Ever since watching the films Powaqqatsi and Koyaanisqatsi, I was turned towards director Godfrey Reggio�??s ideas about technology as environment, that “it�??s no longer something we use, but something we live. The popular myth of neutrality, that technology is �??neutral�?� and it�??s the use or misuse of it that determines its value, I think is woefully inadequate.”

Modern technology was devised, I guess, as a buffer from the ravages of nature, which is at once beautiful and horrible. But instead, it separated us completely from nature to the point that now technology is our new nature�??instead of anima mundi, it�??s techno mundi. Mystery is gone to the certainty of technological principles. So the real terror, the real aggression against life comes in the form of the pursuit of our technological happiness. For me, these things are unsayable because they�??re so present that we don�??t have any distance from which to observe. The problems of social inequity, of war, of environmental devastation, are the ongoing and logical conclusions of a way of life unexamined.

So, what then, when we move into a world of Nanotechnology, when we’re getting prepared to relenquish the evolution of our bodies to manmade nanomachines? Individuals such as Eric Drexler remain rather positive in their visions that the possibilities nanotechnology will bring. While he recognises the risks of nanotechnology, he does believe that any problems can be overcome with the right institutions, laws and safeguards.

From Engines of Abundance to Engines of Healing, Drexler touches on the utopian possibilities and then turns to some very real problems. He recognises the argument that totalitarian states are a distinct possibility as technology becomes more complex, echoing the concerns of Zbigniew Brzezinski who saw that technology “involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society”, “dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how”:

Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control. Under such circumstances, the scientific and technological momentum of the country would not be reversed but would actually feed on the situation it exploits. �?� Persisting social crisis, the emergence of a charismatic personality, and the exploitation of mass media to obtain public confidence would be the steppingstones in the piecemeal transformation of the Untied States into a highly controlled society.�?�

While I remain largely optomistic that humans have an amazing ability to overthrow tyrrany, we would be fools to think that we will somehow be able to safeguard against the tyrrany nanomachines will allow. Technological advances are largely initially driven by the military-industrial complex. This falls back to Reggio’s observation that technology has a “myth of neutrality”: since technological advances are primarily driven for the purposes of war and control, and then later disseminated into the public via corporations for the purposes of profit, any benefits that arise from technological breakthroughs will be secondary to these primary goals. What Drexler seems to fail to understand is that the threat within liberal democracy lies with the way liberal democracy is currently conceived. It is not simply a case of “the abuse of power”, nor do I agree with his assertion that democracies “do not seem evil, as a whole”: “Democracies suffer more from sloth and incompetence than from evil.” Do not seem evil to who, exactly? The individuals of the developed, liberal democratic society, or the individuals on the outside in a developing liberal democratic society (or any society not modelled as we would like)?

The excellent documentary The Century of the Self by Adam Curits demonstrates clearly that modern demoracies are controlled through what Edward Bernays called “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses”:

Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. … We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. … In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons … who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.

The ruling elite of modern day democracies “pull the wires” to create what Veblen called “conspicuous consumption”: we must all become consumers. It seems strange that Drexler does not seem to recognise that products in this future age will not be abundant for everyone even if the “raw materials can be dirt cheap”.Generally, technological advancements favour the rich over the poor and are driven by consumer markets. We know this because we know how corporations and democratic societies behave today. We know that gene patents and copyrights will be controlled and managed seriously, often to the detriment of others. Agribusiness giant Monsanto, for example, routinely prosecutes farmers who try to save seeds of their crops for the following year, or those found with genetically modified crops in their fields “even if the seeds blew there from neighbouring fields and he never intended to grow them in the first place”. It should be expected that the nanotech advances of tomorrow will be treated in a similar fashion, in that not only will people have evolved their bodies with machines, but they will have also given up ownership. The Guardian reported on the beginnings of this with the “rush to patent human genes” stiffling possible cures and studies because of “the corporate use of those patents to maximise profits.”

So great is the perceived threat to medical research that a group of American doctors and scientists have issued a protest saying: “The use of patents or exorbitant licensing fees to prevent physicians and clinical laboratories from performing genetic tests limits access to medical care, jeopardises the quality of medical care, and unreasonably raises its cost.”

Furthermore, “only 10 countries accounted for 86% of world total investment in Research and Development (R&D)”. In Africa, “Mobile telephone lines, computers and knowledge of the internet are common only among the rich urban elite” with only “14 million telephone lines” across the entire continent, “less than most big cities in Europe and America”. Health and drug advances routinely deal with developed-world illnesses such as erectile dysfunction, or baldness, leaving developing-world illnesses often untouched. While the health gap between the richer developed world and poorer developing world is massive, with a huge discrepency in average lifespan between the two, even in the developed world in places like London studies show “a widening gap in life expectancy between people in rich and poor areas”.

Nanotechnology will also bring greater methods of control and surveillance within states, and greater methods of military dominance of the world. The recent revelations of NSA snooping illustrate clearly how technological advances are being used to manage democratic societies. On a world-wide military scale, the Project for the New American Century points out that “�??combat�?� likely will take place in new dimensions: in space, �??cyber-space,�?� and perhaps the world of microbes.” Chillingly, the report also states that “advanced forms of biological warfare that can �??target�?� specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” It should be understood that this would be the prime focus of any state developing nanotechnology. In this case, the aim is clear: “continued American military preeminence”. In the document Vision for 2020, the United States Space Command declares its mission to be the domination of “the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment.” The document points out that although the US is “unlikely to be challenged by a global peer competitor, the United States will continue to be challenged regionally. The globalization of the world economy will also continue, with a widening between �??haves�?� and �??have-nots.�?�” Presumably, this is why they call for “Robust capabilities to ensure space superiority must be developed”.

Control of Space is the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and an ability to deny others the use of space, if required.

An illuminating quote to consider is that of George Kennan, a US foreign policy planner who helped prepare the document “Policy Planning Study 23” in 1948 for the Truman adminstration:

We have about 50% of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3% of its population. … Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity….. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives…. We should cease to talk about vague … objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.

While it may look like I’m picking on the US, I think it’s important to understand that any country with the same comparable dominance of the world would behave in the same manner. Any capitalist society would look to own and make profit from anything possible, including the building blocks of life. It is reasonable to conclude that nanotechnology and related advances will favour consumers, will favor the rich and developed world, will ensure further misery for the developing world, and will be used to ensure self-interested dominance and power over life and environment. It is not that I advocate halting scientific process (as Drexler and Kurtzweil point out, this would be impossible, improbable, and irresponsible), but rather that we should be largely realistic about where this technology will take us before any utopian visions are realised. As Mike Treder points out:

It is not certain, of course, that large-scale war will occur within the next few decades. But if it does, and if both (or all) sides are nano-enabled, that event could last a relatively long time, and casualties could be in the billions. If, on the other hand, only one combatant possesses the awesome capabilities of nano-built weapons, computers, and infrastructure, that war might be over very quickly, and could leave the victor in total command of the world.

Just what system do we want to control the world? I agree with Reggio when he says:

“So to hope to be able to have peace, to be able to have justice and environmental balance, are consequences of our behavior, not just our intentions. I think it�??s naïve to pray for world peace if we�??re not going to change the form in which we live.

I strongly believe that our world is our range of relationships, and I believe more in direct experience or direct action as opposed to more generalized committees and international forums. Nothing changes the world more conclusively than the shining light of a good example, and what we can do in our own lives is only limited by the imaginations that we have. We�??re all capable of walking on water, of moving mountains�??if not literally, certainly metaphorically�??by the actions we take. I try to shield myself from the blinding light, the new sun of technology, [instead] seeking the darkness and ambiguity of a formless world out of which a new form can be created. In that sense, I think the most practical thing we can do is be idealistic.

…

As long as people are alive, they have the possibility to be heroic. To me, the nature of being heroic is to have the courage to be hopeless about this world order in order to be hopeful about something else. I�??m not a hopeless person by any means. But I am hopeless about this nonhuman order, this technological grid, this pax numericana that all of us live under. To resist that, to rebel against it�??the ability to say No is what�??s most important.

The greatest tragedy is inertia�??the velocity most of us are on. It takes courage to move ourselves off of that line of inertia. This is something for each person, to act outside of necessity, outside of destiny�??to act in that dark mucky world of risk, defiance, rebellion. This is not a class for beginners. Life is for those that wish to live, and to do so is to deal with the enormity of the moment in which we live. And that�??s where our actions, based on our words, can have the most impact.