I-law solves reckless emerging tech development – that’s an existential risk

The world is currently undergoing a remarkable revolution in science and technology that will seemingly allow us to engineer synthetic life of any imaginable variety, build swarms of robots so small that they are invisible to the human eye, and, perhaps, create an intelligence far superior to the collective brainpower of every human. Much of this “emerging technology” either already exists in rudimentary form or may be developed in the coming decades,1 including the three technologies covered by this paper: nanotechnology, bioengineering, and artificial intelligence (“AI”). While many scientists point to these developments as a panacea for disease, pollution, and even mortality,2 these emerging technologies also risk massive human death and environmental harm. Nanotechnology consists of “materials, devices, and systems” created at the scale of one to one hundred nanometers3—a nanometer being one billionth of a meter in size (10-9 m) or approximately one hundred-thousandth the width of a human hair4—including nano-sized machines (“nanorobots”). Bioengineering is the “engineering of living organisms” and can also operate on a tremendously small scale.5 Specific types of bioengineering include genetic engineering, or altering the genetic makeup of an organism’s cells,6 and synthetic biology, in which scientists develop “new biological parts, devices and systems that do not exist in the natural world and also the redesign of existing biological systems to perform specific tasks.”7 Finally, AI, meaning intelligent computers, is a pathway to “the Singularity,” the concept that manmade greater-than-human intelligence could improve upon its own design, thus beginning an intelligence feedback mechanism or “explosion” that would culminate in a godlike intelligence with the potential to operate at one million times the speed of the human brain.8 These and other threats from emerging technologies lmay pose a “global catastrophic risk” (“GCR”), which is a risk that could cause serious global damage to human well-being, or an “existential risk” (“ER”), which is a risk that could cause human extinction or the severe and permanent reduction of the quality of human life on Earth.9 Currently, the main risks from emerging technologies involve the accidental release or intentional misuse of bioengineered organisms, such as the airborne highly pathogenic avian influenza A (“H5N1”) virus, commonly known as “bird flu,” that scientists genetically engineered in 2011. However, with emerging technologies developing at a rapid pace, experts predict that perils such as dangerous self-replicating nanotechnology,10 deadly synthetic viruses available to amateur scientists, and unpredictable super-intelligent AI may materialize in the coming few decades.

Society should take great care to prevent a GCR or ER (“GCR/ER”) from materializing, yet GCRs/ERs arising out of nanotechnology, bioengineering, and AI are almost entirely unregulated at the international level.12 One possible way to mitigate the chances of a GCR/ER ever materializing is for the international community to establish an international convention tailored to emerging technologies based on the following three principles: first, that nanotechnology, bioengineering, and AI pose a GCR/ER; second, that existing international regulatory mechanisms either do not include emerging technologies within their scope or else insufficiently mitigate the risks arising from emerging technologies; and third, that a international convention based on the precautionary principle could reduce GCRs/ERs to an acceptable level. This paper purports to establish the threats of emerging technologies, highlight regulatory gaps under international law, and recommend an international framework to address the associated risks. Section II discusses the benefits and risks of emerging technologies, establishing that bioengineering poses a GCR/ER now while nanotechnology and AI pose a GCR/ER in the future. Section II also provides the background of attempts to enjoin the operation of the Large Hadron Collider (“LHC”) to highlight difficulties courts have in addressing low-probability scientific threats and the conflicts of interest scientists may have in self-regulation. Section III then analyzes GCRs/ERs from bioengineering under international law, concluding that no international convention sufficiently regulates the risks arising out of bioengineering. This section focuses on bioengineering because it is the only emerging technology that poses an immediate GCR/ER. Section IV stitches together the fundamentals of an international treaty that would regulate GCRs/ERs from emerging technologies through concepts such as the precautionary principle, decisionmaking from a body of experts, and public participation. Finally, Section V concludes that states should act quickly to create a flexible, legally binding treaty to regulate the emerging technologies that present a GCR/ER.