« January 2004 | Main | March 2004 »
February 25, 2004
Eudoxa skriver rapport för Svenskt Näringsliv
Tankesmedjan Eudoxa har skrivit en rapport om framtidens teknik för Svenskt Näringsliv. I rapporten gör Waldemar Ingdahl och Anders Sandberg en studie av vad nanotekniken och RFID-tekniken kan betyda för näringslivet på strategisk sikt.
Posted by Waldemar at 07:23 PM
February 22, 2004
Genteknik hjälper människor
Waldemar Ingdahl skriver en debattartikel om hur de senaste årens framsteg inom genetiken gör att vi i allt högre grad kan förändra människokroppen enligt våra önskningar och att vi behöver bygga institutioner av olika slag som gör mänsklig förändring säkrare.
Artikeln har publicerats i Gotlands Allehanda (23/2) och Västerviks-Tidningen (24/6).
Posted by Waldemar at 07:11 PM
February 21, 2004
Cyborgen och mänsklighetens framtid
Den 20 februari var Anders Sandberg inbjuden som talare till IT-universitetet i Köpenhamns konferens "Cyborgs: Fact, fiction and the future". Sandberg tog där upp att cyborgen, en varelse som består av organiska och konstgjorda beståndsdelar, har fascinerat människor sedan begreppet introducerades på 1920-talet.
Begreppet, som tidigare mest användes i science-fiction litteraturen, har nu blivit en del av den biomedicinska praktiken. Genteknik, medicinska implantat, artificiell vävnadsproduktion, beräkningsneurobiologi och bärbara datorer har börjat att sudda ut skiljelinjen mellan det biologiska och artificiella.
Sandberg utredde också de samhälleliga visionerna om cyborgen och vad vetenskapen kan göra i framtiden.
Posted by Waldemar at 07:19 PM
February 20, 2004
Riflessioni sull'obesità
L'articolo di Waldemar Ingdahl, Riflessioni sull'obesità è stato pubblicato nel settimanale di "RagionPolitica" del 20 febbraio.
Posted by Waldemar at 07:56 PM
Eudoxas Rapportserie #3: De egenmäktiga gudarnas död och debattens återfödelse
Med avstamp från boken Som egenmäktiga gudar om den svenska debatten om gen- och bioteknik på 1970- och 80-talen, studerar Waldemar Ingdahl och Alexander Sanchez vilka vändningar som debatten har tagit på senare tid.
De undersöker problematiken med att moderniteten rört sig från en substansiellt rationell diskussion om gentekniken mot en formellt rationell diskussion. Utifrån detta studerar de sedan hur debatten om stamcellsforskningen i Sverige fördes i december 2001 i de stora dagstidningarna och kan där konstatera att den primärt formellt rationella utgångspunkten inte ledde till en förnyelse av diskussionen. De jämför sedan detta med den debatt som uppstått utomlands sedan år 2000 och konstaterar att möjligheten finns även i Sverige för att debatten återigen går mot ett substansiellt rationellt samtal, med stor påverkan på samhället och synen på människan.
Innehåll
* Om tankesmedjan Eudoxa
* Sammanfattning
* Introduktion
* Metod
* Den smala debatten på 1900-talet
* Stamcellsdebatten, ett lackmustest på debatten
* Vetenskapsrådets rapport
* Rapporteringen av händelsen
* Den nationella stoltheten
* Pengarna får inte styra
* Kampen mot "fundamentalisterna"
* Forskarnas syn -- grundforskning istället för spetsforskning
* Filosoferna kommer in i debatten
* Som man bäddar får man ligga
* En teknokalyps som vände debatten
* Den sista människan slår tillbaka
* Bortom de egenmäktiga gudarna
* Litteratur
Posted by Waldemar at 07:41 PM
February 19, 2004
Vad dina varor berättar om dig
Anders Sandberg berättar om radiofrekvenstaggar (RFID) och hur de snart kan förändra hur vi införskaffar varor. Är din varukorg lojal?
Artikeln har publicerats i Gotlands Allehanda (20/2) och Västerviks-Tidningen (28/5).
Posted by Waldemar at 07:00 PM
February 16, 2004
Obesity- a problem that cannot be solved by the usual means
In his Tech Central Station Europe article Swedish Meatballs? of February 16th, Waldemar Ingdahl acknowledges that we may be getting fat, but why?
Posted by Waldemar at 07:36 PM
Lagstifta inte om open source i upphandlingen
Waldemar Ingdahl skriver artikeln Lagstifta inte om open source i upphandlingen i Computer Sweden den 16 februari.
Under FN-konferensen World Summit on the Information Society, WSIS, i Genève den 10-13 december, blev debatten om öppna källkoder mer aktuell än någonsin.
