My unwritten science fiction novel
... is set in a world which has been revolutionized by nanotechnology. Invisible atomic-scale robots roam through our bodies, repairing damage. Unfortunately, nearly all of the damage they are called on to repair is related to the extremely aggressive carcinogenicity of the previous generation of nano-scale robots, which nobody knows how to remove from the atmosphere. The two lead characters are class action liability lawyers, as are roughly 50% of the population of the developed world by 2115. It's basically an exploration of the consequences of a world without death, in which 75% of GDP is dedicated to the settlement of century-old mesothelioma lawsuits. (Update: the company that makes them is incredibly profitable, of course - it just ends up spending all of its cashflow on long-tailed past liabilities)
In the sequel, the lead character is a technologist who invents a new species of parasitical nanobot which can clear the air of the Generation One carcinogens. The final volume of the trilogy is dedicated to the litigation surrounding the consequences of the Generation Threes. Working title: "I Don't Know Why She Swallowed A Fly".
You'll probably want to include a subplot with libertarians abusing Coase. And maybe some of the nanobots are Coasean bargainers.
ReplyDeleteI desperately want to be one of the contributors to your sci-fi novel's Crooked Timber symposium.
ReplyDeleteIn a word without death, it's helpful that sex has been almost entirely elminated, as each potential partner has their own personal liability attorney accompanying them throughout their day at all times.
ReplyDeleteI picture a hotel room with full-body condoms and lots and lots of disclaimers of liability forms being signed.
Erin Brockovich meets The Liberation of Earth?
ReplyDeleteQuite seriously, I assume that in the real world version of this the nanobot companies will have negotiated for themselves the same sort of deal as tobacco or oil or nuclear power. The details differ in each of those cases, but they are all essentially the same in that the industry has managed to acquire for itself some sort of immunity/limited liability.
ReplyDelete(We shall see how well this holds up in the case of BP...)
An obvious sequel to this crowd is the carbon-industrial complex, primarily big coal; and I suspect that by the time damage associated with climate change is sufficient to stand up as evidence in court, they will likewise have immunity in some form.
Asbestos is remarkable in that this did not happen. I suspect there is an interesting tale to be told there. Was there something specific to the industry that made it massively dysfunctional in its lobbying attempts? Was it outside events that made congress, at that particular time, unwilling to appear in the pocket of mining interests?
Last year my neighbor the nanotech lawyer told me (I think I remember this right) that nanotech companies try to have it both ways: when they're applying for patents they claim they've invented something new, but when it comes to liability they say it's just plain old iron atoms arranged in a particular way and there's no need to worry about it.
ReplyDeleteNext time I see him I'll ask him about liability caps.
Re name99's point: I thought that the difference was that the people with m*sothelioma weren't actually suing the asbestos miners, but the companies - shipyards, construction companies or whatever - who had been responsible for their exposure. So there wasn't really a compact identifiable group of defendant companies which could come to some sort of collective immunity deal.
ReplyDelete