I come across this very interesting paper from Maclurcan about nanotechnology discourse in the global south. Of a particular interest is his elaboration on the conscious debate of both ‘short-term’ and ‘long-term’ nanotechnology:
 

In the meantime, the debate about Southern engagement with nanotechnology has forged ahead, assuming common understandings about what nanotechnology is and what it is not, as well as the general irrelevance of definitional debates. This is potentially problematic, given the conflicting way that nanotechnology is framed in the literature relating to the technology’s impact on, and in, the South. At different times, Southern nanotechnology debates have consciously drawn on understandings that correlate with both ‘near-term’ and ‘advanced’ nanotechnology. Whilst most writing presents near-term nanotechnology as the mainstream, there are instances where advanced nanotechnology has also been presented as ‘the reality’ for the South. Bruns, for example, sees answers for global poverty through a future of accessible abundance based on the application of advanced nanotechnology [27]. Al'Afghani, on the other hand, focuses on the need for future environmental laws in the South to incorporate “mechanisms for licensing, supervision and control of emissions and disposal methods for both MNT [molecular nanotechnology] products and nanofactories” [28]. Furthermore, a 2003 briefing document for a United Nations Industrial Development Organisation Expert Group Meeting, predominantly attended by representatives from the Global South, refers to the ability for advanced nanotechnology to address medical, energy and environmental challenges via “…factories operating at the nanometer level, including nanoscale conveyor belts and robotic arms bringing molecular parts together precisely…” [29].

The bottomline of his paper is that how nanotechnology is framed will affect its regulation. Most debate has been focused on ‘near-term’ nanotechnology as opposed to ‘speculative’ (borrowing Maclurcan’s own words) nanotechnology.

As I have gathered mode knowledge on regulation, my perspective on license-management in molecular nanotechnology has changed. The more detailed explanation has to wait a bit however, since I am still preoccupied with water. 

Download the paper from SSRN (click here).

From Ted:

1. You've got to judge law mainly by its effect on the broader society, not individual disputes.

2. For law to be the platform for freedom, people have to trust it.

3. Law sets boundaries, and on one side of those boundaries are all the things you can't do or must do. But those same boundaries are supposed to define and protect a dry ground of freedom.

4.To rebuild the boundaries of freedom, two changes are essential: (i) simplify the law and (ii) restore the authority to judges and officials to interpret and apply the law.

Philip continued:

We have to simplify the law. We have to migrate from all this complexity towards general principles and goals. The constitution is only 16 pages long. Worked pretty well for 200 years. Law has to be simple enough so that people can internalize it in their daily choices. Here is the hardest and biggest change. We have to restore the authority to judges and officials to interpret and apply the law. interpret and apply the law. (Applause) We have to rehumanize the law. To make law simple so that you feel free, the people in charge have to be free to use their judgment to interpret and apply the law in accord with reasonable social norms. As you're going down, and walking down the sidewalk during the day you have to think, that if there is a dispute, there is somebody in society who sees it as their job to affirmatively protect you if you are acting reasonably. That person doesn't exist today.

You know what, I asked futurist David Brin once, and he told me that the law of the future will only have one or two articles.

With a little reflection thanks to Star Trek, I think the law of the future will only have one article.