Posted by Waldemar at 07:25 PM
February 15, 2004
Eudoxa Policy Study #3: Nanotechnology: Losing the Revolution
Nanotechnology, manufacturing on the molecular and atomic scale is a promising new technology is being attacked before we even know that it is feasible. Opponents of development are misusing the precautionary principle to demand regulations and stifle development. The Canadian public policy group ETC is demanding international moratoriums on the research and UN regulations of new technologies. This study shows why we can loose the revolution before it even began.
Table of Contents
- About Eudoxa
- Executive Summary
- Nanotechnology: Losing the Revolution
Posted by Waldemar at 05:13 PM
February 09, 2004
Etablissemanget och den öppna källkoden
Av Alexander Sanchez
Artikeln har publicerats i Gotlands Allehanda (10/2)
Under FN-konferensen World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), i Genève den 10-13 december, blev debatten om öppna källkoder mer aktuell än någonsin. Huvudtemat för årets möte var frågan om hur informationsteknologi skall användas i hela världen och riktas in till u-länders behov speciellt.
Till detta kom även frågan om öppna källkoder. Diskussionen har rört sig mot en viss vag konsensus om att det är viktigt att alla kan använda datorer, från de mest utvecklade länderna till de fattigaste och minst IT-täta länderna.
Det är nog här som skillnaden mest märks i hur olika länder tolkar problemet med mjukvara. Många länder har lagstiftat om hur man skall kunna använda sig av öppna källkoder i sina nationella inköp av system.
Dels för att man vill undvika licensbetalningar och dels för att många hävdar att problemet ligger i källkoden, som hos mjukvaruprodukter är hemlig. Där har nu Microsoft hörsammat kritiken och lovat att förevisa dessa ordentligt till de nationer som är intresserade. För dem är det snarare en fråga om att dessa källkoder är viktiga i deras produkt och hemliga för konkurrenter.
Det finns också en växande grupp öppna källkodsförespråkare som intresserar sig för frågan. För dessa individer är frihetsaspekten viktig, att kunna manipulera och programmera sin egen kod.
Det finns också skäl att hålla med Open Source-rörelsen i mycket av dess kritik av dagens lagstiftning där ägandet av programvaran aldrig riktigt övergår till den som köper. Men i sin kamp har Open Source rörelsen på senare tid skaffat sig en farlig agenda och farliga vänner.
Rörelsen stödjer nu många regeringar i att stifta lagar om att offentlig upphandling ska ske bara för produkter med öppen källkod. Om en offentlig myndighet väljer att använda ett öppet eller blandat system av effektivitets- eller kostnadsskäl så är det bra. Men att favorisera en typ av system över ett annat av rent politiska skäl är fel, och borde vara mot Open source-rörelsens grundläggande idéer.
Dels beror detta på att många i OS-rörelsen inte riktigt är insatta i hur politik på denna nivå fungerar, och dels är tyvärr många så negativt inställda till Microsoft att man råkar ta till de monopolitiska medel man ofta anklagar Microsoft för.
När man, som vid konferensen i Genève, gör gemensam sak med länder som Kuba och Folkrepubliken Kina är man farligt ute. Det är lätt för en kubansk delegat att säga att öppen källkod är bra (och anti-Microsoft) när stora delar av befolkningen inte har tillgång till datorer överhuvudtaget.
Samarbetsprojekt är en god sak, men antagandet att detta nödvändigtvis skulle vara oförenligt med pengar och kommersialism är felaktig.
Tvärtom kan det vara den bästa mekanismen för att stödja samarbete. Varför skulle man nödvändigtvis skapa fri programvara till stat och kommun? Är detta skälet till det stöd som idag OS åtnjuter bland budgetträngda svenska politiker?
Det är denna aspekt som kommer att bli viktig i framtiden, att behandla den djupare frågan om hur vi vill utforma patenträtter och fungerande modeller för de öppna källkoderna och dess användning. Där kan Open source-rörelsen ge ett gott bidrag, om man ser farorna med lagstiftningsvägen.
Posted by Waldemar at 07:29 PM
Blomsterkraft mot minor
Anders Sandberg berättar i Västerviks-Tidningen, den 9 februari, om hur backtraven, ett vanligt ogräs, har fått sin genetik studerad i detalj av biologer och genmodifierats till att bli ett varningssystem mot minor.
Posted by Waldemar at 07:09 PM
February 07, 2004
Virginia Postrel spoke at Eudoxa dinner reception
By Lene Johansen
Virginia Postrel spoke on February 7th at a Eudoxa dinner reception in Kansas City. She held a speech about her new book The Substance of Style: how the rise of aesthetic value is remaking commerce, culture and consciousness for a paying audience at the Sheraton Hotel.
