Support the IEET




The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.



Search the IEET
Subscribe and Contribute to:


Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view




whats new at ieet

The World Transhumanist Association (WTA)

Enhancing Virtues: Intelligence (Part 3): Pharmaceutical Cognitive Enhancement

Actually: You ARE the Customer, Not the Product

A message about the power of free expression

Secrets of the Mind: Can Science Explain Consciousness? (34 min)

Chalmers vs Pigliucci on the Philosophy of Mind-Uploading (2): Pigliucci’s Pessimism


ieet books

A History of Life-Extensionism in the Twentieth Century
Author
Ilia Stambler


comments

Peter Wicks on 'Is Anarchy (as in Anarchism) the Golden Mean of the future?' (Sep 22, 2014)

instamatic on 'Is Anarchy (as in Anarchism) the Golden Mean of the future?' (Sep 21, 2014)

Peter Wicks on 'Review of Ilia Stambler’s “A History of Life-Extensionism in the Twentieth Century"' (Sep 21, 2014)

Peter Wicks on 'Is Anarchy (as in Anarchism) the Golden Mean of the future?' (Sep 21, 2014)

Kris Notaro on 'Review of Ilia Stambler’s “A History of Life-Extensionism in the Twentieth Century"' (Sep 21, 2014)

Kris Notaro on 'Is Anarchy (as in Anarchism) the Golden Mean of the future?' (Sep 21, 2014)

Peter Wicks on 'Is Anarchy (as in Anarchism) the Golden Mean of the future?' (Sep 21, 2014)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



JET

Transhumanism and Marxism: Philosophical Connections

Sex Work, Technological Unemployment and the Basic Income Guarantee

Technological Unemployment but Still a Lot of Work…

Hottest Articles of the Last Month


Why and How Should We Build a Basic Income for Every Citizen?
Sep 16, 2014
(11725) Hits
(5) Comments

Enhancing Virtues: Caring (part 1)
Aug 29, 2014
(5343) Hits
(1) Comments

An open source future for synthetic biology
Sep 9, 2014
(4571) Hits
(0) Comments

MMR Vaccines and Autism: Bringing clarity to the CDC Whistleblower Story
Sep 14, 2014
(4392) Hits
(1) Comments



Comment on this entry

How to Create an International Treaty for Emerging Technologies


Seth Baum


Ethical Technology

February 21, 2013

Emerging technologies like bioengineering, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and geoengineering have great promise for humanity, but they also come with great peril. They could revolutionize everything from pollution control to human health—imagine a bioengineered microbe that converts CO2 into automobile-worthy liquid fuels, or nanotechnologies that target cancer cells.

But they also pose the potential to cause a global catastrophe in which millions or even billions of people die.


...

Complete entry


COMMENTS



Posted by Rick Searle  on  02/24  at  12:45 PM

@Seth:

I think the idea of pursuing an international treaty and especially a separate international entity as part of the UN to deal with the question of global catastrophic risks is a fantastic one and I am totally on board with such efforts.

I do worry, however, about a number of hurtles to this approach and am curious if you or anyone else you know of knows of a way these hurtles might be overcome.

A good model for establishing shared standards regarding emerging technologies through international treaties might be current treaties that ban the use of landmines and chemical weapons though neither of these are without flaws.

I think the wall we will have to climb when it comes to establishing shared standards on emerging technologies are twofold and amount to differences in culture and what might be called “technological arbitrage” and we can see examples of both all around us.

The effects of culture can be seen in the way something like genetic engineering is being pursued. There is a great deal of suspicion of GMOs in Europe and corresponding laws to regulate their use while the US is a leader in such products and pursues their use in agriculture full-stop. The West with its experience of the horrors of Nazi eugenics seared deeply into its consciousness is very suspicious of the genetic engineering of humans, but if Geoffrey Miller over at The Edge is right, China is highly committed to developing and using such technologies: http://www.edge.org/responses/q2013 (By the way, this issue of the Edge’s annual question is “What are you most worried about?” would be of interest to anyone thinking about the question of global catastrophic risks) China’s embrace of human genetic engineering is also an example of technological arbitrage the second wall between us and shared standards to regulating emerging technologies.

Not to pick on China which is only the most publicly noticeable example of technological arbitrage but you can see this is the current crisis over China’s internet based spying. Emerging countries seem to have a rational incentive to tap into emerging technologies to close the gap between them and technologically tear one countries and may as a consequence be less reticent about potential threats from such technologies. In addition, a lead country such as the United States has a rational interest of keeping its technological edge by investing in emerging technologies despite their dangers. In the end these questions reflect security concerns. Something we see in yet another example of technology being used as a form or arbitrage- the development by relatively weak countries- North Korea, Iran- of nuclear weapons technologies. 

Any international treaty or organization that aimed regulating emerging technologies would have to reflect a global effort to resolve underlying power and security dynamics along with cultural barriers that drive and structure them.  Given the dangers of emerging technologies to the human future this is something we need to pursue, but the challenges are high and reflect more than just the question of technology. 
 





Posted by Grant Wilson  on  02/26  at  02:42 PM

@Rick Searle,

Thanks for the very thoughtful response. I am Grant Wilson, one of the co-authors, along with Seth Baum.

Glad to hear you are on board with such efforts. Thanks for the tips on the potential model treaties. I have looked at both the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention, and they have some interesting elements for emerging technologies. I’ll give a good look to the Ottawa Treaty (the landmine ban treaty), which I have not done yet. While these treaties have some good elements, I think that a combination of international law frameworks and existing national laws on emerging technologies could help shape the contents of an emerging technologies treaty. For example, in the United States, the “Coordinated Framework” is a patchwork of regulations applied to bioengineered organisms, and there are certainly some lessons here that can be applied to an international treaty (e.g. permit requirements for any field release of a bioengineered organism).

The roadblocks you mentioned – differences in culture and “technological arbitrage” – will indeed need to be overcome to create an effective emerging technologies treaty. I would add that religious differences may play a role, as well.

I think that one way the cultural and technological arbitrage problems could be assuaged is to begin with international collaborative efforts on emerging technologies, and a new international organization devoted to emerging technologies could help foster cooperation and build trust. Furthermore, while the United States wants to keep its technological edge and other countries may wish to tap emerging technologies to leap ahead, perhaps a scientific and technological cooperative agreement for emerging technologies would help here. Still, as we know with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and nuclear nonproliferation efforts, not even a collaborative international organization, technology sharing, and strict compliance mechanisms is totally effective (e.g. North Korea is still feverishly pursuing nukes). Finally, all countries inevitably want to act in their best interest, so perhaps starting with the low-hanging fruit of the most dangerous technologies—those that could wipe out the planet, for example—could be a good starting point.

Please let me know if you (or anyone else reading this!) have other ideas. I will be working on this issue indefinitely, so I would love to hear more from innovative thinkers. My email is grant@gcrinstitute.org.

Thanks,
Grant Wilson





Posted by Seth Baum  on  03/02  at  05:42 PM

A clarification on authorship: This article was co-authored by myself (Seth Baum) and Grant Wilson.





Posted by Seth Baum  on  03/02  at  05:52 PM

Also, we should clarify that this article was written following our crowdfunding campaign ‘Preventing Technological Disaster Through International Treaties’:
http://www.indiegogo.com/emergingtechnologies
See discussion here:
http://gcrinstitute.org/new-ieet-article-on-international-treaties-for-emerging-technologies






Add your comment here:


Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | AFRICAN FUTURES PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
56 Daleville School Rd., Willington CT 06279 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376