Using Technology to Deepen Democracy, Using Democracy to Ensure Technology Benefits Us All

Friday, October 12, 2007

CRN on Superlativity

Some Superlative Technocentrics seem especially annoyed at the fact that I continue to recommend the work of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology to the attention of my readers. Given my critique of Singularitarians and Technological Immortalists consistency should presumably extend that critique to molecular manufacturing, especially since so many of the people who are caught up in Singularitarian and Technological Immortalist Superlative Discourses seem to share a comparable enthusiasm for a certain flavor of Nano-talk.

And it is true that I do apply my critique to some aspects of popular Nanotechnology discourse (especially what I deride as the Nanosanta Scenario, or when I worry about an over-reliance on an analogy to actually existing biology that may be less apt than techno-optimists imply if the outcome that is wanted involves a dry, room-temperature, general-purpose, programmable nanofactory). But the fact remains that I take quite a bit of the work done by the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology absolutely seriously (more so than any other popular organization with the word "Nanotechnology" in their title, certainly), and find much -- not all, but so what? -- of their politics refreshingly congenial as well.

If some Superlative Technocentrics are flummoxed at my generally positive attitude toward CRN, one worries how they will cope upon discovering that CRN returns the sentiment. My friend Mike Treder at the CRN blog writes:
In case you haven't seen it, I want to point out this interesting and challenging article from Dale Carrico's Amor Mundi blog. He's talking about the fallacy of expecting molecular manufacturing (along with other potentially transformative technologies) to automatically overcome and leap beyond social, governmental, and economic hurdles and achieve a desired beneficial -- or even Utopian -- outcome…

The crux of Dale's argument, I think, is that such simplistic approaches, if applied as policy, could open us up to significant risks. Namely, that an emphasis on technological development as a solution, rather than as a tool to be implemented in the context of broad societal goals, could backfire, not only missing the intended positive outcome but in fact enabling unwanted negative results….

We would generally agree with this perspective. It is why CRN keeps insisting that a parallel track of investment and effort toward understanding the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of molecular manufacturing and exploring plans for responsible governance must go alongside and keep pace with technical research and development.

I wouldn't want to seem to suggest that the folks at CRN affirm all of the dimensions of my critique of Superlative Technology Discourses, but it is good to see that they take this aspect of the critique as seriously as I assumed they would.

No comments: