I. Quantum Ethics
Moral issues arising from the development and utilisation of new technologies have been a constant feature of the history of civilisation. Inquiry into the ethical implications of technological innovations extends from accounts of the merits and disadvantages of particular technologies insofar as they impact everyday life, through to the broader social transformations that a particular technology, or a generational technology shift, has on society. The costs and benefits of any of these effects of technology are different depending on where one sits in terms of the ability to shape technology, the ability to harness the benefits of technology, and the ability to limit one’s exposure to the deleterious effects of technology.
The third quantum revolution, still in its early stages but progressing now quite rapidly, is bringing forth the whole range of these ethical concerns. Quantum technology has the potential to revolutionise computing, cryptography, machine learning and artificial intelligence, digital networked communications, and sensing and geospatial mapping, among much else. The ethical concerns that arise from such broad technological shifts are myriad, including data security, privacy, economic inequality and geopolitical stability, mass job displacements, the amplification of implicit biases in algorithmic computing, environmental impacts and sustainability, and, foremost in the public imagination, the threat of a new quantum arms race.
There is a long history of the mutual constitution of scientific ideas and social and political organisation. This has shaped a dynamic process of understanding and implementing ethical systems both within and between states, groups, and people.
Bentley B. Allan: “The Newtonian revolution helped reconfigure international order in a variety of ways at a variety of different levels. In its most simplistic, and perhaps overly simplistic, terms the Newtonian revolution really introduced determinist natural law into the world. If you look at Renaissance and late medieval discourses, this view that the world was controlled by law was infused with divine implications so that what political discourses unfolded within was the idea that divine providence controlled the world and was the central force of the world. And this, through links of traditional monarchical theories of sovereignty, helped to legitimate political order based on hierarchical ordering of aristocratic institutions. The Newtonian view, again, not only helped to undermine the aristocratic ordering of politics by introducing new ideas about say what blood was. If blood was no longer the aristocratic sacred essence of the elite, but merely just a substance that travelled through people’s bodies — and again it wasn’t Newton that articulated that, but rather Harvey and other scientists in the middle of the 17th century — by eliminating that source of the sacred in the aristocratic blood it helped to undermine that discourse. So the Newtonian not only undermined previous existing discourses but it constructed new ones built on this idea that the world was a harmonious system that could be understood in terms of natural laws, governed in terms of those natural laws. And again, this really culminates in 1815 at the Congress of Vienna when the powers that were represented there attempted to directly manipulate the balance of power, to directly arrange the system. If you look at all of the things that those leaders had to believe in order to actually consciously engage in that act, you have to understand that it was Newtonian scientific ideas that made all that possible.”
II. What is Ethics?
Ethics is the branch of philosophy concerned with the study of moral values, principles, and norms, and how these govern human behaviour, shape our perceptions of right and wrong, virtuous and vicious. Ethics charts our moral geography — delineating the contours of moral judgements — and seeks to understand the foundations upon which our moral judgements rest. The study of ethics consists of three distinct, yet interconnected, branches: meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics.
Meta-ethics studies the nature of moral judgements and investigates their meaning and the sources of their legitimacy. Meta-ethics examines the linguistic, epistemological, and metaphysical aspects of moral discourse and seeks to elucidate the underpinnings of ethical thought. In plain words, meta-ethics looks at what makes ethics ethical — it looks at what makes goodness ‘good,’ badness ‘bad,’ what makes right ‘right’ and wrong ‘wrong.’
Normative ethics seeks to establish moral standards to guide and regulate human conduct. Unlike meta-ethics, which studies ethics itself, normative ethics consists of ethical theories which seek to act as a foundation for proper action. The most prominent of these theories are: deontological ethics, which argues for the adherence towards moral rules and duties; consequentialism, which argues that actions should be judged by their likely outcomes; and virtue ethics, which promotes the cultivation of a moral character.
Lastly, applied ethics studies the practical applications of ethical principles and theories. By engaging with issues such as environmental ethics, business ethics, medical ethics, and so on, applied ethics bridges the gap between ethics as an abstract philosophy and the day-to-day experiences of individuals and societies. Thus, applied ethics grapples with the moral dilemmas and other complexities that permeate all aspects of human life, and allows for more nuanced understandings of the ethical challenges that confront us.
It is worth restating that these three branches of ethics are inherently interconnected with one another. While they are often studied independently, in practice it is almost impossible to separate meta-ethics from normative ethics from applied ethics.
III. Ethics in a Quantum Universe
Jairus Grove: “What would a quantum revolution look like in ethics and morality? Not because it drew on answers from quantum theory, but precisely because it saw a world in which we certainly couldn’t contain uncertainty but had to learn to live in it and maximize the possibilities for invention and thought and thinking.”
So, what does quantum mechanics mean for ethics? And what would Grove’s quantum revolution in ethics look like? There are no clear-cut answers to these questions, largely due to the ambiguity surrounding the interpretation of quantum mechanics. The interpretation of quantum mechanics is too large a topic to address here, but it suffices to say that quantum mechanics shows that our old ways of conceptualising the universe are approximations of the truth, but it does not say exactly how the universe should be conceptualised either — that is, the meaning of quantum mechanics remains contested. Nonetheless, a growing body of philosophers and social scientists have speculated as to what quantum mechanics might mean for ethics, and what a quantum ethics might look like. Three of the most prominent scholars asking this question in areas relevant to war and peace are Karen Barad, Alexander Wendt, and Laura Zanotti.
