Brain Archive

Nano-Guns, Nano-Germs, and Nano-Steel
posted on 03/30/2006 9:32 PM by Avendale

Thanks for your thought-provoking piece. I am not sure I agree with its thesis but it has stimulated my thinking.

You use a specific historical example to argue that America may be under threat from some “empire” that develops molecular manufacturing. In my view this is a poor analogy. Yes a few men did defeat the Incan empire however Spain was the superpower not some up and coming nation. The analogy is back to front. America is not the Incan empire. The history of the conquest of the Americas was also rather more protracted and bloody in the long run.

If we look at the countries most likely to develop molecular manufacturing they are Europe, China, India or America. These are the countries investing the most in this technology. None of these countries have imperial ambitions (well maybe France still hopes for the old days of glory). It seems highly unlikely that secret molecular manufacturing will arise in some dictatorship that is not investing a lot in this area.

Even if it does nanotechnology is not developing in a vacuum. With globalisation and the Internet the daily advances in research are known to everybody. If one country jumps the gun the others will not be far behind and highly likely to steal or buy the secrets from whomever discovers it.

Molecular manufacturing only makes things cheaply and easily and with precision. Molecular manufacturing does not design and devise weaponry; this takes good AI or human beings with money behind them. I think there is some confusing of molecular manufacturing with the design of weaponry and other technology as well as equating it with good AI.

Even if another country such as North Korea did get molecular manufacturing and was able to keep it secret. It could not keep secret its build up of arms. Even molecular engineering plants take some time to reproduce.

I think the case you raise is not a likely scenario. That aside even these unlikely scenarios should be raised for public consideration and thought.

Regards
Chris Allan
Psychology and the Singularity
http://gandalwaven.typepad.com/psychology_and_the_ singul/

Boo! Give us funding!
posted on 04/02/2006 2:53 PM by Patrick

This article is the same old scare tactict that got High Technology.

The ENEMY might get it first, so the public is going to have to pay up. Only this time there is no convenient enemy on hand.

Re: Nano-Guns, Nano-Germs, and Nano-Steel
posted on 04/09/2006 4:21 PM by joegreen

Mike Treder quotes Jared Diamond's use of the famous victory of Pizarro and 169 men over the 80,000 man Inca army as Diamond himself used it in "Guns, Germs, and Steel," as a predominant example of superior technology prevailing in an otherwise unwinable battle.

I would argue that better weapons (plus horses and armor) was only one cause, and not the most important one, for the Spanish victory. I consider this a flaw in Diamond's otherwise excellent and thought-provoking book, since he uses this battle as a fulcrum in New World history, and a primary illustration of his thesis.

Why? Well,it should be obvious that an army of 80,000 men, even if armed only with clubs (and some of the Incas had bows and arrows), could have easily overwhelmed 170 men if they had simply pressed an attack without faltering. The Spanish, with their slow-loading muskets and steel blades, might have killed two-hundred or more at the front of the Inca assault, but the rest would have reached the soldiers and battered them (and their horses) to death.

Instead of launchng such an attack, the Incas apparently broke and fled when the Spanish charged them.

There was something in the mind-set, the psychology, the attitudes of the Inca warriors (which we cannot now study and analyze, unfortunately), that caused them to turn and flee from the Spanish. Superstituous fear? A sense of hopelessness, a belief they could not prevail against god-like people? A lack of real military discipline and leadership? Whatever it was, the battle was lost, in the minds and spirits of the Inca warriors, before the first musket fired or blade struck. The killing until the Spainard's sword arms became exhausted was just the follow-up.

In one famous battle with the Zulus (Islanwanda?), a British detachment was decimated when the Zulus took their losses and pressed the attack. In our own country, Custer and his much better armed men (most with repeating rifles, if memory serves) were nevertheless defeated and killed by less well-quipped Indians. Numbers can, and sometimes do, overcome technology.

The Inca warriors lost the decisive battle, and their country, in their heads; not to steel and technology.

Re: Nano-Guns, Nano-Germs, and Nano-Steel
posted on 04/11/2006 1:04 PM by Kebooo

One could argue steel and technology are the cause of the mentality. If the mysterious enemy showed up without relatively high technology, they would not have been so intimidating. If aliens we had never been in contact landed with incredibly mysterious and powerful technology in comparison to our own, I'm sure there would be many people that would adopt a similar mentality. Without such steel and technology, the foreigners would not have seemed so God-like or invincible.

Re: Nano-Guns, Nano-Germs, and Nano-Steel
posted on 04/11/2006 5:11 PM by joegreen

Your point of steel and technology CAUSING the mindset occured to me as I was writing the comment, but I didn't find the idea convincing. We can't get into the heads of those ancient Incas, and none of them left first-person accounts, so this must remain speculative. But of the various possibilities, the one I outlined seems to me most convincing.

