| |
|
Safer Molecular Manufacturing through Nanoblocks
Lego-style "nanoblocks" could prevent a molecular-assembly fabber from building an atom-precise nanofactory or devices that could help in any attempt to "bootstrap" production of an atom-precise nanofactory, reducing the risk of proliferation of atom-precise MM to "rogue nations" or terrorists.
Originally published in Nanotechnology Perceptions: A Review
of Ultraprecision Engineering and Nanotechnology, Volume 2, No.
2, May 8, 2006. Reprinted May 9, 2006 by KurzweilAI.net.
Those responsible for the safety of a nation—leaders and military
and police forces—might be hard pressed to deal with a world
in which any weapon or dangerous device could be manufactured in
large quantities at the press of a button, at the same time that
economic and social norms are being overthrown by rapid change.
We can expect that—by default—authorities will want molecular
manufacturing (MM) to be tightly restricted—kept out of private
hands, and limited to the few nations that initially have it. That
approach might provide some added security—or it might simply
create such incredible pent-up demand that any barriers and restrictions
are quickly overcome by black markets, intellectual property piracy,
rogue-nation programs to duplicate MM, etc.
This essay attempts to chart a middle path for the early years
of MM availability—one that allows most of the benefits of
MM to be widely available to all individuals and nations, while
maintaining some control over key elements. I will not go into who
will hold that control, other than to suggest the obvious—that
those nations that hold the reins of world power are likely to exercise
it to retain power, by delegating it in a controlled fashion to
cooperative nations and subordinate authorities.
It is not the objective of this essay to look at radical social
changes that might arise due to molecular manufacturing, but rather
to see how well MM can fit with existing forms.
Definitions
Atom Precise - each atom and bond between atoms in an object
is as planned in a design. Also used to describe the process or
capability of making atom precise objects.
Nanoblocks - atom precise constructs with size on the order
of 100 nanometers that can be mechanically connected to form larger
objects. Each nanoblock would have one or more functions—as
simple as providing physical strength and support, or as complex
as digital computation and communication.
Fabber - a device that automatically assembles individual
products for human use. In the context of this essay, it will refer
to a device that constructs products out of nanoblocks, specifically
excluding atom precise nanofactories - those that build products
directly atom-by-atom.
Technical Advantages of Using Nanoblocks
Nanoblock-based fabbers will have a number of technical advantages
over direct atom precise molecular manufacturing. Even their disadvantages
(less precision, lower strength in products) can be considered advantages
for purposes of security.
Standardization of nanoblocks—their modes of interconnection
and interaction, their functions, and so on—can greatly simplify
the process of designing atom precise products. Use of nanoblocks
raises the level of design above the point that requires deep understanding
of nanoscale physics and chemistry, to the point where anyone could
use automated software tools to design simple but useful products,
and expert engineers could reasonably design extremely complex and
capable products. For example, there would be no need to re-design
a nanoscale computer out of individual atoms every time one wished
to incorporate information processing into a product, or to re-invent
means of digital communication throughout a product.
