/nano/history.html

Joy, Bill. “Why the Future Doesn't Need Us.” Wired. 2000, Web Resource.

Kurzweil, Ray. “Nanoscience, Nanotechnology, and Ethics: Promise and Peril”. Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics. 2005, Web Resource.

“Ray Kurzweil”. Wikipedia. Web.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil