Writing in the April issue of Wired Magazine, Lawrence Lessig describes the convergence of WMD and P2P technologies to allow for IDDs, or insanely destructive devices. Imagine a new version of smallpox, re-engineered to achieve a 100% kill rate, unleashed from some sociopath's garage or basement lab — that's an IDD.
Lessig organized a course to explore issues surrounding IDDs, but he wasn't pleased with the inital answers his students came up with:
The first reaction of some in the class was positively Soviet. Science must be controlled. Publications must be reviewed before being printed. Communications generally may have to be surveilled - how else can we track down the enemy? And, of course, we must build a Star Wars-like shield to protect us, and issue to every American one of those space suits that CDC workers wear. ("Dear American: You may not have health insurance, but in case of a biological attack, please use the enclosed space suit.")
Lessig is quick to point out the futility of these kinds of approaches, although a different, more out-of-the-box means of fighting IDDs quickly emerges
GNR science doesn't require huge labs. You might not be able to conceal the work in Manhattan, but you could easily hide it in the vast wilds of, say, Montana. Moreover, a great deal of important work would be lost if the government filtered everything - as would the essence of a free society. However comforting the Star Wars-like Virus Defense Initiative might be, engineered diseases would spread long before anyone could don a space suit.
Then one student suggested a very different approach. If we can't defend against an attack, perhaps the rational response is to reduce the incentives to attack. Rather than designing space suits, maybe we should focus on ways to eliminate the reasons to annihilate us. Rather than stirring up a hornet's nest and then hiding behind a bush, maybe the solution is to avoid the causes of rage. Crazies, of course, can't be reasoned with. But we can reduce the incentives to become a crazy. We could reduce the reasonableness - from a certain perspective - for finding ways to destroy us.
I suppose that in the case of Al Qaeda, we could eliminate the reasons they want to annihilate us by converting to Wahabbist Islam en masse. We could close down all the bars. Take away women's drivers licenses and their right to vote. Convert all the public schools to Madrasses. That would surely make them less enraged with us, would it not?
Oh, wait, I see — Al Qaeda would probably be counted among the "crazies who can't be reasoned with." That's a relief. We wouldn't have to take any of those extreme measures on their account.
So what exactly do we do to reduce the "incentives to become crazy?" Unfortunately, that part isn't specifically spelled out. Lessig concludes with these thoughts:
If you can't control the supply of IDDs, then the right response is to reduce the demand for IDDs. Yet as everyone in the class understood, in the four years since Joy wrote his Wired piece, we've done precisely the opposite. Our present course of unilateral cowboyism will continue to produce generations of angry souls seeking revenge on us.
We've not yet fully understood Joy. In the future there most certainly will be IDDs. Abolishing freedom, issuing space suits, and launching wars only increases the danger that they will be used. We had better learn that soon.
Ah, so that's it. End the "unilateral cowboyism" and reduce the number of angry souls looking for revenge. Unfortunately, the "unilateral cowboyism" is the only thing standing between civilization and crazies wielding the current generation of wepons of mass destruction. And as for "launching wars"... well, how about fighting back when wars are launched against us? How about concluding wars that have been dragging on for a decade or more? I guess it's all out.
And if we take this advice — if we lay down our arms and let the French and the UN instruct us on how to play nice with the other kids — what do we get out of the deal? We reduce the potential number of IDD-wielding psychos out to get us.
We don't eliminate. We reduce. And how many IDDWP (insanely destructive device weilding psychos) does it take to wipe us out? How many?
I don't pretened to know what the right answer is, here. But as much as I respect Lawrence Lessig, I'm afraid that (for this assignment, anway) I'm going to have to give his students a great big, fat F.
Posted by Phil at April 5, 2004 06:33 AM | TrackBackI too admire Lessig, but in this case I think both he and his students are wrong.
There's no way to eliminate all of the 'crazies'. For one thing, with over six billion human beings on the planet you are always going to have people at either end of the bell curve who think the other end is crazy. Multiple bell curves actually (religion, politics, economics, Early Heinlein vs Late Heinlein, etc).