While the amount of energy expended to form a single atom-to-atom
bond and the waste heat generated is tiny, the number of atoms and
bonds in a typical finished product for human use is so large that
energy and heat issues will be non-trivial when constructing human-scale
products. The energy used and heat released to build things out
of nanoblocks should be orders of magnitude smaller, as most of
the energy is consumed and heat released in the process of making
the nanoblocks. Energy supply and heat removal will be much easier
for nanoblock fabbers, allowing them to be more compact and operate
much faster—though, of course, they still will need a supply
of "raw materials"—a store of nanoblocks rather than
whatever atomic or molecular feedstock atom precise nanofactories
may use.</p>
<p>The nanoblocks needed by a fabber could be made in advance. Energy
consumption and heat dissipation would be spread over time, with
nanoblocks being stored in the fabber for later quick construction
of finished products. Alternatively, nanoblocks could be produced
in bulk by centralized nanofactories near convenient energy supplies,
to be distributed and sold to owners of fabbers. The energy required
to ship a kilogram of nanoblocks, even halfway around the world,
should be a fraction of the energy required to produce them.</p>
<p>It should be possible to design nanoblocks to allow controlled
disassembly—i.e. recycling of products made out of reusable
nanoblocks. Each nanoblock could have an ID embedded that specifies
its type—reliably sorting nanoblocks would be far more efficient
than sorting atoms. This would mean that the energy that goes into
producing them would not be wasted when one no longer needs or wants
the product they compose. Instead, the unwanted object could be
taken apart, and the nanoblocks sorted for re-use in making new
objects. This would save energy and avoid the massive production
of junk that could result from large-scale use of inexpensive manufacturing.</p>
<p>A related <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Concept')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Concept')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">concept</a>—utility fog<sup>1</sup>—would be a
programmable substance consisting of "foglets." Each <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Foglet')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Foglet')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">foglet</a>
would be a tiny simple <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Robot')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Robot')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">robot</a>, able to interact with vast numbers
of other foglets to form nearly any shape imaginable, including
objects that are able to move and react to human beings. One might
be able to re-create the <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Star Trek')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Star Trek')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">Star Trek</a> "holodeck" using foglets—an
environment in which almost anything becomes possible. The flexibility
that makes this idea attractive also creates the risk that the <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Utility')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Utility')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">utility</a>
fog might be infected with an information <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Virus')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Virus')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">virus</a> designed to take
it over for malicious purposes, harming or killing or simply trapping
a human in the <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Utility Fog')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Utility Fog')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">utility fog</a> environment. The fixed-function approach
of building things out of nanoblocks and recycling things when they
are no longer needed seems safer, at least for the early days of
molecular manufacturing.</p>
<h4>Fabber Safety and Security Issues</h4>
<p>The use of nanoblocks creates opportunities to make molecular manufacturing
safer.</p>
<p>With a careful selection of the types of nanoblocks made available,
a fabber should not be able to build an atom precise nanofactory
out of nanoblocks, nor devices that will be a significant help in
any attempt to "bootstrap" production of an atom precise
nanofactory, reducing the risk of proliferation of atom precise
MM to "rogue nations" or terrorists.</p>
<p>A nanoblock-only fabber (i.e. one which cannot produce its own
nanoblocks, and so requires a supply of nanoblocks as input) could
be distributed world-wide without releasing atom precise MM to everyone,
avoiding any risk that anyone could start using it to produce massive
quantities of dangerous products out of freely available atoms.
Yet it would allow construction of almost as wide a range of products
as an atom precise nanofactory, for not much more cost—reducing
demand for atom precise MM.</p>
<p>There would be products that could not be made out of nanoblocks,
of course—such as nanoblocks themselves. This fact could give
official security forces with <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Access')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Access')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">access</a> to atom precise nanofactories
an advantage, as weapons and <a href="javascript:loadBrain('System')" onMouseOver="playBrain('System')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">system</a>s made with atom precise nanofactories
will be somewhat more capable than any created using nanoblock fabbers.</p>
<p>Products of <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Commercial')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Commercial')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">commercial</a> or security value that cannot be made out
of nanoblocks and require atom precise assembly could be made in
centralized plants where security measures could be taken. One simple
security measure would be to have such products made by dedicated
function nanofactories, with the design built in at the lowest level
and unable to be altered without destroying the nanofactory. These
dedicated function nanofactories would be produced using general-purpose
programmable nanofactories in a few extremely high security plants.</p>
<h4>The Risk of Exponential <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Self-Replication')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Self-Replication')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">Self-Replication</a> </h4>
