The Dwarf Lords: tiny devices, tiny minds and the new enslavement

XXX

I have chosen to highlight one of the risks of the nanotechnologies in dystopian terms because, while we hear much about its potential benefits and wonders from its developers, we hear little objective discussion of the possible downsides and mis-applications.

Every technology ever invented has downsides. Indeed most of science today is taken up with amending the mistakes made through the use, overuse or misuse of previous technologies - as global climate change illustrates. My proposals for addressing this issue are:

1. all funding for nanotechnology research should carry with it an obligation to direct a proportion of the funds to ethical and sociological research into the consequences and human rights impact of the technology on society;
2. all institutions performing nanotechnology research should be required to enter a genuine dialogue with the public about their science and where it is leading - and to heed what they hear;
3. governance of nanoscience should operate under a externally-reviewed Code of Conduct which obligates those involved to take into account ethical concerns and potential for misapplication;
4. companies producing nano products should be legally liable for their misapplication, much more extensively than is currently the case in simple product safety;
5. safeguards must be put in place, urgently, regarding the use of personal data, the reasons it may be aggregated, where it may be aggregated from and who is allowed access to it. This must be totally transparent;
6. new human rights must be established to prevent the misuse of such data and technology; and
7. there should be a worldwide debate among leading lawyers, philosophers, politicians and scientists about the implications of nanoscience for the future of global and national societies, leading to new laws to circumscribe its abuse, misuse or harmful application.

No doubt many will dismiss this as colourful scaremongering.

I can only say that I remember writing my first newspaper article on greenhouse in 1976 or 77, based on a CSIRO report back then, when it was universally regarded as scaremongering. It has taken 30 years for an educated consensus to be reached around the planet, and will take at least another 20 for anything worthwhile to be done about it, and centuries for it to take effect.

If we are to anticipate the nanocracy, we don’t have 50 years. According to the best estimates, the first quantum computers will be on line in half that time and most of the basic surveillance tools are going in now.

For once, we have a clear opportunity to act in advance of a disruptive new technology, to capture its benefits and to avert or limit its dangers. For the sake of our ancient human freedoms and our right to a creative and progressive future, please let us do so.