The fate of the world is determined by our actions and decisions, and many of
the most profound decisions and actions are made by the largest of actors: states.
The range of possible behaviors for states is partly delineated by the relations
among them, as each state must always act in a world of other states. Kingdoms,
republics and empires have risen and fallen over the millennia, their fortunes
determined at all points by their store of power (1), and by their ability to use it in the world in which they acted. There are
many sources of power, and the relative value of those sources to a nation has
fluctuated historically. At one time, a nation's army may have been her most valuable
asset. At other times, her store of gold, her population, her navy, her factories
and technology and even her religion may have been determining factors in her
relative standing in the world.
Molecular nanotechnology (MNT) is an emerging technology that has the potential
to redefine the sources of power in the world and to change the structure of the
international system, thus influencing the business of states, from how they live
and trade to how they conduct war. It is therefore prudent for us to examine this
new technology, and study its potential to reshape the world around us.
On a global level, MNT poses a serious challenge to decision-makers and ordinary
citizens alike. On the one hand are the enormous benefits that the technology
may produce, from personal and national wealth that nearly exceed our ability
to imagine, to possibly final cures to the aging and diseases that have plagued
us for our entire history. On the other hand are the dangers, hard to visualize
at this point, but all stemming from the radical power of this new tool. Whether
superweapons of unspeakable destructiveness or home-made attempts at genocide,
at least some of the potential products of an advanced molecular manufacturing
ability give us pause, making us wonder if the heralded "Age of Nanotechnology"
will be nothing more than a finely engineered disaster.
The argument presented in these pages follows the usual argument about molecular
nanotechnology to a certain extent; there are indeed both opportunities and dangers
that the advent of this technology will force us to manage, and these will be
addressed. But where these pages will leave the path of established thought on
this subject is on the point of precisely what those dangers (2) and opportunities are, for it will argue that the dangers are different and
more likely than previously imagined, and that in the midst of these dangers, an opportunity
may emerge to purge our world of its most dreaded feature: war.
One of the highest hopes one can have for molecular manufacturing is that it
will remove some of the causes of war, and contribute to a generally safer and
more stable global environment. On the surface, there is cause to believe it will
make the world safer, as there is a wide variety of conflicts that will be eased
or even eliminated entirely by an advanced breed of this technology.
Conflicts come in many different forms, but it is possible to narrow them down
to a few general types. Some conflicts are the result of simple misunderstandings.
Those misunderstandings may be misinterpreted military activity or accidentally
threatening actions (such as the accidental firing of a gun at a stand-off), or
they may be a result of a fundamental inability of different cultures to communicate
well. This kind of conflict is generally resolvable, given the proper effort and
time. At the other end of the spectrum, many conflicts are a matter of pure, unreasoning
hostility between groups. These conflicts may be based on religious or ethnic
differences, or they may be built on a tradition of hostility, the ancient origins
of which are no longer clear. These conflicts are often without possible resolution,
save for the complete elimination of one of the groups. (The Arab-Israeli conflict
may be an example of this unresolvable, interminable conflict, as may the ethnic
strife in the former Yugoslavia.)
We should not hope that any new technology will have the ability to resolve differences
that are the result of human decisions or errors. However, there are some conflicts
that may be amenable to technological resolution. One of the most common contributing
factors to war among states is access to resources. There is a wide variety of
resources that are important to states; natural resources, such as land, gold
and oil, have a long history of being something states felt to be worth fighting
over. There is also historical precedence for new technologies causing a decline
in the value of some resources, so there is reason to think it is possible to
happen again.
History is littered with examples of wars fought over resources. Wars were fought
between European countries over the vast stores of gold and other treasures that
were thought to exist in the New World. In our own century, Japan drew the United
States into the Second World War when she attacked that country out of fear that
a slow strangulation by lack of oil and other resources would happen otherwise.
(3) Millions were killed in a brutal war that was in part started over the issue
of access to resources, and it was not to be the last time. Tens of thousands
more would be killed in the Gulf War of 1991, which was fought at least partially
to defend the industrial states' access to oil.
