Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher

1. Proactionary Nano-Policy Managing Massive Decisions for Tiny Technologies Max More, Ph.D.Strategic Philosopher July 20 20051st Workshop on Geoethical Nanotechnology

2. NANO: NAUGHTY OR NICE? • Naughty: dangerous nanoparticles; targeted nanoweapons; cancerous self-replication? • Nice: abundance; health; superlongevity; environmental restoration • NANO = Naughty And Nice, Obviously • Q. “What is the problem with constraining nanotechnology?” A. Finding the right balance Proactionary Nano-Policy – Max More, Ph.D.

3. UNFIT BRAINS • our risk avoidance cognition is suited to counter repeatable attacks and learn from specifics. • the human brain did not evolve to reason about highly complex uncertainties & “black swans.” • a bestiary of biases: Availability, recency, representativeness, overconfidence, framing effects (prospect theory), mental accounting, risk aversion, status quo bias, endowment effect, anchoring, sunk cost effect, escalation of commitment, herding instinct, misestimating future hedonic states, flawed consensus—confirmation bias, selective recall, biased evaluation, groupthink. Proactionary Nano-Policy – Max More, Ph.D.

4. REGULATORS ARE NOT OPTIMIZERS • regulators tend to overemphasize risks and dangers and to undercount direct and indirect benefits of new technologies • regulators fear Type I errors (commission) far more than Type II (omission) errors • reinforced by a political bias toward emphasizing catastrophe Proactionary Nano-Policy – Max More, Ph.D.

5. REGULATORS’ REQUIRED READING • The Fall; Pandora’s Box; The Tower of Babel; Icarus; Prometheus • Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring • Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb • Frankenstein • The Terminator Proactionary Nano-Policy – Max More, Ph.D.

6. WE MUST REGULATE BRAINS! • brains are dangerous, potentially fatal, and could cause the destruction of the human race • brains are insidiously clever devices that hide inside skulls where we can’t observe them • even worse, they can make copies of themselves and the instructions within them • we really do need to regulate brains—by structuring decision procedures for risks & benefits Proactionary Nano-Policy – Max More, Ph.D.

7. THE WISDOM OF STRUCTURE To counter both cognitive & organizational bias, we need to structure decisions. Benefits: • improves decision accuracy by specifying methods & inputs • raises the quality of each step of the decision process by drawing systematically on the best available knowledge • enhances convergent, analytical capabilities • enhances divergent thinking and the generation of alternatives • minimizes both excessively risky and excessively conservative judgments by systematically comparing elements of the decision and by critically integrating diverse perspectives • reduces risk by finding & evaluating more threats • contributes to organizational transparency Proactionary Nano-Policy – Max More, Ph.D.

8. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE The regulators’ favorite; embodied in the EU constitution & implicitly in many US regulations: “When an activity raises threats of serious or irreversible harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures that prevent the possibility of harm shall be taken even if the causal link between the activity and the possible harm has not been proven or the causal link is weak and the harm is unlikely to occur.” (As defined by Soren Holm and John Harris in Nature magazine, 1999) Proactionary Nano-Policy – Max More, Ph.D.

9. ULTRACONSERVATIVE PRECAUTION • bolsters the position of existing technologies & institutions • “Virtually all scientific and technological discoveries, because all create, initially at least, powerful losers who can activate the prevailing ideological and political system against the new.” Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (environmental policy specialist and editor of the journal Energy and Environment) • discourages learning through experimentation Proactionary Nano-Policy – Max More, Ph.D.

10. BILL JOY: PRECAUTIONARY RELINQUISHMENT • Joy on “GNR” (genetic, nano, robotics) technologies: “threatening to make humans an endangered species” • Joy calls for “limiting our pursuit of certain kinds of knowledge.” • he backs precautionary restriction of the freedom to innovate: “The only realistic alternative I see is relinquishment: to limit development of the technologies that are too dangerous, by limiting our pursuit of certain kinds of knowledge.” • “With their widespread commercial pursuit, enforcing relinquishment will require a verification regime similar to that for biological weapons, but on an unprecedented scale. This, inevitably, will raise tensions between our individual privacy and desire for proprietary information, & the need for verification to protect us all.” Proactionary Nano-Policy – Max More, Ph.D.

