"Given the current scientific state of affairs, much of this activism is almost laughably premature -- like writing letters to congress over the implications of I, Robot."
Given the current scientific rate of progresss, and the desirability of large-scale nanotech-based manufacturing, we can expect to see first-stage molecular manufacturing somewhere around ten or fifteen years from now. We will see large-scale, flexible, CAD-driven manufacturing less than a year later; CRN is finishing a 40-page paper demonstrating how (relatively) easy the final step is.
Ten years ahead is a very long time to plan, and today is certainly too early to write regulations. But ten years is a rather short time to design a workable set of regulations, get them accepted in theory, get them accepted in practice by the people who will implement them, and then create programs and organizations at the multinational level. If you knew in 1930 that the A-bomb was coming in less than fifteen years, how long would you wait to start designing and implementing the International Atomic Energy Agency?
Of course nanotech is not the same as the A-bomb. For one thing, it's a lot more useful. For another, it does not inherently use or produce dangerous materials. A third difference is that it's not automatically destructive--though building a given weapon will be quite a bit easier and faster than today's <design, prototype, test, repeat, manufacture> process.
But a major difference is that after the first successful nanotech "assembler" project, subsequent projects will become a *lot* easier. If, as we believe, it's a bad idea to have lots of different nanotech projects in the world, it will take some very careful preparatory work to put systems in place to prevent that outcome--without massive human rights (e.g. privacy) violation.
Chris Phoenix
Director of Research, CRN
http://CRNano.org