It was a great honor to host a dinner for Virginia Postrel in Kansas City. Her work means a lot to Eudoxa. One of the works that inspired our start up was her first book "The Future and Its Enemies". In this book she outlined what she calls the growing conflict over creativity, enterprise and progress.
The book is easy to dismiss as just another one that questions the viability of the traditional left-right dichotomy if you work with traditional policy issues. The traditional issues are so set in this dichotomy that they are hard to untangle from that context, as several attempts to establish a third party in American politics has shown. But Eudoxa does not work with traditional issues; our policy issues are just entering public discourse. The road map the book provides makes more sense on emerging technologies like the ones we work with.
The intellectuals that write about emerging technology do not feel constrained to defend or oppose certain viewpoints based on the left-right dichotomy. They are freer to develop their viewpoints based upon the values they espouse, as the battle lines are still being drawn. Certain writers might find that they agree with those that are perceived as their enemies. The book gives some great examples of this.
Postrel came to Kansas City to promote her newest book "The Substance of Style". The design community has embraced this book and Postrel talked to them as well while she was in Kansas City. The Substance of Style addresses the rise of the aesthetic imperative in our society.
Design and aesthetics have traditionally been viewed as superfluous. But Postrel makes a powerful case arguing that Maslow's hierarchy is too simple. Humans are tactile and visual creatures by biology. We tend to put effort into prettying ourselves and our surroundings weather we live on the verge of starvation in recently liberated Afghanistan or we are executives in corporate America.
Postrel explains how development of a global economy has made the current bountifulness of diverse affordable products possible. She also spends an entire chapter exploring how there is an increasing trend to regulate the aesthetics of our public spaces. And the regulation does not stop at the edge of your property.
So why would this book be interesting for Eudoxa? First of all we share a joint defence of diversity and individual choice with Postrel. She is an advocate for respect of individual choice. Our self-adornment communicates the values and social affiliations we would like others to perceive despite the fact that most of the social symbol systems around our adornments have collapsed.
She briefly touches more extreme ways of altering our appearance, like plastic surgery and cosmetic gene therapy. Although the cost in pain, danger and money still makes this unrealistic for most of us, these trends exemplify the concept of health as an individually defined and desired optimal functionality. This goes beyond just altering our appearance; it will also include our abilities. The right to make these choices for our offspring and ourselves is rooted in natural rights according to the study that Eudoxa released on morphologic freedom.
We sure hope that we will be able to work with Virginia Postrel in the future and would like to thank her and Flint Hills Center for Public Policy for making her visit possible.
Posted by Waldemar at 07:49 PM
Miljöministern svarar på Eudoxa
Miljöminister Lena Sommestad svarar på Waldemar Ingdahls debattartikel i Dagens Industri Kyoto-avtalet löser inte klimatfrågan (23/1) med sin artikel Kyoto främjar tillväxten (6/2).
Posted by Waldemar at 03:39 PM
February 05, 2004
Fetman är individuell- inte folkets
Anders Sandberg skriver i artikeln Fetman är individuell- inte folkets i Svensk Tidskrift nummer 1, att fetmaepidemin kan inte botas med paternalism och minskad valfrihet för individen. Tvärtom är fetman och kampen mot den i högsta grad individuell, det handlar om att bli herre över den egna kroppen.
Posted by Waldemar at 07:31 PM
February 01, 2004
The Nanotechnology Coup
By Anders Sandberg
K. Eric Drexler coined the word nanotechnology in the mid 80's as he was considering the possibilities of molecular manufacturing. The idea that technology would eventually be miniaturized to molecular and atomic level was older (Nobel laureate Richard P. Feynman suggested it in a talk 1959) but Drexler was the first to consider the implications. He realized that the consequences were staggering: not just atomically perfect materials, but by assembling atoms as building blocks nearly anything could be constructed with a minimum of waste and pollution, making matter essentially recyclable and as reconfigurable as software. Molecular computers and robotics would enable entirely new possibilities in nearly all areas of life. He set out to demonstrate how these "wild" ideas were feasible within known laws of physics and to promote nanotechnology.
In the early and middle 90's nanotechnology was just speculative ideas, something to interest open-minded researchers, engineering hobbyists and science fiction fans. Despite attempts to show the validity of the concept it was largely ridiculed in Scientific American 1996. But slowly the idea percolated through the scientific community. It went from a wild idea to a radical idea to the next big thing. Suddenly funding for nanotechnology research appeared and it was not just acceptable to study it but a good buzzword to add to the research proposal. But in becoming acceptable research the original meaning of nanotechnology had been diluted. Whereas Drexler was considering operations on the molecular scale using molecular tools, nanotechnology now appears to mean any technology involving extremely small structures. What would in 1994 have been called materials science is now often dubbed nanotechnology. One reason is of course that as it became well funded it was advantageous for researchers to call their research nanotechnology if it involved tiny structures in any way.
