Biotechnology and nanotechnology are exciting new technologies which offer great commercial rewards. Unfortunately, a commercial or academic laboratory accident, or even a bioweapon accident, could spread and wipe out the human race, and potentially a lot more life in our biosphere.
It doesn't take a major facility to do this. It takes only one "lab cowboy" somewhere. The rising power of one individual with technology is reaching mammoth proportions.
Biotechnology is advancing so that we can map the molecular structure of viruses and modify them, e.g., to make vaccines. However, this same technology will give us the ability to change these viruses, in manmade, intelligent, technological ways. This gives us the technical power to make a virus which would kill every human on Earth, e.g., a variation of the AIDS or Ebola virus which spreads as easily as the common cold, reproduces much faster, and is more effective in killing its host. This could be either a laboratory accident or by "improved" virus design by some religious fanatic, reckless military research lab, or egomaniac individual.
Laboratories are already modifying viruses such as the bird flu virus (H5N1) and the SARS virus in the laboratory in order to find out ways the virus could possibly mutate to become a more virulent virus, and to test vaccines. They have tried to make the virus more virulent, and mixed it with human forms of the virus, in sealed high security "enhanced Biosafety Level 3 laboratories", e.g., Cornell, the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and secret commercial facilities elsewhere.
Notably, these viruses replicate slowly and have a high failure rate in human cells in lab dishes, so labs have been known to tried to modify the virus to make it replicate faster. By making the virus more contagious in the lab, they would have more infected cells at a faster rate in their race for a vaccine. Spokespeople have assured the press that the lab conformed to U.S. safety standards, of course. However, these labs exist all over the world.
Their motives? Be the first to discover something (ego), or to develop and sell a vaccine (money), or just curiosity.
The same can apply to HIV or Ebola.
There are many species that have come into existence on this planet and which are suspected of having become extinct due to a natural virus outbreak within the species. A manmade virus could be far worse than a naturally occuring one.
Already, we have Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and other laboratory modified life for commercial reasons,
Nanotechnology is the ability to manipulate matter at the molecular level. Biotechnology is a kind of nanotechnology -- nanotechnology applied to biological systems.
What other kinds of nanotechnology are there? A lot of money is being spent on making computer microchips smaller, down to the molecular level. An IBM research lab wrote its logo atom by atom in the year 2000. Microscopic packages and mechanical mechanisms are being experimented with in the laboratory.
The great danger of non-bio nanotechnology is "self-replicating machines", i.e., machines that reproduce themselves using the material in their environment -- just like viruses do. There is increasing funding of research in this area, mainly for manufacturing applications. In this concept, a molecular sized "machine" converts material in its environment into a product without being consumed themself, like a regular factory, but these machines are microscopic. For example, imagine throwing a small scoop of dust (each particle of dust being a molecular sized machine) into a barrel of crude oil and after a few hours getting polyethylene and refuse.
Now, imagine a microscopic, self-replicating machine made of a kind of plastic, that can take many kinds of organic material to make itself -- crops around the world, trees, and/or animals including people. We would see our biosphere, ourselves, and those we love die. This is called "the grey goo scenario".
When will we achieve this level of technology? Perhaps in 20 years. Good chance in a lot less than 20 years.
How can we assure the survival of mankind and our children?
Only by space colonization -- getting out of the Earth's biosphere.
It is our goal to create a space habitat "ark" which will be populated with people from multiple cultures around the world, as well as a diversity of animal and plant species.
This ark will be designed using engineers, agronomists and people in other fields around the world who will collaborate mainly via internet. This field -- using internet to utilize the best talent around the world -- is a field that PERMANENT founder Mark Prado has been involved in for more than 10 years, including moving to the other side of the planet, exactly 12 time zones away, and setting up internet for engineering companies staffed with local people of another culture to design buildings and facilities in other countries (the U.S., Canada, Australia. An international governmental bureaucracy is not the solution. A multinational enterprise is.
What can you do?