<p>Anyone familiar with the "grey goo" exponential self-replication
scenario might ask whether a device made of nanoblocks might disassemble
objects made of recyclable nanoblocks and re-use those nanoblocks
to produce copies of the device—a "lumpy goo" scenario.</p>
<p>To prevent this, one solution would be to design nanoblocks to
require use of a key-like manipulator—too small to be made
of or emulated by nanoblocks—to lock blocks together in order
to fabricate objects. So long as the key-like manipulator is only
built into fabbers, and never made part of or attached to a commonly
available nanoblock, only fabbers will be able to build things from
those nanoblocks—eliminating much of the potential to build
a malicious self-replicator out of nanoblocks. The same key would
be required to disassemble objects for recycling—preventing
malicious disassembly of objects made of nanoblocks, outside of
dedicated recycling devices.</p>
<p>One could object that preventing the fabber from making copies
of itself would eliminate a potentially major advantage. A fabber
that can make copies of itself could be distributed very rapidly,
creating a huge market for nanoblocks and nanoblock-based designs
in a very short period of time. That should be a significant advantage
for a manufacturer willing to give up income from the fabber and
focus on selling nanoblocks. So long as the nanoblocks were non-reusable,
the risk of exponential self-replication would be minimized—and
the manufacturer could expect their fabber to become a universal
standard before competitors got to market, making their nanoblock
business quite profitable.</p>
<p>However, other companies would very quickly begin producing reverse-engineered
"clone" and improved nanoblocks, cutting into the original
manufacturer's revenues. It would likely not be long before someone
offered re-usable nanoblocks, opening the way to exponentially self-replicating
systems.</p>
<p>Given the value of recyclable nanoblocks for energy and cost savings
and convenient disposal, and the security risks of self-copying
fabber <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Component')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Component')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">component</a>s, it seems wisest to allow recyclable nanoblocks
but prohibit fabbers that can self-copy. Very likely the cost of
fabbers will fall rapidly in any case, since they would themselves
be made with atom precise MM.</p>
<p>The above assumes a relatively free market in fabber and nanoblock
designs. That may not be the case if the <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Government')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Government')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">government</a> is involved
and sets a single standard that all manufacturers must follow. In
that case, one might see a "utility" model, where nanoblock
prices are controlled to allow manufacturers a "reasonable"
profit. This scenario would be likely to slow innovation—but,
of course, that might be exactly the effect desired by the government.
Non-self-copying fabbers with recyclable nanoblocks seem the most
likely choice in such a standard.</p>
<h4>Limiting Other Potential Abuses </h4>
<p>Fabbers will very likely be targeted with the equivalent of computer
viruses—malware designs that will attempt to infect fabbers
and transmit copies of themselves, and probably use the fabber to
produce something annoying or dangerous. The greatest danger would
be if fabbers were connected directly to the <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Internet')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Internet')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">Internet</a>, allowing
very rapid spread of such a virus without human intervention.</p>
<p>One way to fight this would be to keep all fabbers "offline"—designed
to only allow loading new designs by manually transferring a design
on a physically separate storage medium. This should slow the spread
of malware down to human speeds, allowing humans a chance to become
aware of the problem and deal with it.</p>
<p>It may prove useful to establish a program that allows anyone with
an interest in "clever fabber hacks" or atom precise molecular
manufacturing to exercise their curiosity in a safe, controlled
environment. This would help reduce the incidence of '<a href="javascript:loadBrain('Experiment')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Experiment')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">experiment</a>s'
<a href="javascript:loadBrain('Analog')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Analog')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">analog</a>ous to releasing computer viruses and worms into the wild,
by giving <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Hacker')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Hacker')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">hacker</a>s an alternative and encouraging environment. Their
creative—or potentially destructive—ideas could benefit
<a href="javascript:loadBrain('Society')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Society')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">society</a> or help plan defenses against potential dangers. It also
provides an opportunity to catch the few who are going down the
wrong path and turn them around - or at least keep know who they
are if they seem inclined to persist in dangerous pursuits.</p>
<p>Malicious users could produce dangerous or otherwise undesirable
nanoblock-based products. For example, a murderer might create a
knife, kill someone, and disassemble the evidence. Or perhaps create
a household robot—but program it to wreak havoc. Defenses against
such abuses should be taken into consideration. There are several
approaches that might be helpful.</p>
<p>Since recyclable nanoblocks would have a readable type-ID built
in, it would be trivial to extend that to a unique ID, making it
possible to backtrack the source of an otherwise anonymous malicious
automated device, or obtain a clue from nanoblocks torn off a more
mundane object such as a knife. With users knowing this, fewer will
seriously contemplate engaging in malicious production.</p>
<h4><a href="javascript:loadBrain('Life')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Life')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">Life</a> with Fabbers </h4>
<p>The use of nanoblock-limited fabbers (i.e., those which cannot
make their own nanoblocks) has some likely implications for society.
