From widely circulated mainstream media outlets we hear components of a road map that has already been sketched of technological development to a point where human involvement wouldn’t be necessary for further advancement. Half of what is involved in this is artificial, or machine, intelligence, a concept familiar for some time. News reporting is only beginning to cover specifically the technical field which will certainly provide the requisite hardware for AI and also for creating machine systems capable of physically out performing human ability, that is the field of nanotechnology, specifically molecular nanotechnology.

Currently the commercial products of nanotechnology are not much more than homogenous particles made using large scale means. But as further control over atoms is realized, we move towards molecular nanotechnology (MNT), best explained through the concept of the ‘assembler’, an atomically precise programmable machine system capable of manufacturing, among other things, copies of itself. This self-replication and parallel manufacture would allow for exponential growth, so large scale results could follow quickly from processes initiated at a scale invisible to the naked eye. MNT is described as an enabling technology, meaning it is not any particular device, but a level of technological sophistication.

Obviously the extensive theoretical benefits of such combined technologies is one of the widely given reasons for their pursuit. This is “the promise of a post- scarcity world in which it will be possible to generate endless supplies of whatever humans desire,” the tension between quality and quantity reduced to trifles. Costs of production would ultimately be that of resources, but with means to acquire vastly more from space, and time, but with the prospect of extending human life through cellular repair and merging with machines. MNT will enable a self propagating abundance.

The dangers expected in society’s pursuit of MNT are commonly framed in terms of the empowerment this could bring to extremists in their pursuit of terror. But this is also pushed as a strong point for why this technology ought to be developed, and quickly. That is because even though destructive uses of this technology are easier to implement than beneficial uses, these latter uses, if properly executed, could prevent the former. The expert consensus is roughly that “the best defense against nanotech misuse is good nanotechnology,”. Of course, if this is to be done, ‘we’ must not pose a threat to ourselves.

••••Critical coverage and discussion of the Dangers••••

The most promulgated critical voice on the issue of MNT is that of Bill Joy over the subject of his Wired magazine article “Why the future doesn’t need us.” Joy calls for “relinquishment” of MNT and other “too dangerous” technologies, apparently because they contribute to “democratizing the ability for individuals to cause great harm” sufficiently to nullify reason for pursuing them in the first place. In his writing and the news coverage about it we are told, by the Washington Post for example, that “Joy says he finds himself essentially agreeing, to his horror, with a core argument of the Unabomber, Theodore Kaczynski - that advanced technology poses a threat to the human species.” Joy utilizes a quote from Kaczynski’s “Industrial Society and Its Future” the way it was presented in Ray Kurzweil’s book “Age of the Spiritual Machines,” under the title “The New Luddite Challenge.” In this passage, Kaczynski’s gives his prognostications of a future where “scientists succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do all things better than human beings can do them.” Though Joy says “I saw some merit in the reasoning in this passage. I felt compelled to confront it,” he ends up taking exactly the opposite perspective on the problem than Kaczynski - an unrecognized fact which contributes to the illusion that the ‘hard questions’ about these technologies have been, and continues to be, examined before the intellectual green light was flicked on to stay.

Kaczynski is concerned about how “control over large systems of machines... in the hands of a tiny elite - just as it is today,” is especially problematic since “the masses will be superfluous” when these machines reach said threshold of automation. Conversely, Joy is concerned about “empowering just about everybody” with the ability to cause massive destruction. He says “I’m not worried about the commercial companies. Some people could worry that companies could do something bad. But I just don’t want to get to the point where crazy people can do it.”

But the potential threats of future technology go beyond the possibility of giving suicide bombers and the like stunningly more dangerous tools. Due to MNT’s enabling extensive automation of physical and cognitive tasks, it will not only bring more precise and effective ways to kill, but also the possibility to live quite well despite the unspeakable breadth and depth of society’s destruction by those in wielding advanced forms of this technology and use it like such. The idea of the ‘masses’ being ‘superfluous’ is another take on the consequences of post- scarcity. When the ‘masses’ no longer must depend on their labor to secure physical necessities, their labor is not only superfluous to themselves but any previously dependant “tiny elite.”

In our economy, the arrival of this degree of automation should put everyone out of a job and renewable means of income, except those owning the technological assets responsible for this. To hope that this would be beneficial for the average person (those long reliant on advancing industrial technology) is dependant on the charity of those owners who profited from bringing society to this point. Thus the existence of humane uses of future technology (for food, shelter and medical care) opens the door to the possibility of a comfort fit holocaust, unless, due to popular awareness and action for social change, its development and implementation occur in the context of an international democratic effort to guard against the possibility of rogue actors controlling surpassing technology independently and/or unfairly influencing the democratic effort’s technological infrastructure to their undemocratic agendas. (These advancing technologies should make possible the further elimination of most reasons for conflict besides those occurring because someone’s being malicious.)