Joseph Green

Re: Nano-Guns, Nano-Germs, and Nano-Steel
posted on 04/11/2006 5:41 PM by Kebooo

You said they lost it in their heads, thus it was psychological. If it was psychological, what else could be the cause? I doubt it was the mere fact they were a different race and foreign, but rather the impressive and awe-inspiring technology is the most plausible explanation. Unless of course you subscribe to racist theory that would argue they are inferior to the invaders and thus less rational.

Re: Nano-Guns, Nano-Germs, and Nano-Steel
posted on 04/12/2006 11:01 AM by joegreen

I don't want to turn this into an endless debate where no firm conclusion can be reached, so this will be my last post on this subject.

It's quite possible that the Spanish technology (guns, steel and horses) was the TRIGGER that started what was apparently an attack of mass panic among the Inca soldiers. My essential point is that something already existed in the minds of the Incas that made them VULNERABLE to such feelings of panic, hopelessness, whatever it was that caused them to turn and flee without fighting. Genius and mental impairment aside, I hold a firm conviction that all humans are essentially equal physiologically. But all human CULTURES! are not equal. Something in the Inca culture predisposed them to flee, rather than fight, when confronted by the Spainards. I think, but obviously can't prove, that it was religious superstition, a belief that gods they greatly feared existed, and the Spaniards were some form of manifestation of these gods. (The Spanish, by contrast, were assured by the priests traveling with them (this was standard procedure) that God was on their side, and supported their work.)

If those 80,000 Inca soldiers had been atheists (let's say), and free of such fears, they would defended their homeland by pressing an attack that would have killed the Spaniards within minutes. That's why I say it was not guns and steel that gave Pizarro the victory, but the mental state of the Incas.

Joseph Green

Re: Nano-Guns, Nano-Germs, and Nano-Steel
posted on 04/24/2006 5:30 PM by Phenostoic

I would have to agree with Mr. Green. The cultures are a huge aspect to keep in consideration. I am sure it is no surprise to anyone that there are many historical battles where the statistics tend to shift dramatically based on the many important variables which will ultimately decide which side will prove to be more dominant. <br> Other than the tools used, Mr. Green has pointed out that there is another significantly large variable which "could" have a substantial effect on the turnout of the battle, the fact that they have different cultures. <br> Lets look at another historic battle, (whether or not it was a quality film, the main plot has an interesting concept) The Last Samurai. The concept of this film was that the country has decided to arm their forced with weapons and upgrade their troops with modern tactics which would keep their country competitive. A large portion of the Samurai troops have defected from the government and had formed a rebellious force to oppose the movement. Needless to say there were battles, and the final battle consisted of the dramatically outnumbered Samurai troops (armed with swords, horses, bows, etc.) and the Japanese military (armed with muskets, standard close combat weapons, and mounted machine guns). If we were to take a look at the statistics of the battle, the Samurai (despite their defeat) proved to be a difficult opponent, the kill/death ratio was well in favor of the Samurai troops (whose mentality were that THEY were the better force, even with outdated weapons). The death toll was staggering and undoubtedly a battle to remember. <br>
So this simply goes to show that there are many things to consider. But needless to say, better technology IS an advantage, BUT there are other variables which can mold a high variety of outcomes. If one side had more advanced hardware, and was confident, then the other side better have "something" to either even the odds, or conquer the opposition.... otherwise, physics and statistics will surely show them who is the more dominant force. – GIL

Re: Nano-Guns, Nano-Germs, and Nano-Steel
posted on 04/26/2006 6:39 PM by Jake Witmer

I don't have much time, but I'd like to add a few new thoughts to this dialogue.

First: For anyone who's read Engines of Creation, the initial point of the essay stands on its own. Drexlerian nanotech is not comparable to guns, germs, or steel --this is apples to oranges.

Overwhelming numbers of people are insignificant against a programmed and invisible invader unleashed to control a territory. The whole point of nanotech warfare would be that the equalizer of guns and the desire to obtain undamaged collateral labor of the conquered nation's people could be rendered meaningless. IE: Even being equally armed to the attacking general infantry (and keep in mind it's most likely to be a totalitarian government acting against it's own "expendable" citizens, not a foreign invader) would mean nothing without better programming and intellectual design abilities. Numbers of men can overcome men with just a few guns among them (ie the warsaw ghetto uprising) -not so with nanotechnology. Automatically being able to run through the forest or the city, keep relatively out of sight, and shoot people with a rifle doesn't give you the ability to avoid microscopic robots homed into your body heat and chemical makeup. --Those "simple" (nearly automatic) human abilities aren't any protection against something you can't see and can't understand. --And virtually noone in the general populace can understand them...

Next: Governments exist to parasitize material wealth generated by other human beings. They justify their existence by sometimes acting in defense of justice (just enough to justify their existence to 51% of a gullible, easily deceived, and credulous citizenry). What happens when they have the material wealth of nanotech working for them, and no reason to parasitize other people? Historically, governments have had no problem killing or imprisoning millions of innocent people (their own citizens) during peacetime, without legitimate justification (a logical refutation of "illegitimate" government functions is easy, but takes time, so I won't bore you here. Itf you want to educate yourself, I'll follow this with my typical recommendations.)