More wars over resources loom, most notably in the South China Sea, where a small
group of islands known as the Spatleys sits atop a potentially vast cache of oil
and other valuable resources. 5 states claim sovereignty over this region, including
China, which has approximately 3 million men in uniform. The Republic of China
on Taiwan, which has had hostile relations with China since her government was
forced off the mainland by the Communist revolution of 1949, also claims parts
of the disputed area, as do Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia. The prognosis
for a peaceful resolution of these conflicting claims is not promising. The stakes
are high, and Asian states have been arming themselves steadily during the last
decade.
MNT may help to alleviate, and perhaps entirely resolve, the issue of access
to certain materials. Petroleum, for example, may go the way of whale oil in the
early 20th Century, "eclipsed" by a new source of power (in this case, solar).
MNT will not revive the solar power of the 1970's, with massive collectors that
take up acre upon acre of desert space, nor will it require the ugly water-heaters
that clutter so many rooftops today. Rather, by increasing the efficiency of solar
energy collection while simultaneously lowering the power requirements of manufacturing,
MNT may make solar power an unobtrusive, sufficient source of energy for both home and industrial use, thus creating a viable, even
desirable alternative to fossil fuels. There is also the possibility that for
some tasks, molecular manufacturing processes will produce energy, rather than
consume it. (4)
Should such a situation become reality, the implications for reduced interstate
conflict are significant. Solar radiation is readily accessible at some level
to every state on the planet, and it is hard to conceive of a practical way that
any state could restrict the access of another to it. Viable solar power could
lead to energy independence for all, and that would leave the states of the world
with one fewer vital interest to defend from each other, and thus one fewer reason
to wage wars.
There are other resource areas where MNT might help contribute to a reduction
in conflict between states. One of those is food. An example of the isolated,
low intensity conflict over food that is becoming more common today occured in1995,
when Canada and Spain clashed over Spanish fisherman trolling for fish off the
coast of Canada. As fish populations dwindle due to overfishing, we should expect
an increase in aggressive fishing practices and a concomitant rise in conflict
regarding sovereignty over fishing grounds. MNT, however, may allow the inexpensive
generation of all the fish the human race can consume, without a man-hour spent
fishing. Sovereignty over prime fishing waters would become a non-issue. This
apparently trivial example is important because it illustrates that MNT may help
alleviate conflict over material resources that are non-exclusive (that is, resources
that can be consumed by many at the same time, such as food, water and mass-produced
goods. An example of an exclusive resource would be the French Riviera; there
is only one, and only France has it.)
(1)"Power can be thought of as the ability of an actor to get others to do something
they otherwise would not do (and at an acceptable cost to the actor). Power can
also be conceived in terms of control over outcomes." (Power and Interdependence, Keohane, Robert O., and Nye, Joseph S., HarperCollins, 1989, p. 11) Later in
these pages, a distinction will be made between the potential for power as described
above, and power that is realized or made actual.
(2)The "established thought" on nanotechnology is that its greatest danger is
its abuse. "The chief danger of nanotechnology isn't accidents, but abuse." (Unbounding the Future, Drexler, K. Eric et al, William Morrow and Company, 1991, p. 521) Later in
these pages it will be argued that the greatest danger of nanotechnology is neither
accidents nor abuse, but rather its normal use as a tool of state power (as opposed
to its use as a tool of madmen).
(3)"When the United States exploited Japanese vulnerability to economic embargo
in 1940-41, Japan countered by attacking Pearl Harbor and the Philippines." (Keohane
and Nye, p 16)
(4)"... [A] molecular manufacturing process can be driven by the chemical energy
content of the feedstock materials, producing electrical energy as a byproduct...
." Nanosystems, p. 428-429. Also: "Using typical organic feedstocks, and assuming oxidation
of surplus hydrogen, reasonably efficient molecular manufacturing processes are
net energy producers... . At a typical price for electrical energy today, ~0.1
$/kWhr, the value of the by-product electrical energy would usually exceed the
cost of the feedstock materials." Nanosystems, Drexler, K. Eric, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992, p. 433.