Whether the average person’s relationship to the owners of industry is best typified by the works of Ayn Rand or “The Ringing of Revolution” by Phil Ochs makes little difference. Due to the purposeful intensification of the conditions in which Ochs and Rand were originally compelled to make their statements, we can assume the persistence of the group being commented on, one, we would claim, whose objectives will continue to come at the wrongful costs of others. Whatever the case, if the wealthy and powerful, rightfully or not, controlled a more advanced technology, they would be better positioned to ensure their security against any upheaval, social or with rival elites. What use is their current wealth and power if not to secure the technology which could make it obsolete? In whoever’s view of an elite’s legitimacy, their continued reliance on a system similar to today's carries with it the risk that too many peons could get funny ideas about how things should be instead (Ochs’ theme). It would be naive to think that the reality surrounding future technology hasn’t already reached those with the opportunity to one day exploit these possibilities.

•••• ••••

What are the technical intelligentsia's thoughts on all of this? The Foresight Institute, “formed to help prepare society of anticipated advanced technologies,” at the initiative of MNT pioneer K. Eric Drexler, is the most outspoken source for information targeted at answering questions specifically about MNT. They point towards openness (which “promotes good behavior”), contrasted to secrecy or prohibition (which “breeds misconduct”), as being the guiding light. This is largely self evident. It makes a great deal of sense because we can imagine that the ability of a society to overcome the problems facing its component individuals is dependant on their receiving the relevant information to appropriately inform their action. This is the recognition that “To live effectively is to live with adequate information,” and so limits on communication (secrecy) imposes on society’s ability to muddle through. But what is not surprisingly absent from Foresights’ prescription is comment on how today’s predominantly commercial nature of our media infrastructure adversely affects society’s ability to function democratically, let alone proactively create the environment necessary to ensure the beneficence of anticipated technologies.

Indeed, the conflict of interest here is not hard to perceive. When the goal of the media is to create a depoliticized populace willing instead to exhaust their resources in passively consuming that which is advertised, future technology represents their removal from the equation of what this media system accomplishes (eliminating opposition to the further concentration of power). If John Dewey’s assessment that “the media's job is to interest the public in the public interest” was instead actualized, future technology would represent the possible elimination of undesirable work, otherwise incurable ailments and the avoidance of natural phenomena which would end life on Earth, *after *society is reorganizing towards becoming a true democracy and decides to undertake these further challenges.

Today’s situation is far from that. The analysis we hear dealing with challenges to the status quo’s direction, Kaczynski’s manifesto for example, can’t even ask the most simple questions. It is obvious that the possibilities between death and domestication Kaczynksi describes, in the mentioned quotation, is contingent on “control over large systems of machines... in the hands of a tiny elite.” Yet neither Joy or Kurzweil wonders if the future he describes would be so dystopian if the control was any different, even though Kurzweil argues for advanced technologies bringing a desirable future. Nor do they question whether “a tiny elite” is in control today, as Kaczynksi claims. Do all three agree that if “large systems of machines” exist they can only be controlled by “a tiny elite”?

What more, this concept Kaczynski’s quote presents us with, and Joy apparently “felt compelled to confront,” has otherwise been eschewed from comment, despite there being a full length book on the subject. That book is “Souls, Slavery and Survival in the Molenotech Age” by Lin Sten, which is explicitly about how molecular nanotech (Molenotech is Sten’s conjugation) will open the door to the possibility that secret elite cabals could insure their security at the cost of everyone else, ultimately in the form of a massive holocaust. Part of Sten’s thesis on this subject is that the more well known this possibility is, the better chance we can avoid it. Unfortunately, for the sake of Sten’s optimism, his work has received no comment from MNT commentators. In light of this and the unacceptable dangers we face from the abuse of future technology, we should consider the existence of a force, intentionally or not, that will resort to any strategy to jam society’s communication concerning these issues. Thus we should “cooperate on policy in view of the assumption that the jamming agency is adopting the best policy to confuse” us.

••••• •••••

Primitivism holds that (at least) organization-dependant technology was a wrong turn in the course of human development. If this is true, then despite all efforts, technological society cannot be altered to sufficiently not interfere with people’s freedom in their pursuit of happiness. Whether or not they would think the tradeoffs involved in participating in the altered society would be worthwhile, it is something they should decide. Of course the amount of people siding against primitivism should not unduly interfere with those deciding to live primitively, but in contemporary society it does, though one could argue that technological society does not necessarily need to. They could further argue that the trajectory of a growing society wouldn’t require the utilization of primitive resources by technological society. (Remembering the forecasts of nanotechnologists we know civilization’s trajectory could be radically different.)

The issue of the validity of primitivism need not be decided before mutually beneficial, cooperative action can take place between informed groups on either side of this issue. It is difficult not to see the sense in Robert McChesney’s statement that “Regardless of what a progressive group’s first issue of importance is, its second issue should be media and communication, because so long as the media are in corporate hands, the task of social change will be vastly more difficult, if not impossible across the board.”

If we are to heed Kaczynski’s advice that “The line [of conflict] should NOT be drawn between the revolutionaries and the mass of the people,” then the construction of alternative democratic media institutions which clearly challenge the legitimacy of corporate media and communicate the revolutionaries’ intentions should precede any possible violent insurrection against technological society. Otherwise, without modification, society’s course will bring a day where there can be no possibility for change. But this point of no return will come long before the requisite technologies’ development, but when a undemocratic group gets their foot in this door.