nanotechnology is unique because it is all-inclusive. The trouble with this definition is that it allows one to call anything nanotechnology, e.g. chemistry. If so, then we have nanotechnology now, and it doesn’t do all the things we claim. A reasonable definition of nanotechnology must include the notion of a broad and general ability to design, build, and control molecular mechanisms across a very wide range of possibilities.

A third and final memetic attachment that makes a Faith out of a vision is some hook that relates directly to belief and propagation: ‘Not only should you believe this simply because it is true, but you’ll go to Hell if you don’t. Furthermore, it’s a sin not to try to convince others of this belief.’

In ideological faiths, this meme expresses itself in the social castigation of the Politically Incorrect.

It is convenient to give names to these three memes (remember that a meme corresponds to a gene, i.e. it is the smallest unit of idea replication that is identifiably separable from the overall meme complex). We’ll call them Panacea, Incomparability, and Apostasy, respectively.

Nanotechnology seems mercifully free of Apostasy at the moment: No one seems to be claiming it’s any kind of sin to disbelieve the Word of Saint Eric. There is some tendency, unfortunately, for nanotechnology as a set of popular ideas, to accrete a bit of Panacea and/or Incomparability. It is our responsibility to continue

to scrub nanotechnology to keep it free of them.

Nevertheless, I do believe that it is reasonable to put a fair amount of faith, in the simple uncapitalized sense of the word, in the ability of advancing technology in general to solve a broad range of well-defined physical problems, among them the cure and/or prevention of certain diseases, or indeed the aging process itself. Such a belief is reasonable not only, or even primarily, because we can posit particular mechanisms for the solutions, but because we have a long history of scientific and technological success for just such problems. ☐

THE MAKING OF A SMALL WORLD

Fiction by Mike Perry

[This story originally appeared in Venturist Monthly News, April 1989, and is reprinted with permission.]

‘You requested audience, apprentice Gorn?’

‘Yes O Great Wizard Snorrl, Lord of Galaxies, ruler of Many Worlds, King of Evolved Immortals…’

‘Enough! What can I do for you, young fellow?’

‘I’m having trouble playing God.’

‘Not an uncommon thing, your first billion years (to invoke our ancient and honored time unit)… What is your problem?’

‘They don’t respect me.’

‘Your charges? Tell me about it.’

‘Well, first I made this world, got it peopled it with intelligent life, in a nice setting I had made with forests and meadows, creatures that crawled and flew and leaped and galloped, all the usual things…’

‘You got a genome permit?’

‘Oh yes, all straight evolved lifeforms, nothing tampered with already…?’

‘Very good. Go on.’

‘So then I went among the inhabitants, did good things, healed the sick, fed the hungry, spoke kind words, and… well, they…’

‘Put you to a painful death?’

‘Very. Only the backup information saved me, and they would have eaten that if they could, the miserable vermin. Why if you could have seen —’

‘Tell me about it later. How’re they doing now?’

‘Oh, fine, just fine, ought to be applying for membership soon, which means I’ll be in a jam for overpopulating…’

‘I wouldn’t worry too much, this time. How about your next world?’

‘Yes, I did make another one, and that time, I naturally tried to avoid the public spotlight, went around in secret, showing myself to a few only…’

‘And…?’

‘Well, mostly they didn’t believe I existed. And they’ll be applying for membership soon, too, and…’

‘Argh! So twice in a row you’ve lost control after only a few thousand years.’

‘Uh, about 900 years in the last case.’

‘Oh, my. Well, as you know, you only have one more try at this thing. Maybe you ought to get out while the getting’s good, to avoid discredit. Take up cosmological eschatology or something respecta—’

‘No! I want to build a world of primitives and keep them that way as long as possible. I want to lord it over them, century after century, millennium after

millennium. I want them to sing my praises. I want it to be a long time before they become dissatisfied enough to develop and apply for membership and start playing the games we play…’

‘Still haven’t grown up, eh? Well, the rules entitle you to one more shot.’

‘So what you suggest is…?’

‘If you really must know…?’

‘Of course, why did I request audience?’

‘Yes, I suppose you have to have your way. Well, this’ll sound crazy, but about the best strategy is to give ‘em a good, severe beating every day of their lives.’

‘What?’

‘They’ll fear you, they’ll respect you, and they’ll love you.’

