Self-reproducing technologies

From Blindside

These are described by Kevin Kelly as the GRINs:

• • Geno: warfare, therapies and GMOs including modified humans
  • Robo: including sentient and conscious robots
  • Info: such as digital intrusions, artificial minds, cyberware, and virtual personas
  • Nano: "super tiny machines as small as bacteria that do all kinds of things, sort of like dry life"

[edit] Impact and Maturity Levels

It is (almost literally) impossible to over-estimate the long-term impact of this group of technology sectors for society as a whole, and for information assurance as well. For information assurance purposes, it is not their self-replicating properties that are key. It is their existence. However, their short-term impact is lower, given the newness of each sector. We assign this an Impact Level of 3 only because we cannot use 4. The maturity levels for each are given in their individual description, but are lower for nanotechnology than the others. As an overall package, their Maturity Level is estimated at 2.

Kelly writes:

The common element among the techniques of GRIN – and the reason they are worrisome – is that they are all self-reproducing. If we code changes into a gene line, those changes can replicate down generations forever. And not just in family lines. Genes can easily migrate horizontally between species. So copies of new genes – bad or good -- might disseminate through both time and space. As we know from the digital era, once copies are released they are hard to take back.... ...GRIN-ologies are bully, rogue technologies. They will need our utmost attention in order to train them for long-term goodness. We need to invent appropriate long-term training technologies to guide them across the generations. There are already a few experiments to embed guiding heuristics in expert systems as a means to make “moral” artificial intelligence, and other experiments to embed long-range control systems in genetic and nano-systems. We have an existence proof such embedded principles work – in ourselves. If we can train our children – who are the ultimate power-hungry autonomous generational rogue beings -- to be better than ourselves, then we can train our GRINs. Like raising our children the real question – and disagreement – lies in what values do we want to transmit over generations? This is worth discussing, and I suspect, that as in real life we won’t all agree on the answers.

See also Bill Joy's April 2000 article for Wired called Why the future doesn't need us

Our most powerful 21st-century technologies - robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotech - are threatening to make humans an endangered species; By Bill Joy I became involved in the creation of new technologies, their ethical dimensions have concerned me, but it was only in the autumn of 1998 that I became anxiously aware of how great are the dangers facing us in the 21st century.

Michael Berger writes about Nanotechnology risks - the real issues

A particular problem with nanotechnology lies in the huge gap between the public perception of what the hype promises and the scientific and commercial reality of what the technology actually delivers today and in the near future.

In the US, Michelle Chen writes for The NewStandard : Nanotech Critics Warns Against Industry Self-Regulation

In an open letter issued on the 12th of April 2007 in the US, several environmental groups, unions and other organizations which include the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA), Greenpeace, the AFL-CIO, Friends of the Earth and the United Steelworkers of America criticized the safety-research plan called the "Nano Risk Framework" proposed by Environmental Defense, a conservation group, in partnership with DuPont, one of the firms leading nanotechnology development. The critics said that the Framework reflects corporate interests by prioritising voluntary standards dictated by private interests, rather than government regulatory systems.

George Reynolds reports that UK lags behind in nanotechnology risk research for FoodAndDrinkEurope.com

The UK government has been criticised by the Council for Science and Technology (CST) for "distinct lack of Government activity or funding in research into toxicology, health and environmental effects of nanomaterials.". The review said that without substantial domestic research, the UK was at a risk of losing its leading position in development of nanotechnology and may suffer through exclusion from international collaborations. The CST findings are part of a review of the UK government's response to a report published last year calling for greater research to be conducted into the risks of nanotechnology.