Join up with PERMANENT and work together. We need all kinds of people.
Links to selected outside information on this topic:
The nanotechnology self-replicating molecular machine scenario where one destroys the biosphere is usually called "the grey goo scenario".
The most recognized contemporary "Father of Nanotechnology", MIT physicist Dr. K. Eric Drexler, who wrote the landmark nanotechnology book "Engines of Creation" in the early 1980s, recognized this "grey goo" threat and continues to speak of it in a deeply concerned way, even though Dr. Drexler is one of the leading advocates of nanotechnology development. While nanotechnology has great potential to advance progress, it also has this mortal danger to life on Earth.
While the grey goo scenario has been discussed for many years now, it made headlines in March and April, 2000. It all started when Sun Microsystems chief scientist and longtime computer and internet pioneer Bill Joy raised the issue in the mass airwaves in March via National Public Radio's program "All Things Considered". Joy subsequently came out with a long article in the April issue of Wired magazine titled "Why the future doesn't need us" . While it didn't address the nanotechnology threat as clearly as Drexler had in the past, and while Bill Joy also raised other future robotics issues rather than focus solely on the grey goo scenario, Joy did succeed in spawning a lot of reactions and articles in leading periodicals (in addition to countless smaller publications), including The New York Times (requires registration), and the internet magazine Salon which hits hard at the dangers of dogmatic technology worshipping.
The main issue is whether to suspend the development of this technology, as Bill Joy called for. Arguments against such freedoms or research aside, the strongest points were that even if the authorities agreed to attempt such suppression, it was unrealistic to expect such efforts to succeed, much like efforts to halt the arms trade and drug suppression around the world. What is strongly driving the development of nanotechnology capabilities is the wide range of potential business products from positive applications of nanotechnology, including pharmaceuticals and biomedical products and processes. Resisting those pressures seems unrealistic.
The technology will always advance. When there is a capability, someone will use it. Even if it's outlawed worldwide (which is not realistic), someone will develop a weapon or try to develop a vaccine to make money, or something, maybe with the faith of God. It could be in Iran, Russia, America, or anywhere.
There is almost always disagreement on any issue of this nature. There are also arguments around the technical feasibility of a self-replicating molecular machine capable of turning the biosphere into "grey goo" or killing off the human species and other life. These arguments are usually made by those who worship technological advancements and who, in my opinion, are clearly engaged in "true believer" wishful thinking in order to defend unrestricted technological research.
In any case, the best general link on this technology is the Foresight Institute's website (closely related to Dr. Drexler) at www.foresight.org . You will find a discussion and a lot of links on The Grey Goo Scenario starting a little more than halfway down their Links page at www.foresight.org/hotnews/ That link was created long before the September 11 events, and a 2002 commentary by Dr. K. Eric Drexler, Chairman of the Foresight Institute asking for help in precautions against a nanotechnology version of September 11, is given at www.foresight.org/Sept11/index.html.
An example of a possible coverup of a biotechnology accident is here: www.sunshine-project.org/ibc/bb21.html . "Originally published on 11 January 2007, Biosafety Bites #21 describes an incident involving a genetically engineered cross of H5N1 ("bird flu") and H3N2 influenza that occurred in a BSL-3 lab at the University of Texas at Austin (UT) on 12 April 2006. It is based upon UT records, specifically, UT's incident report of 13 April 2006, biosafety committee minutes, e-mails, and letters acquired under the Texas Public Information Act. ... After publication of Biosafety Bites #21, UT was contacted by several journalists. UT provided information to the journalists that contradicts what is stated in UT's records. UT's contradictions prompted further uncertainty about the facts of the incident and how UT managed it. ... [and later] responded to the Biosafety Bites by refuting information contained in its own records." See also www.sunshine-project.org
It's awfully naive to think that governments or any regulatory body can prevent biotechnology development by controlling laboratories motivated by the prospect of making money (the first vaccine), ego (just being the first), or the desire for a weapon.