[Long pause.] ‘Yes, I admit there’s a certain logic to that, but I’d have to be many places at once… use robots, of course! Big, metallic buzzing things with wings for hot pursuit and clawed feet for grasping and whiplash antennas for striking hard. And I know just the creatures to clone and try it on… picked up some genomes on a nice blue planet that was third out from it’s primary, I can even recreate some of their original language and culture—their year is almost the same as ours, by the way —’

EXTROPY #9 Summer 1992

18

“I see your mindwheels are whirring, so I’ll leave you be.”

“Yes, I must start building this world at once…”

1,000,000 years later, the Daily Globe, a leading newspaper on the world created by Gorn, reports:

Weird scheme to defeat Just Punishment; scientists scoff; ethicists howl; legislators vow to stop it.

A group claiming that Just Punishment is “unjust” say they believe it can be “defeated” through science. Simon Burr, spokesman for the self-styled “Committee for the Overthrow of Physical Abuse” (COPA) claims “the robots that administer our daily beatings could be destroyed through technological means,” and cites an example where a robot was held at bay for more than an hour while its intended “victim” escaped. Scientists, however, take a dim view of Burr’s proposal. Jeffrey Snag, senior researcher at Applied Mechanical and Aesthetics, a firm specializing in technology for improving the quality of life and justice, says, “The idea of interfering with such superlative machinery is just patently absurd. There’s no prospect for defeating the robots in the

foreseeable future — they are simply too swift and powerful. Besides, why try for an empty ‘freedom from abuse’ anyway? What good would it do? Recently we’ve developed some tight fitting clothing to better distribute the force of the blows, and that’s what I consider progress.”

Other voices are being raised in defense of Just Punishment and similar practices among humans. Ezeldadeath Bugler-Boss, spokeswoman for the Committee for Ethical Bruising, declares that “Beatings are beautiful, pure and simple. I just bubble with warm feeling over the worth of welts.” She is “looking forward to an expanded role for impact therapy in human life,” and argues that “a little hand-to-hand combat from time to time could usefully augment the blessings of Just Punishment.” Asked about COPA she indignantly concludes, “Our whole society is predicated on the assumption of daily beatings, which we humbly accept as a foundation of our being and a springboard for spiritual growth. When you consider all the benefits — the stability, the security, the certainty — of knowing this meaningful experience will always be with us, I don’t see how anyone can raise an objection.”

However John Crue, a construction worker, admits he is “not entirely happy with the punishment we get for the crime of being alive” and comments further that

“being whipped like a horse by giant flying things may have its advantages, but I like it better when they stop. I don’t know how I’d adjust to no beatings, but I do consider it from time to time.”

But some authorities are so distressed by what they perceive as an affront to the natural order of things that they are taking legal action. Recently the Department of Proper Behavior filed felony charges against COPA for obstructing due process and attempted sabotage. COPA attorney Anthony Sharp denies that his organization has broken the law, arguing that “laws protect human lives and property but there is no law specifically forbidding the sort of practice that COPA is engaged in. The robots are not human property nor an endangered species. To interfere with or even destroy them is no violation of law but simply an exercise of constitutional rights.” But DPB officials are sure COPA can be challenged on legal grounds. As Chief Administrator Wilbur McTwitch put it: “The framers of the Constitution wanted to promote individual rights, but the rights of the individual must ever be subordinate to the machinery of great Gorn. I think there is legal precedent to act against those who would attempt a change on so fundamental a level, and if not it could be established. I am looking forward to this case.”

Extropy reality check: Risks in perspective.

Cigarette smoking (one pack/day)	1600 days
Being poor vs well-to-do	1400
Working as a miner	1000
Being overweight by 30 lb	900
Motor vehicle accidents	200
Small cars vs large cars	100
Being murdered	90
Falls	40
Drowning	40
Speed limit raised from 55 mph to 65 mph	40
Poison + suffocation + asphyxiation	37
Fire, burns	27
Firearms	11
Nuclear power (UCS)	1.5
Nuclear power (NRC)	0.03

Table from B.L. Cohen and I.S. Lee. “A catalog of risks,” Health Phys., 36, 707 (1979). Reprinted in Bernard L. Cohen, “The Risks of Nuclear Power” in The Resourceful Earth, p.561.

19

EXTROPY #9 Summer 1992