This has led to a paradoxical situation where many are eager to talk about nanotechnology and to hype it, but at the same time strongly dismissive of "wild speculation". There is a strong concern within any developing field to keep it serious and avoid being branded as lunatic fringe. But in this case the whole idea emerged from the fringe, making pioneers like Drexler an embarrassment since they do not fit in with the current state of the field. At the same time hype is a temptation: claiming one's work to be revolutionary is a good way of getting funding. But there are acceptable forms of being revolutionary (claiming vastly enhanced industrial outputs) and there are too wild forms of revolutionary (entirely new possibilities, such as human enhancement). The border is blurred and shifts depending on the audience, but in an environment where it is important to sell science hype becomes an essential tool. While hype confuses the possible with the real, it is also vulnerable if somebody out-hypes it: either the listener sees through the lack of substance, or the listener begins to interest themselves with the new issue.
Deep down there are many scientific issues about whether molecular machines will work, if they can be designed or what they will eventually be able to do. Here different scientific and technological approaches clash, since it is hard for a chemist - used to a deductive and craftmanlike approach to matter - to understand the physicist with his simulations and force calculations, not to mention the biologist with his bizarre enzyme menagerie. And vice versa. Much of the debating will likely be quaint and seen as irrelevant within a few years as the disciplines finally link up to a real nanoscience, but at the present tempers are hotter and the stakes higher: who gets to define what is "real" nanoscience?
Meanwhile the emerging field is gaining its critics. They come from the predictable directions, the same directions that criticise biotechnology as having detrimental ethical, safety, social and economical effects. While some criticism (and plenty of Hollywood thrillers) has been aimed at the long-range "wild" possibilities, the most effective criticism in terms of getting politicians involved and funding agencies worried is claims that the safety of nanotechnology is suspect. Especially powerful media-wise are fears that nanoparticles may have environmental or health effects: it ties in with threats we already know (smog, silicosis), is sufficiently uncertain so that no researcher can with good conscience claim things are proven safe and also can be imagined as a threat as large as the listener cares to imagine. Had it been a concrete problem, like the very real and dangerous nanoparticles in diesel exhaust, it would have been far less effective as an attack on the field since it would have invited a practical solution. Now the only apparent solution to the uncertainty is regulation. Regulation is popular among regulators, and if they also promise more money to nanosafety research researchers tend to stay happy. But regulation done before the fact, based more on a feeling that everything important should be regulated, tends to result in excessive, expensive and often misdirected rules.
The irony is that the greens playing the game of fear, uncertainty and doubt are acting symmetrically with the researchers hyping their field: they are both tricks to get funding, attention and influence. Both sides seek the right amount of hype to get interest, but do not dare to get involved in too wild or too fundamental issues in the debate out of fear of losing support.
It is not truly the environmental risks but the potential lack of control over nanotechnology that worries its critics. It is the vision is technology out of control - active devices working on their own, or industry with no oversight. But while experts have good reasons to be calm about the "grey goo" problem or many worries about nanocontamination, that will not calm the public. How are we to trust a researcher who says extensive research has shown something to be safe? The only way to be sure is to become an expert oneself, or find trusted experts. But how do we find trusted experts in this cynical era? Watchdogs like ETC benefit from making people concerned, while a nanotechnology researcher might presumably downplay risks.
Here we come full circle to Drexler's vision again. Rather than announce that utopia was around the corner he spent much thought about the risks of nanotechnology development and how to minimize them. His suggestion was to develop technologies of foresight at the same time: social or digital tools to further knowledge exchange, constructive debate, cross-examination of evidence and views, institutions to engage the public and special interests in dialogue about potential future technologies and their risks and benefits. He founded the Foresight Institute, a nonprofit organisation aiming at improving policy decisions just by pursuing these goals in respect to nanotechnology and other emerging technologies. Over the years it has played an important part in shaping the molecular nanotechnology community and in suggesting safety measures (such as their guidelines on working with self-replicating machines).
The irony is that the rest of the nanotechnology field, in its eagerness to distance itself from its roots in "science fiction" it has also ignored this part of the nanotechnology vision. A short-sighted search for directly applicable practical results becomes pure science or technology, and easily misses the important policy dimensions. But opponents to technology only care about policy and vision. If one can meet them in a policy discussion, guided by a vision more long-range than funding for the next year or a better insulin pump, then the future has a chance.
Posted by Waldemar at 07:14 PM