Alternative Models for Managing Self-Replicating Nanotechnology

Why not tell all the people who are afraid of nanotechnology that we don't want self-replicating nanotechnology? In the meantime, we become a safe harbor to develop non-self-replicating nanotechnology so we can build a big technology base and gain a certain level of benefit from MNT, and use that safe harbor to ban self-replicating MNT. This is not explicitly stated in the Foresight Institute guidelines, but one could read this plan into them.

An Alternative, Geoethical Approach
I see an alternative approach, which I call the "geoethical approach," and it's based upon a threshold analysis. The geoethical approach is appropriate for what I call "Your life or mine" type of questions. Saving my life may endanger your life. It applies to global impact technology and MNT seems to be a good candidate.

The first principle is that it helps most those who are worse off, based on the logic that it is they who will suffer the most from the unintended risks or consequences of the technology. The second principle is that the risks are consented to by all who may be affected, either directly or through representatives. The third principle is that the system has a way to self-finance or audit its compliance so that agreements are made on paper, only to be violated shortly afterwards.

These principles can be distilled from principles that have been laid out by several modern philosophers such as John Rawls, who authored the Theory of Justice, a best-selling book on principles of fair public policy; and Jurgen Habermas, the philosopher who authored books on democratic discourse. Habermas is most famous for his concept that policies must be consensually agreed upon among those affected in order to be effective.

Here is an example: Should we permit open-system disaster-mitigation self-replicators? We must ask, would it help those most at risk? Yes, the whole purpose of developing a self-replicating system for disaster mitigation is to help those who are most at risk and/or who are suffering from the disaster. Does it have the consent of all who may be affected? You would need a representative organization, and I will get to that in just a moment. But the answer is, you would need to have the representatives of these horribly affected people consent to it. And finally, who would ensure compliance? You would need a compliance-monitoring organization.

IntelRep
I propose a geoethical implementation, and the first step is to form via treaty an organization that would be named IntelRep, International Self-Replicating Technology Organization. Via treaty, we would give it exclusive worldwide rights to self-replicator production rights. After all, the mainstream view is just to ban the technology, so it would be better to give to an organization to develop it rather than to just totally ban it.

Every country and corporation can be a member, and this organization would finance itself by selling to its members the products and the benefits of self-replicating technology for resale. In turn, as part of the treaty, if a country wants to be part of IntelRep, it must agree that IntelRep can monitor companies within its borders and jurisdiction that are doing molecular nanotechnology, which is very much in line with what the Foresight Institute recommends.