Comments on: The nanobot will always get through http://airminded.org/2007/12/04/the-nanobot-will-always-get-through/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-nanobot-will-always-get-through Airpower and British society, 1908-1941 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:36:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Mike Treder http://airminded.org/2007/12/04/the-nanobot-will-always-get-through/comment-page-1/#comment-65993 Mike Treder Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:07:45 +0000 http://airminded.org/2007/12/04/the-nanobot-will-always-get-through/#comment-65993 You're right , John; I said there were eight nuclear-armed nations, and I should have said nine. But my point, as you allow, still holds. You're right , John; I said there were eight nuclear-armed nations, and I should have said nine. But my point, as you allow, still holds.

]]> By: John B http://airminded.org/2007/12/04/the-nanobot-will-always-get-through/comment-page-1/#comment-65992 John B Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:15:11 +0000 http://airminded.org/2007/12/04/the-nanobot-will-always-get-through/#comment-65992 Mike - You've got a good point that exceptions to the Geneva Conventions are noted as just that, exceptions to be noticed and commented on. Given the http://fas.org/irp/threat/wmd_state.htm site, I'd point out that others disagree with the degree of spread, but you're in the same general ballpark at least. I sit corrected. Brett - Given the timescale of the CFC problem, I don't know quite how best to characterize it. Add in that I've not spent research time on that problem in about a decade and I fear I'm going on mental fumes here *wry grin*. As such, I'll take your timing statement at face value. I'd agree that efforts to remediate the various problems are critical, but would not say that the record of success should be discounted - there are IMO very important lessons to be learned from those efforts which failed, with a goal of making future efforts more effective. Unfortunately there's no major agreement (as far as I know) as to the lessons to be learned - should we be finding alternatives with their own, unacknowledged problems? Should we be doing without? Should we be improving efficiency? Etc. Lots of options, no clear 'winning solution'. Note that this isn't necessarily a bad thing, as there are 'shades of grey' to most problems that need addressing pretty much on a case-by-case basis. The gotcha is where you draw the lines. Do you include power plants in automotive pollution, and why or why not? -John Mike -

You've got a good point that exceptions to the Geneva Conventions are noted as just that, exceptions to be noticed and commented on.

Given the http://fas.org/irp/threat/wmd_state.htm site, I'd point out that others disagree with the degree of spread, but you're in the same general ballpark at least.

I sit corrected.

Brett -

Given the timescale of the CFC problem, I don't know quite how best to characterize it. Add in that I've not spent research time on that problem in about a decade and I fear I'm going on mental fumes here *wry grin*. As such, I'll take your timing statement at face value.

I'd agree that efforts to remediate the various problems are critical, but would not say that the record of success should be discounted - there are IMO very important lessons to be learned from those efforts which failed, with a goal of making future efforts more effective. Unfortunately there's no major agreement (as far as I know) as to the lessons to be learned - should we be finding alternatives with their own, unacknowledged problems? Should we be doing without? Should we be improving efficiency? Etc. Lots of options, no clear 'winning solution'.

Note that this isn't necessarily a bad thing, as there are 'shades of grey' to most problems that need addressing pretty much on a case-by-case basis. The gotcha is where you draw the lines. Do you include power plants in automotive pollution, and why or why not?

-John

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2007/12/04/the-nanobot-will-always-get-through/comment-page-1/#comment-65977 Brett Holman Fri, 07 Dec 2007 08:08:42 +0000 http://airminded.org/2007/12/04/the-nanobot-will-always-get-through/#comment-65977 John: Yes, the CFC ban came after there was evidence of ozone depletion -- but, crucially, before it had reached the point where there were substantial increases in skin cancers, cataracts, etc. (At least, that's my understanding.) So at least we didn't have to wait until the disaster was actually taking place before collective action could happen, a strong scientific consensus was enough (and also the fact that the costs to industry were manageable and the fixes were obvious). As you say, it's in the gray area. But in general, I think 'problem, uproar, attempted remediation' is on the money -- not least because it fits in with my own historical research :) That focuses on the way that public understanding (in Britain) of the threat of strategic bombing was driven by periodic media panics, which themselves kicked off from various triggers -- evidence of German rearmament, say, or the Japanese bombing of cities in China. That feeds into public support for various policy responses like appeasement, civil defence and so on. But I note that these dynamics did occur before the real thing happened (the Blitz) so, again, that's some comfort! Mike: Yes, those are some good examples -- even if they're not wholly (or even at all) effective, as John rightly points out; but I think the fact that the <em>efforts</em> were made at all is very significant. (Their failure could be put down to poorly designed protocols, or more realistically and less hopefully, sabotage by major powers lest their own interests be compromised.) The UN and the League of Nations themselves could be added to the list, and maybe the Kellogg-Briand Pact outlawing war (which was doomed to failure, but was a nice idea ...). The international air force concept is another (as I alluded to in my post), which is one of my interests -- but though it had some significant support in the early 1930s (eg by France), it never got up. Neither did the Baruch plan for the internationalisation of nuclear energy and weapons. Of course there are hugely important political factors in all of this, and international solutions may not be the only ones on offer. (Eg in the 1930s, the other solution to the problem of the bomber than an international air force, was just to build more of them for yourself!) So yes, I think there's enough historical evidence that "something" could be done, but of course that leaves open the questions of who, what, how, and perhaps most importantly when: will it take a catastrophe first? John:

Yes, the CFC ban came after there was evidence of ozone depletion -- but, crucially, before it had reached the point where there were substantial increases in skin cancers, cataracts, etc. (At least, that's my understanding.) So at least we didn't have to wait until the disaster was actually taking place before collective action could happen, a strong scientific consensus was enough (and also the fact that the costs to industry were manageable and the fixes were obvious). As you say, it's in the gray area.

But in general, I think 'problem, uproar, attempted remediation' is on the money -- not least because it fits in with my own historical research :) That focuses on the way that public understanding (in Britain) of the threat of strategic bombing was driven by periodic media panics, which themselves kicked off from various triggers -- evidence of German rearmament, say, or the Japanese bombing of cities in China. That feeds into public support for various policy responses like appeasement, civil defence and so on. But I note that these dynamics did occur before the real thing happened (the Blitz) so, again, that's some comfort!

Mike:

Yes, those are some good examples -- even if they're not wholly (or even at all) effective, as John rightly points out; but I think the fact that the efforts were made at all is very significant. (Their failure could be put down to poorly designed protocols, or more realistically and less hopefully, sabotage by major powers lest their own interests be compromised.) The UN and the League of Nations themselves could be added to the list, and maybe the Kellogg-Briand Pact outlawing war (which was doomed to failure, but was a nice idea ...). The international air force concept is another (as I alluded to in my post), which is one of my interests -- but though it had some significant support in the early 1930s (eg by France), it never got up. Neither did the Baruch plan for the internationalisation of nuclear energy and weapons. Of course there are hugely important political factors in all of this, and international solutions may not be the only ones on offer. (Eg in the 1930s, the other solution to the problem of the bomber than an international air force, was just to build more of them for yourself!)

So yes, I think there's enough historical evidence that "something" could be done, but of course that leaves open the questions of who, what, how, and perhaps most importantly when: will it take a catastrophe first?

]]> By: Mike Treder http://airminded.org/2007/12/04/the-nanobot-will-always-get-through/comment-page-1/#comment-65976 Mike Treder Fri, 07 Dec 2007 07:51:54 +0000 http://airminded.org/2007/12/04/the-nanobot-will-always-get-through/#comment-65976 JB - The fact that you can name exceptions to observance of the Geneva Conventions basically proves the point; they are <i>exceptions</i>, not the general rule, which almost everyone else follows. On the IAEA, consider that it's been over six decades since the bomb was developed, and instead of having dozens of nuclear-capable nations, there are instead only eight. That's a pretty remarkable record of maintaining non-proliferation through multilateral diplomacy. JB - The fact that you can name exceptions to observance of the Geneva Conventions basically proves the point; they are exceptions, not the general rule, which almost everyone else follows. On the IAEA, consider that it's been over six decades since the bomb was developed, and instead of having dozens of nuclear-capable nations, there are instead only eight. That's a pretty remarkable record of maintaining non-proliferation through multilateral diplomacy.

]]> By: John B http://airminded.org/2007/12/04/the-nanobot-will-always-get-through/comment-page-1/#comment-65946 John B Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:16:17 +0000 http://airminded.org/2007/12/04/the-nanobot-will-always-get-through/#comment-65946 Mike - Looking at http://www.genevaconventions.org/ and specifically browsing through the alphabetical list of prohibitions/protocols/agreed-to stipulations makes me scratch my head. Which of these rules has NOT been broken? As such, is this really a good example? If the IAEA is a good example, why are there so many more nuclear capable nation-states? I would also argue that, similar to the CFC example above, there's more of a grey area involved between proactive and reactive for the general environmental movement. -John Mike -

Looking at http://www.genevaconventions.org/ and specifically browsing through the alphabetical list of prohibitions/protocols/agreed-to stipulations makes me scratch my head. Which of these rules has NOT been broken? As such, is this really a good example?

If the IAEA is a good example, why are there so many more nuclear capable nation-states?

I would also argue that, similar to the CFC example above, there's more of a grey area involved between proactive and reactive for the general environmental movement.