Certainly costs of many material goods should fall, raising the
standard of living of many people around the world.</p>
<p>If instead, self-copying fabbers and non-recyclable nanoblocks
are available, benefits for less developed nations may arrive a
<a href="javascript:loadBrain('Bit')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Bit')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">bit</a> sooner, but the need to continually buy more nanoblocks will
limit their long-term impact.</p>
<p>Some visions of life with atom precise MM have people going "off
the grid"—quitting their jobs, setting up independent
solar powered homesteads, and ending <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Capitalism')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Capitalism')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">capitalism</a> and perhaps <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Economics')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Economics')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">economics</a>
as we know them. That scenario would be very unlikely with non-recyclable
nanoblocks, and limited with recyclable nanoblocks, as people would
still need to engage in productive economic activity in order to
have money to buy replacement nanoblocks.</p>
<p>With most jobs in manufacturing and distribution eliminated, people
would largely find jobs in the service sector. Service jobs will
shift even more to specialization, due to increased competition.
Developed nations have already gone far in this direction, and other
nations will likely be forced to follow suit. This will be a difficult
transition for nations that have only recently begun developing
and have been heavily dependent upon manufacturing for <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Export')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Export')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">export</a>—services
will be more difficult to export, and local consumers may not be
as used to consuming services.</p>
<p>Another common vision of life after the arrival of atom precise
MM has a tension between free "open source" designs and
commercially available designs. The greater ease of designing with
nanoblocks instead of atoms would likely give the <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Open Source')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Open Source')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">open source</a> approach
extra impetus. Still, there will also be a fair number of things
that people will not trust to be made from nanoblocks, and conventional
commerce in those products will continue. Also, as always, there
will be elements of style and usage that will cause people to pay
for things even though free alternatives are available, just as
people today will pay more for a real Rolex™ than a fake, or
pay for a commonly used <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Operating System (OS)')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Operating System (OS)')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">operating system</a> even though free operating
systems are available.</p>
<p>With so many choices, and so many people seeking employment in
services, it seems likely that many stores will focus on personal
service and product advice. Goods purchased in a shop will be priced
based on a combination of service and the prestige of certain designers,
with a very small component of the cost of the nanoblocks used in
product construction. There still will be "big chain"
stores with vast showrooms filled with goods, but even there, the
key will be the service of providing one place to go see and compare
a huge variety of goods. They may make some goods while you wait,
others they'll have available off the shelf, still others—especially
larger goods—they'll make and deliver to your home. Likely,
there also will be a way to buy "limited uses" designs
for home production.</p>
<h4>Conclusions</h4>
<p>Making nanoblock-limited fabbers available to everyone promises
to provide most of the easily imaginable benefits of unrestricted
atom precise MM, with significantly fewer risks. Fabbers can provide
useful advantages of speed, efficiency, and safety. Certainly, they
are not a cure-all, creating a perfect utopia—but the problems
remaining may be humanly manageable.</p>
<p>Perhaps fabbers would only be a transition phase before a shift
to a more liberal availability of atom precise MM, but given all
the risks and uncertainties raised by molecular manufacturing, this
more controlled introduction seems warranted. The most likely alternative
is not free release of atom precise MM, but even tighter restrictions.