11. DECISION DIAGNOSIS • is the decision procedure transparent? • simple? • structured? • comprehensive? • balanced? • does it encourage creative alternatives? • use the best available scientific knowledge? • protect the freedom to innovate & learn? • Auditing procedure: • objective procedures to select data? • long time series used? • test sensitivity of data selection? • balanced? • full disclosure provided? Proactionary Nano-Policy – Max More, Ph.D.

12. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE FAILS • fails the test of objectivity • fails the test of comprehensiveness in deliberation • causes harm, esp. to those most in need • ultraconservative • diverts attention & resources from more urgent matters • discourages innovative & creative alternatives • denies us the freedom to make trade-offs • fails to ensure that reliable decision procedures are used • asymmetrical: favors nature over humanity • vague & unclear; can enable corruption & bias • wrongly shifts burden of proof onto innovators Proactionary Nano-Policy – Max More, Ph.D.

14. THE PROACTIONARY PRINCIPLE Freedom to innovate technologically is highly valuable, even critical, to humanity. This implies a range of responsibilities for those considering whether and how to develop, deploy, or restrict new technologies. Assess risks and opportunities using an objective, open, and comprehensive, yet simple decision process based on science rather than collective emotional reactions. Account for the costs of restrictions and lost opportunities as fully as direct effects. Favor measures that are proportionate to the probability and magnitude of impacts, and that have the highest payoff relative to their costs. Give a high priority to people’s freedom to learn, innovate, and advance. Proactionary Nano-Policy – Max More, Ph.D.

15. TEN PRINCIPLES IN ONE • Freedom to innovate • Objectivity • Comprehensiveness • Openness & transparency • Simplicity • Triage • Symmetrical treatment • Proportionality • Prioritization • Renew and Refresh Proactionary Nano-Policy – Max More, Ph.D.

16. OBJECTIVE • use science, not popular perception • use explicit forecasting processes • use quantitative methods • structure the inputs to the forecasting procedure • reduce biases by selecting disinterested experts • use the devil’s advocate procedure • provide full disclosure • audit the decision making process (review panels) Proactionary Nano-Policy – Max More, Ph.D.

17. SYMMETRICAL TREATMENT • Treat technological risks on the same basis as natural risks (e.g. gene-spliced crops & traditionally-bred crops) • Avoid underweighting natural risks and overweighting human-technological risks • Fully account for the benefits of technological advances Proactionary Nano-Policy – Max More, Ph.D.

18. COMPREHENSIVENESS • Consider all reasonable alternative actions, including no action • Estimate the opportunities lost by abandoning a technology • Take into account the costs and risks of substituting other credible options • In making these estimates, carefully consider not only concentrated & immediate effects, but also widely distributed & follow-on effects Proactionary Nano-Policy – Max More, Ph.D.

19. PROPORTIONALITY • Consider restrictive measures only if the potential impact of an activity has both significant probability and severity • In such cases, if the activity also generates benefits, discount the impacts according to the feasibility of adapting to the adverse effects • If measures to limit technological advance do appear justified, ensure that the extent of those measures is proportionate to the extent of the probable effects Proactionary Nano-Policy – Max More, Ph.D.

20. REGULATORY RISK • biggest risk is military nano and terrorist uses—but regulation will not help with these • nor are they open to international oversight • dangers of global regulation: most restrictive regulations could be imposed on all Proactionary Nano-Policy – Max More, Ph.D.

21. ALTERNATIVE REGULATION • industry standards • self-regulation • transparency—includes scorecards, and report cards, similar to the Global Reporting Initiative • “socially responsible investing” funds pressure • these alternatives can incorporate the Proactionary Principle (ProP) Proactionary Nano-Policy – Max More, Ph.D.

22. REGULATE REGULATORS Regulatory agencies, if involved, should use the Proactionary Principle, not the precautionary principle Proactionary Nano-Policy – Max More, Ph.D.

23. CONTACT/MORE INFORMATION • “The Proactionary Principle”, May 2004. <http://www.extropy.org/proactionaryprinciple.htm> • “Deflecting the Precautionary Principle”, www.manyworlds.com http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreCO.asp?coid=CO4190417435817 • “Debugging Executive Decision Making”. www.manyworlds.com http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreCO.asp?coid=CO120416181428 • max@maxmore.com <www.maxmore.com> • Extropy Institute: www.extropy.org Proactionary Nano-Policy – Max More, Ph.D.