On the Assembly of Things

I’ve now seen two posts in rapid succession about how few posts there have been in the last couple of weeks, blogosphere-wide, that is, not just here, which has been totally silent. Not sure whether two data points makes for a trend, but in my case, it has been because I really haven’t had anything to say. April is sometimes like that. But recently, my attention has turned to the question of “responsibility” and in pertiular, “responsible nanotechnology.”

I have been thinking about the difference between the evaluation of costs vs. the evaluation of benefits: what is a responsible attitude towards one or the other? It seems to me that when most people within the world of nanotechnology speak about responsibility they are talking primarily about responsible responses to the potential costs of nanotechnology–i.e. risk understood as a negative outcome of some action. It isn’t clear to me, however, just how much people see responsible response as part of the benefits side of the equation: i.e. by what criteria does one make claims about the “risk” of a proposed benefit. Since all this stuff is in the future anyways, it seems only fair to suggest that benefits are just as uncertain as costs… so why should we believe the people at Responsible Nanotechnology or ForeSight or even the scientists when they make claims on what nanotech will deliver: molecular manufacturing, better materials, an end to global poverty, cleaner water, etc.

Take for example, this recent article (blogged at Responsible Nanotechnology), which contains an interview with “Jeff Wacker, a futurist with Plano-based Electronic Data Systems Corp” (I should probably stop here) in which the technique for weighing the liklihood of possible benefits appears to be distinguishing the three categories “mild, wild, and magical.” Now it is no secret that most newspapers, especially crap rags like the Dallas Morning News will readily substitute futurology for science reporting, but I still think it is worth taking Mr Wacker at face value. Presumably he is paid to be a futurist, even if out of his own venture capital, or wherever the money comes from, but presumably he has a system of some sort for distinguishing the likely from the unlikely benefits of nanotech. What is it? Is it polyhedral dice? Is it an “intuition” enhanced by nanobots? Is it a careful reading of science fiction? What makes it possible for this industry of benefit-weighers to agree that it is more likely that, for instance, we will be able to put trash into a microwave-sized device and retrieve a side of beef (Drexler’s example, thank you very much) rather than that we will be able build a fuel-cell to produce small amounts of pure water or a new kind of plastic? How do we weigh the benefits of nanotech today? Is responsibility the right (or duty) only of hand-wringers?

Tags: No Comments