Fabbers limited to constructing things out of nanoblocks seem like
a reasonable compromise approach, and one that government authorities
and others may consider acceptable.</p>
<p><sup>1.</sup> <a href="javascript:loadBrain('Hall, J. Storrs')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Hall, J. Storrs')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">J. Storrs Hall</a>, "Utility Fog: The Stuff that
Dreams are Made Of", http://discuss.foresight.org/% 7Ejosh/Ufog.<a href="javascript:loadBrain('Hypertext Markup Language (HTML)')" onMouseOver="playBrain('Hypertext Markup Language (HTML)')" onMouseOut="stopBrain()" class="thought">html</a></p>
</td><td> </td><td valign="top" class="sidebar"><a href="#discussion">Join the discussion about this article on Mind·X!</a><p></p></td><td> </td>
</tr>
<tr><td colspan="6"><img src="/blank.gif" height="35" width="35" alt="" border="0"></td></tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td colspan=4>
<a name="discussion"></a><p><span class="mindxheader"> [<a href="/mindx/frame.html?main=post.php?reply%3D59824" target="_top">Post New Comment</a>]<br> </span>Mind·X Discussion About This Article:</p><a name="id59825"></a>
<table border="0" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=5 width="100%">
<tr>
<td><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="0" height="1"></td>
<td colspan="4"><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="679" height="1"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" bgcolor="#CCCCCC" valign="top"><img src="/mindx/images/round-left.gif"></td>
<td bgcolor=#CCCCCC><p>Safe recursive Fab<br><span class="mindxheader"><i>posted on 05/10/2006 1:45 AM by <a href="/mindx/profile.php?id=2856">Nato_Welch</a></i></span></td>
<td bgcolor=#CCCCCC align="right" valign="top"><span class="mindxheader">[<a href="#discussion">Top</a>]<br>[<a href="/mindx/frame.html?main=show_thread.php?rootID%3D59824%23id59825" target="_top">Mind·X</a>]<br>[<a href="/mindx/frame.html?main=post.php?reply%3D59825" target="_top">Reply to this post</a>]</span></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" bgcolor="#CCCCCC" valign="top" align="right"><img src="/mindx/images/round-right.gif"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td bgcolor=#DDDDDD colspan="4"><p>I like this model quite a bit, largely because it does not resort to easily-broken DRM schemes for its security.
<br>
<br>
I'd like to make a suggestion which would allow for safe recursive fabbing, though.
<br>
<br>
Have two "keys" for use by block manipulators: one key to assemble blocks, and another one to disassemble them.
<br>
<br>
If you then release nanoblocks with assembly keys, but restrict disassembly keys to dedicated recyclers (which are atom-precise products), you can allow people most of the power of recursive fab applications with a double-layer of protection against runaway replicators.
<br>
<br>
The first layer is already present in Craver's model as proposed; replicators can't build anything out of plain atoms - it will require nanoblocks. Since these will be relatively rare, runaway repliction will be limited.
<br>
<br>
If you additionally limit the accessbility of the disassembly keys, that further limits runaway replicators to //raw// nanoblocks, which can be stored in sealed hoppers to keep them relatively safe. Because a runaway replicator will need to disassemble already-assembled products before it can incorporate them into it's own design, and disassembly keys can't be part of its own design, this adds a second layer of protection that also further restricts fuel candidates for runaway replicators. </p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="1" height="1"></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" valign="bottom" bgcolor=#DDDDDD><img src="/mindx/images/round-bottom-left.gif"></td>
<td colspan="2" bgcolor=#DDDDDD><img src="/images/blank.gif" width="1" height="1"></td>
<td style="padding: 0px;" valign="bottom" align="right" bgcolor=#DDDDDD><img src="/mindx/images/round-bottom-right.gif"></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p></p></td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</td></tr></table>
</body>
</html><script language="JavaScript">
window.onerror = error;
if (top == self ) {
restoreFrame();
}
if (!parent.document) {
restoreFrame();
}
function restoreFrame() {
top.location.replace('http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0670.html?');
}
function error(message,url,line) {
if (message.indexOf("Access is denied") != -1) {
restoreFrame();
return true;
}
else return false;
}
</script>
|