Again, these points have already been made in Drexler's "Engines of Creation" http://www.foresight.org/EOC .

In addition to that masterwork, I recommend:
"Unintended Consequences" by John Ross
http://www.john-ross.net

"The Democratic Peace" by R.J. Rummel
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills

"The Ominous Parallels" by Leonard Peikoff

"Why Government Doesn't Work" by Harry Browne

"Free To Choose" by Milton Friedman

"The Shadow University" by Charles Alan Kors and Harvey Silverglate --This is especially good, because it allows you to see how afraid the establishment (from the lowest rent-a-cop to the president of the United States) is of simple free speech. It also allows you to see that other people do not view free speech as a simple "given" and that it must be continually fought for, with blood, sweat and tears. --A reader of this book gets a glimpse into my world, where one must continually face down bullies and thugs armed with guns and badges, intent on silencing you for the sake of mindless conformity to illogical and inhumane rules.

It shows you clearly that people DO wish to use force against one another to get what they want. It also shows that they are typically too cowardly to even face the people they wish to use force against --so they advocate the use of force by voting for the bullies amongst them to have free reign --just as long as some of the spoils of the theivery are turned their way. They never think about what they're doing, because they never want to admit they've been doing anything wrong by voting for such immense evil. The people who are victimized are out of sight and out of mind.

And I deal with the cops and their damned billy clubs to fight for what precious little right to free speech hasn't already been destroyed by those mindless masses of voters. Statistically, even though the people on this board have selected themselves out of the general pool of ignorance, most of them have virtually zero understanding of the concepts I've just expressed.

Well, get serious now. Because if an artilect ever has to go through the mindless attack I suffered yesterday at the hands of mindless and irrational armed government thugs (attempting to stop me from circulating a petition), they may just decide that humanity is as worthwhile as a cloud of mosquitos is to most humans.

What do you think they will do? The above guns germs and steel argument is only so good. It assumes that simple-minded people will wield nanotechnology powers. It's fairly obvious to me that if that power is not decentralized, it will mean the death of millions of innocent people, and the enslavement of mot of those who remain alive.

At least though, we might be able to reason with an artilect that we were worth leaving in peace, or even amplifying in intelligence, assuming that we treated them with a profound respect for their individual freedom. If not, I believe our days are certainly numbered.

-Jake

Re: Nano-Guns, Nano-Germs, and Nano-Steel
posted on 11/07/2007 2:53 AM by snafufubared

wow, old article + posts. Might as well give a little bit.

The possibility of an attack with "nano-weapons", while possible, will not likely be devastating depending on what types of weapons there are available. I would expect though, in the chance that something like a nano-related WMD happening, contingency plans would likely available. (i.e. development of retalitory systems/utilize a Mutually Assured Destruction concept/Arms Race/Treaties)

To say that the Spanish conquered the Inca with a handful of men only glazes over the fact that it was not a sudden one weekend "conquest" like what people would expect from the US. Was there even mention of the Aztec? Perhaps even a rough estimate of the true North American Native casualties of small-pox?

In the examples of Incan conquest by the Spanish. Many reasons are available, but it isn't all about technology. It is also about tactics, strategy, and diplomacy. Tack on the fact that the Conquistadors were motivated by greed.

The Incans if I remember correctly were not a completely homogeneous and harmonious society. Although they were a powerful empire, they also had many internal problems to deal with at the time.

All that being said, using the so called Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns. Modern military technology has increased exponentially compared to that of the 15th century.

However, modern military methods and weaponry would likely be more effective in comparison. A grenade from WWI can still kill somebody in 2000's. A bomb is a bomb, albeit its killing efficiency would be somewhat reduced. "Rock, Paper, Scissors,-Bomb". I would think that Nano-weapons as extension of conventional/modern weapons would help to increase the efficiencies of current weaponry, but could not be decisive depending on the scale of its use and whom it is used against.

The development of nano-bio-weapons could the most valid fear, however, the only way to successfuly deploy it would be in a manner that is undetectable and the aggressor remains anonymous. This is because the retaliation and condemnation for using such a weapon would and could even be drastic. Think as an extreme example: I'm gonna bomb you into the stone age/nuke you off the planet with my dying breath unless you deactivate- because I'm dead anyways.

Before it gets to that though, if the threat is significant enough, diplomatic channels would have been used to limit development or to ban the weapons. Although, Hiroshima and Nagasaki - were nuked, but after that - out of fear, such weapons were restricted. Biological and Chemical weapons, though still studied and feared (i.e. The Rock: Sean Connery vs. terrorists with stolen nerve gas) are banned and not likely to be used... or else... you'll end up like Saddam.

Ultimately, fears of nano-technology used as a weapon may be justified. However, along the way, through discussions and theories prompted by researchers and skeptics, the likelihood of disaster is significantly reduced.