Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Proactionary Nano-Policy Managing Massive Decisions for Tiny Technologies July 20 2005 1 st Workshop on Geoethical

Max More, Ph.D.Strategic Philosopher

Proactionary Nano-PolicyManaging Massive Decisions for Tiny Technologies

July 20 20051st Workshop on Geoethical Nanotechnology

Naughty: dangerous nanoparticles; targeted nanoweapons; cancerous self-replication? Nice: abundance; health; superlongevity; environmental restoration

NANO = Naughty And Nice, Obviously

Q. “What is the problem with constraining nanotechnology?” A. Finding the right balance

NANO: NAUGHTY OR NICE?

Proactionary Nano-Policy – Max More, Ph.D.

our risk avoidance cognition is suited to counter repeatable attacks and learn from specifics. the human brain did not evolve to reason about highly complex uncertainties & “black swans.”

a bestiary of biases:

Availability, recency, representativeness, overconfidence, framing effects (prospect theory), mental accounting, risk aversion, status quo bias, endowment effect, anchoring, sunk cost effect, escalation of commitment, herding instinct, misestimating future hedonic states, flawed consensus—confirmation bias, selective recall, biased evaluation, groupthink.

UNFIT BRAINS


regulators tend to overemphasize risks and dangers and to undercount direct and indirect benefits of new technologies

regulators fear Type I errors (commission) far more than Type II (omission) errors reinforced by a political bias toward emphasizing catastrophe

REGULATORS ARE NOT OPTIMIZERS


The Fall; Pandora’s Box; The Tower of Babel; Icarus; Prometheus Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring

Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb

Frankenstein

The Terminator

REGULATORS’ REQUIRED READING


brains are dangerous, potentially fatal, and could cause the destruction of the human race brains are insidiously clever devices that hide inside skulls where we can’t observe them

even worse, they can make copies of themselves and the instructions within them

we really do need to regulate brains—by structuring decision procedures for risks & benefits

WE MUST REGULATE BRAINS!


To counter both cognitive & organizational bias, we need to structure decisions. Benefits:

improves decision accuracy by specifying methods & inputs raises the quality of each step of the decision process by drawing systematically on the best available knowledge enhances convergent, analytical capabilities enhances divergent thinking and the generation of alternatives minimizes both excessively risky and excessively conservative judgments by systematically comparing elements of the decision and by critically integrating diverse perspectives reduces risk by finding & evaluating more threats contributes to organizational transparency

THE WISDOM OF STRUCTURE


The regulators’ favorite; embodied in the EU constitution & implicitly in many US regulations:

“When an activity raises threats of serious or irreversible harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures that prevent the possibility of harm shall be taken even if the causal link between the activity and the possible harm has not been proven or the causal link is weak and the harm is unlikely to occur.”

(As defined by Soren Holm and John Harris in Nature magazine, 1999)

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE


bolsters the position of existing technologies & institutions “Virtually all scientific and technological discoveries, because all create, initially at least, powerful losers who can activate the prevailing ideological and political system against the new.” Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (environmental policy specialist and editor of the journal Energy and Environment)

discourages learning through experimentation

ULTRACONSERVATIVE PRECAUTION


Joy on “GNR” (genetic, nano, robotics) technologies: “threatening to make humans an endangered species”

Joy calls for “limiting our pursuit of certain kinds of knowledge.”

he backs precautionary restriction of the freedom to innovate: “The only realistic alternative I see is relinquishment: to limit development of the technologies that are too dangerous, by limiting our pursuit of certain kinds of knowledge.”

“With their widespread commercial pursuit, enforcing relinquishment will require a verification regime similar to that for biological weapons, but on an unprecedented scale. This, inevitably, will raise tensions between our individual privacy and desire for proprietary information, & the need for verification to protect us all.”

BILL JOY: PRECAUTIONARY RELINQUISHMENT


is the decision procedure transparent?

simple?

structured?

comprehensive?

balanced?

does it encourage creative alternatives?

use the best available scientific knowledge?

protect the freedom to innovate & learn?

DECISION DIAGNOSIS


Auditing procedure:

■ objective procedures to select data?

■ long time series used?

■ test sensitivity of data selection?

■ balanced?

■ full disclosure provided?

fails the test of objectivity fails the test of comprehensiveness in deliberation causes harm, esp. to those most in need ultraconservative diverts attention & resources from more urgent matters discourages innovative & creative alternatives denies us the freedom to make trade-offs fails to ensure that reliable decision procedures are used asymmetrical: favors nature over humanity vague & unclear; can enable corruption & bias wrongly shifts burden of proof onto innovators

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE FAILS


Freedom to innovate technologically is highly valuable, even critical, to humanity. This implies a range of responsibilities for those considering whether and how to develop, deploy, or restrict new technologies. Assess risks and opportunities using an objective, open, and comprehensive, yet simple decision process based on science rather than collective emotional reactions. Account for the costs of restrictions and lost opportunities as fully as direct effects. Favor measures that are proportionate to the probability and magnitude of impacts, and that have the highest payoff relative to their costs. Give a high priority to people’s freedom to learn, innovate, and advance.

THE PROACTIONARY PRINCIPLE


Freedom to innovate Objectivity Comprehensiveness Openness & transparency Simplicity Triage Symmetrical treatment Proportionality Prioritization Renew and Refresh

TEN PRINCIPLES IN ONE


use science, not popular perception

use explicit forecasting processes

use quantitative methods

structure the inputs to the forecasting procedure

reduce biases by selecting disinterested experts

use the devil’s advocate procedure

provide full disclosure

audit the decision making process (review panels)

OBJECTIVE


Treat technological risks on the same basis as natural risks (e.g. gene-spliced crops & traditionally-bred crops)

Avoid underweighting natural risks and overweighting human-technological risks

Fully account for the benefits of technological advances

SYMMETRICAL TREATMENT


Consider all reasonable alternative actions, including no action

Estimate the opportunities lost by abandoning a technology

Take into account the costs and risks of substituting other credible options

In making these estimates, carefully consider not only concentrated & immediate effects, but also widely distributed & follow-on effects

COMPREHENSIVENESS


Consider restrictive measures only if the potential impact of an activity has both significant probability and severity

In such cases, if the activity also generates benefits, discount the impacts according to the feasibility of adapting to the adverse effects

If measures to limit technological advance do appear justified, ensure that the extent of those measures is proportionate to the extent of the probable effects

PROPORTIONALITY


REGULATORY RISK


biggest risk is military nano and terrorist uses—but regulation will not help with these

nor are they open to international oversight

dangers of global regulation: most restrictive regulations could be imposed on all

ALTERNATIVE REGULATION


industry standards

self-regulation

transparency—includes scorecards, and report cards, similar to the Global Reporting Initiative

“socially responsible investing” funds pressure

these alternatives can incorporate the Proactionary Principle (ProP)

REGULATE REGULATORS


Regulatory agencies, if involved,

should use the Proactionary Principle,

not the precautionary principle

CONTACT/MORE INFORMATION


“The Proactionary Principle”, May 2004. <http://www.extropy.org/proactionaryprinciple.htm>

“Deflecting the Precautionary Principle”, www.manyworlds.com http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreCO.asp?coid=CO4190417435817

“Debugging Executive Decision Making”. www.manyworlds.com http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreCO.asp?coid=CO120416181428

[email protected] <www.maxmore.com>

Extropy Institute: www.extropy.org

Documents

Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Proactionary Nano-Policy Managing Massive Decisions for Tiny Technologies July 20 2005 1 st Workshop on Geoethical