And to answer one of the questions Phil asked, at some point technology will get to the point (if it hasn't already) where it only takes one person to wipe out the human race.
Unless...
Unless we put more and more effort into defenses. Lessig mentions the Australians who made a 100% lethal mouse-pox virus and further mentions that even with vaccination they still saw a 60% death rate. I sincerely hope those scientists are furiously working on better vaccines that will reduce the fatality rate to something we could live with. Not that a vaccine against a mouse virus is specifically going to do humans any good, but maybe in the course of their research they will discover something that can be applied to improving human vaccines.
Posted by: Andrew Salamon at April 5, 2004 08:50 AM"Cassandras, they said, have always been wrong. Social and political forces will balance technology's dangers." The reason Cassandras have always been wrong is not because the destructive technologies they forecast aren't developed, but because defences against them (social, political and technological) are developed in anticipation or in response. As the technology to create a superpox becomes more accessible to the evil genius in his basement, so the technologies available to private and public sector institutions (as well as benevolent genii in their basements) to rapidly detect it and produce vaccines or treatments become more powerful as well.
Posted by: Rob Hinkley at April 5, 2004 10:31 AMIf cowboyism is a recipe for disaster, and appeasement is the safest course, why hasn't Al Qaeda hit us at home since 9/11? Why is Spain finding new bombs after completely capitulating to the 3/11 attack?
http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/apmethods/apstory?urlfeed=D81NF6LG0.xml
If we all converted to Wahabbism tomorrow we'd get more terrorism, not less. By converting we would be telling the world that terrorism works and is, therefore, legitimate. And then we'd begin raising our own terrorists at home. In the end we'd all end up killing each other for any reason or no reason. "You have my land," "you don't practice Wahabbism the way I do," "your skin is a different color," and on and on.
The way to battle terrorism is both with a carrot and a stick. You kill the bad actors and then you reform the society that produced them. The reformation may not be appreciated at first, but ultimately the reformed society benefits the most.
There is a third answer to Lessig's dilemma that both Andrew and Rob touched on. The same technology that produces the threat also produces the defense. Our best chance is through encouraging innovation and openness within the scientific community.
If we all converted to Wahabbism tomorrow we'd get more terrorism, not less.
I agree. I was just saying that, even according to the logic of the argument, appeasement would only buy us a reduction in the number of terrorists. (And of course that logic is wrong.) A reduction seems a pretty ineffectual goal when — as Andrew pointed out — it only takes one.
Posted by: Phil at April 5, 2004 12:45 PMIt's obcenely easy to sit in the ivy-laced halls of academia - as either a student or a professor - and solve the world's problems. Reminds me of the beauty pageant contestant who smiles with her glossy lips and pearly teeth and says, "I want World Peace," so everyone will think she's not just a pretty face. But she doesn't have a clue how to acheive it and wouldn't be willing to change anything in her life to help it along. We all want world peace, and we all hate war. But the world is not a beauty pageant. Here's a Wall Street Journal piece posted at Pat Blair's blog (http://www.lonestrangers.com/blogs/pat/) that helps me arm myself with the truth instead of warm, pink fantasies:
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004882
Well, since nobody has any really solid responses to the problem of IDDWPs who can single-handedly wipe out life on earth, I suggest we stop keeping all our eggs in one basket. Space colonization anyone?
(BTW, the Spaniards did't capitulate.)
Posted by: Zarathustra2101 at April 7, 2004 11:28 AMWell, since nobody has any really solid responses to the problem of IDDWPs who can single-handedly wipe out life on earth, I suggest we stop keeping all our eggs in one basket. Space colonization anyone?
My thoughts exactly though frankly I'm more concerned about the governments or government-like organizations (eg, warlords, crime organizations, etc) with IDDs than the individuals with IDDs. Eg, part of the problem with Al Queda is that it is a government-like organization with considerable resources not some individuals with problems.
But maybe we need to become extinct first before we can gain the moral bearing and wisdom that space colonizers apparently need.
5196 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com
Posted by: online poker at August 15, 2004 07:58 PM