-John

]]> By: Mike Treder http://airminded.org/2007/12/04/the-nanobot-will-always-get-through/comment-page-1/#comment-65944 Mike Treder Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:20:12 +0000 http://airminded.org/2007/12/04/the-nanobot-will-always-get-through/#comment-65944 Brett, I agree with you that there are some good examples of collective global action to head off calamities. Besides the recent ones you mentioned, I usually cite the Geneva Conventions (especially the Protocol against the use of chemical weapons), the IAEA, and the general environmental movement started in the 1960's and 70's. These can give us reason for optimism. On the other hand, as you suggest, creating an overarching structure of global governance that supersedes state sovereignty does lead to worries about absolute power corrupting absolutely. See the essay linked below for thoughts on the problem from a nanotech perspective. http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0651.html Brett, I agree with you that there are some good examples of collective global action to head off calamities. Besides the recent ones you mentioned, I usually cite the Geneva Conventions (especially the Protocol against the use of chemical weapons), the IAEA, and the general environmental movement started in the 1960's and 70's. These can give us reason for optimism.

On the other hand, as you suggest, creating an overarching structure of global governance that supersedes state sovereignty does lead to worries about absolute power corrupting absolutely. See the essay linked below for thoughts on the problem from a nanotech perspective.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0651.html

]]> By: John B http://airminded.org/2007/12/04/the-nanobot-will-always-get-through/comment-page-1/#comment-65938 John B Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:44:21 +0000 http://airminded.org/2007/12/04/the-nanobot-will-always-get-through/#comment-65938 Fair correction - we have performed proactive decisions before with varying degrees of success (the disarmament of Germany after WW I, for instance), but I'd offer the counterpoint that the CFC example is *after* there was significant evidence that CFCs were causing the ozone hole. IE - problem, uproar, attempted remediation. Which fits into a grey area between proactive and reactive responses, I guess you could say. *wry grin* And thanks for the site. Interesting stuff... -John Fair correction - we have performed proactive decisions before with varying degrees of success (the disarmament of Germany after WW I, for instance), but I'd offer the counterpoint that the CFC example is *after* there was significant evidence that CFCs were causing the ozone hole. IE - problem, uproar, attempted remediation. Which fits into a grey area between proactive and reactive responses, I guess you could say.

*wry grin* And thanks for the site. Interesting stuff...

-John

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2007/12/04/the-nanobot-will-always-get-through/comment-page-1/#comment-65895 Brett Holman Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:53:35 +0000 http://airminded.org/2007/12/04/the-nanobot-will-always-get-through/#comment-65895 Thanks for dropping by! I don't think you can argue that we've <em>never</em> taken collective action to prevent a problem. There are some examples -- banning CFC emissions to prevent the ozone hole from widening, and the effort to fix or at least prepare for Y2K (whether or not one concludes that this was a non-problem, a lot of time and money was poured into fixing it) both come to mind. Kyoto is another. On the whole, however, our record is not good ... Thanks for dropping by! I don't think you can argue that we've never taken collective action to prevent a problem. There are some examples -- banning CFC emissions to prevent the ozone hole from widening, and the effort to fix or at least prepare for Y2K (whether or not one concludes that this was a non-problem, a lot of time and money was poured into fixing it) both come to mind. Kyoto is another. On the whole, however, our record is not good ...

]]> By: John B http://airminded.org/2007/12/04/the-nanobot-will-always-get-through/comment-page-1/#comment-65867 John B Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:48:49 +0000 http://airminded.org/2007/12/04/the-nanobot-will-always-get-through/#comment-65867 Thanks to Mike Treder for pointing me this way from crnano... I think you're too optimistic, if anything. *wry grin* Your premise that things happen or attempt to happen prior to problems is broken when you look at the real world. From Love Canal to the rounding error in the Pentium to many other historical problems, there was no such thing as prior decision - rather there's only spin control, remediation, and recovery. The main problem I have with most utopian ideals is a very basic one. It assumes that everyone is rational. We humans - well, we ain't. *wry grin* -John Thanks to Mike Treder for pointing me this way from crnano...

I think you're too optimistic, if anything. *wry grin* Your premise that things happen or attempt to happen prior to problems is broken when you look at the real world. From Love Canal to the rounding error in the Pentium to many other historical problems, there was no such thing as prior decision - rather there's only spin control, remediation, and recovery.

The main problem I have with most utopian ideals is a very basic one. It assumes that everyone is rational. We humans - well, we ain't. *wry grin*

-John

]]> By: Brett Holman http://airminded.org/2007/12/04/the-nanobot-will-always-get-through/comment-page-1/#comment-65734 Brett Holman Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:58:01 +0000 http://airminded.org/2007/12/04/the-nanobot-will-always-get-through/#comment-65734 Yes, I must admit to being a fan of the one world state idea when I was much younger. But the problem is, what happens if everything goes horribly wrong? There'd be nowhere else to go to, nobody else to turn to. Better to take our chances ... except that one day that might not be enough. There may be a middle way, governments pooling some of their sovereignty against specific threats (e.g. Kyoto). I guess we'll see! Yes, I must admit to being a fan of the one world state idea when I was much younger. But the problem is, what happens if everything goes horribly wrong? There'd be nowhere else to go to, nobody else to turn to. Better to take our chances ... except that one day that might not be enough. There may be a middle way, governments pooling some of their sovereignty against specific threats (e.g. Kyoto). I guess we'll see!

]]>