Nanotechnology as a Supervillian

Nanotechnology is coming and it's a tidal wave.  The discovery which acts as the earthquake has yet to take place but all around the world are the miniature tremors that indicate the coming tectonic shift that will change life as we know it.  Many, as suggested in the "Tiny Primer on Nano-Scale Technologies," will see this coming technology as an exciting and overwhelmingly good event, as many of us at RPI are inclined to believe.  However, in the context of this analogy, we would be zealous cultists claiming that the wave will lift us to heaven instead of crush us under the force of its waves, as on-lookers stare; judging us for our ridiculous beliefs.  We must look away from our privilege if we want to analyze this coming event.  The technology will bring changes, and harsh ones.  Perhaps more harsh than others like it have brought in the past, which says a lot as we glance back in history to the effects of technologies like the combustion engine, crop harvesting equipment, and the internet, just to name a few.  These effects will not be evenly spread over society, according to history.  Many who are not so privileged will carry the burden while the wealthy and white benefit.  The burdens may include further displacement of jobs, health impacts for those working with new materials, and perhaps the most scary, impacts we cannot predict.  We can mitigate, or perhaps even prevent, these unfortunate outcomes, but "we" won't.

The coming technological storm may, to us, seem like a storm of puppies and rainbows, and on a scientific level we know how interesting and absolutely genius some of this stuff will be, but we are the ones who will be consuming the end products from this technology, not seeing its externalized costs.  This is just as it is now with current production methods and costs to those less fortunate than us.  From the new nanotech, we will see a reduction in use of natural, fibrous materials and an increase in synthetics.  This will displace farmers growing cotton, or hemp, or other materials.  We also will likely see a reduction in recycling for a time, this kind of thing could have impacts on the waste business, and the people working in it.  Maybe we could see nearly all blue collar jobs displaced, if we are simply feeding materials into machines to make buildings, furniture, and just about everything else.  We don't need construction workers if it can be done with the press of a button instead.  These people cannot just pick up some other job, specifically, they cannot just become white collar workers.  That is not how they are trained and it is almost definitely not how they desire to live, although it may be how the technology reforms society.  We will see a need for more data analysts, more programmers than ever, more nanoscientists, and accompanying technicians.  In the long run, this is no big deal, but in the short run, it is detrimental to the living and well being of people all over the globe and right here in our own country.  On top of displacement, we could also see serious impacts on health and treatment of workers.  Take nPB as an example.  The glue killed everyone that ever worked with it, and nanotechnology could do just as much or worse to those working with it, for all we know.

That is just the problem.  We do not know how nanotechnology will affect society.  Most of its impacts are very hard or impossible to predict at all, let alone with any accuracy.  These things could be like the nano-carbon Buckyballs, or "Unluckyballs" that are harmful to the atmosphere.  We have no idea what is going to be coming our way with this technology, because we do not know what we are making yet with it.  However, we do have tools to mitigate and prevent these bad things from happening.  Remember ITE?  It is guidelines like ITE that will help us to be cautious in what we adopt, looking at how exactly it will affect the population, the Earth, specific demographics.  With the proper watchful demeanor towards these technologies, we can phase in the ones we know are good, gradually transition to the ones that will be problematic, and block the ones that will only bring ruin.  Granted, this is easier said than done, but we will have a better time if we are watching where we are going.  An ice hockey coach tells their players, "Keep your head up."  Instead of looking down at the puck, the player is to watch where they are going and what is going on around them.  This is how we have to be with nanotech.  Those entrusted with developing it need to be watching what is going on, not just on the thing they are doing.

Even though we know how to mitigate and prevent these problems, even if only to some extent, those in charge will not take these precautions.  The capitalist machine will churn out the new technology, monotize it, and profit without a single care for the external costs and for the detrimental effects of their work.  As we talked about before, we have to educate the people engineering these technologies to do the right thing and do what they know is best when they are faced with terrible decisions.  Management is not changing, so engineers are going to have to shoulder the burden if we are to mitigate any damage at all.  So, even if we can mitigate and prevent damage, do not expect corporations to do the right thing.  Instead, expect government to facilitate the corporations doing the wrong thing.  Nanotechnology can be a superhero, but unless we shape it correctly, it will be a supervillian instead; with laser eyes and jet packs and tentacles and the whole package.

Engineer's Dilemma

Historically, efficiency has always butted heads with responsible action.  We see this in what is probably the most striking example, using efficient, but polluting, chemicals or using more natural, less polluting substances to accomplish the same thing.  One might be faster or require less materials or funding, most likely externalizing a cost, but an externalized cost is still a cost to someone, somewhere, or something.  How can we be efficient, whilst still being responsible and selfless in our endeavors.  Perhaps an engineer in a corporation is the one implementing this corporately selfish, but efficient, methodology.  Where do you draw the line between valuing your job and what is best for the companies, and then in turn your, success, and the professional responsibility you have as an engineer to do the right thing.  Through reformation of the values of those who might put the engineers in this tight position, we could abolish the dilemma from ever starting.  There are multiple ways this could happen, however unlikely to succeed they may be.  First, is through a sense of internationalism, or environmentalism.  Second, is a radical change to the system we live in where corporations are accountable for the externalized costs they put on the Earth and its inhabitants.  Through this change, the dilemma can be a thing of the past.

Our first suggestion, instilling a sense of internationalism, or environmentalism in the minds of all those who put these engineers in such a position as to choose between company and the rest of the world, is a bit far-fetched but would still solve our problem.  If everyone felt less faithful to themselves and their personal success and more about the success of Earth and humanity as a global entity, we would not be in the position we are today where engineers' consciences are tested.  Instead, the others who have already decided on doing the "wrong" thing for the good of the company, would decide to do the right thing.  This, in a way, externalizes the dilemma to management.  However, before instructing engineers, these things are generally known in the first place, and thus they experience a similar dilemma already, they just make the wrong choice a good chunk of the time.  If management did better in their dilemma, engineers would not be put in the bind they, all too often, are put in.

The second suggestion I have put forth, is more reasonable in ends, but means are still questionable as to whether their are truly possible.  Even if this suggestion can never be achieved to its fullest extent, even a partial implementation could relieve the engineers enough to call the dilemma history.  If there was a system, perhaps implemented by a universally governing body, such as the U.N. or something similar, that would hold corporations accountable for their externalized costs, then the once efficient thing to do now costs more than the once costly thing to do.  We can now force responsible inefficiency into the actions of corporations.  These corporations, if they want access to the markets they can sell their goods in, must conform to an analysis of externalized costs.  For example, if a mining company takes advantage of its workers, subjecting them to dangerous conditions needlessly and/or paying them too little, we can hold the company accountable.  "Well, Acme, I can see you are using slave labor to produce your goods, so therefore, until you address that problem your goods cannot be sold to any nation's consumers on this long list of countries."  Only through true accountability can the pressure be turned onto the companies creating problems in the first place.  If a company is doing something highly environmentally dangerous, they can be stopped. Though, the costs associated with this sort of system would surely be grand, they are worth the lives of all seven billion human beings on this earth.  Currently, continuing on this track, we will see the Earth destroyed and its inhabitants with it.  So what cost is too much for the survival of humanity?  Do not put this burden on the engineers, when it could be put on the management who maliciously bestows the dilemma currently on the engineers.

Through changes to the way we treat corporations, we can remove the dilemma engineers face every single day designing the next generation of products.  If we cannot have good people, we certainly can have corporations that do not run amuck throughout the Earth, ravaging her people and her bounties.  Instead, we can hold responsible these people who make decisions neglecting the costs they burden others with.