Karen Barad
Karen Barad is an eminent feminist theorist and technology scholar who has made significant contributions to quantum philosophy and ethics. Barad’s Agential Realism synthesises physics, philosophy, and feminism, and presents a theoretical framework that emphasises the entangled nature of the world and the inextricable relationships that exist between entities (human and non-human alike).
In Meeting the Universe Halfway, Barad — who is a trained physicist — draws heavily from quantum mechanics to argue that the boundaries between objects, individuals, and concepts are far more porous and malleable than is traditionally believed. Instead of a world composed of ‘things’ and ‘substances’ Barad argues that the world is composed of phenomena which emerge from the complex and dynamic interactions of entities in a process she calls “intra-action.” By introducing this process ontology, Barad challenges the assumed divisions between subjects and objects, minds and bodies, human and nature, and countless other dualisms.
When applied to ethics, Agential Realism argues that ethical considerations are woven into reality itself through intra-action and are, thus, an integral component of reality. As a fundamental constituent of reality, ethical considerations are expanded beyond the strictly human to include engagements with all non-human entities ranging from planets to particles. Barad’s quantum ethics implores us to reconsider our moral responsibilities and ethical obligations in an entangled universe. Further, it encourages us to interrogate the ways in which our actions reverberate across the intricate web of existence, shaping not only our own lives but also the broader tapestry of reality itself.
Laura Zanotti
Laura Zanotti is a noted political theorist and scholar of international relations who draws extensively on her prior work in UN peacekeeping. Zanotti’s work is influenced by and is, in many ways, a continuation of Barad’s project. In her book Ontological Entanglements, Agency and Ethics in International Relations, Zanotti applies Barad’s Agential Realism and concept of intra-action in order to delve deeper into the ethical and practical considerations elicited by quantum mechanics.
Laura Zanotti: “The way we conceptualize our ethical and political aspirations often doesn’t take into consideration the complexity of the reality within which we have to deal in order to implement those aspirations. It is my view that a lot of the Kantian ethics, the way we justify what we do based upon abstractions, is very much connected to Newtonian representations of reality. By which, we think that because we have a general principle we will have a good way of making things happen. It is often not the case. I’ve been in peacekeeping operations and we often have grand aspirations to do excellent things for humanity but we don’t ask ‘how’ questions. Everything that doesn’t work according to our aspirations becomes unintended consequences. I don’t think it’s a good way to appease ourselves or our failures. I think we should use an analytical framework that takes into consideration the complexities of causality, the entanglements of reality and the importance of the means to the end, what they call the apparatuses that we use to bring about effects.”
Zanotti, like Barad, adopts a process ontology, arguing that the universe emerges out of intra-action, and eschews traditional dualisms. Zanotti also contends that our moral responsibilities extend beyond human relations and encompass the non-human world. By emphasising the entanglement of all entities, Zanotti presents a more holistic, compassionate, and expansive understanding of ethics. Ultimately, Zanotti’s work is not fundamentally different to Barads, but it does contribute to the discourse surrounding quantum ethics and illuminates new pathways for ethical action, reflection, and engagement.
Alexander Wendt
Alexander Wendt is a prominent political scientist and theorist who has made substantial contributions to the discipline of international relations through his development of social constructivism. Wendt is also one of the founders of modern quantum international relations theory.
In his book, Quantum Mind and Social Science, Wendt boldly attempts to integrate quantum mechanics with social and political theory. Drawing upon the principles of quantum mechanics, Wendt argues that as our world grows incredibly complex and composed of intricate networks of relations and interdependencies, that the day-to-day macroscopic universe of experience is best understood in terms elicited from the subatomic quantum universe. To use his own words, Wendt argues that human beings are literally “walking wave functions.” Like Barad and Zanotti, Wendt argues that the natural and social worlds are entangled and indeterminate, and this presents some profound implications for ethics.
As the universe is entangled and interdependent, the scope of moral considerations is expanded beyond individual actions to encompass systemic and structural factors as well as non-human entities. This parallels the arguments of Barad and Zanotti in many ways, but Wendt arrives at his conclusions independently. Additionally, the concept of quantum uncertainty challenges classical notions of determinism and forces the recognition of the complex and unpredictable nature of social interactions. In turn, this invites the reconsideration of how individual actions should be judged in an entangled universe. Is an individual really an independent agent? Or merely a locus of action in a complex and interconnected network?
Ultimately, Wendt’s quantum social science invites us to reassess the nature of the natural and social worlds and, consequently, what ethics means. By recognising the interconnectedness and complexity of social phenomena, Wendt’s argues for a broader conception of ethics — one that considers the moral implications of both individual actions and the broader systemic and structural forces that shape our lives. This, in turn, offers new avenues for ethical reflection and engagement in our increasingly interconnected world.
Barad, Wendt, and Zanotti’s visions for a quantum ethics all share several features: they promote a broader relational conception of ethics that goes beyond the strictly human; they foreground the importance of complexity and entanglement; and they see engagement with quantum mechanics as crucial to achieving a holistic ethics.
As foregrounded earlier in this section, quantum mechanics shows that certain aspects of our previous understandings of the natural world were wrong and that other aspects were approximations. However, the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics remains elusive and there is no agreement as to what quantum mechanics means outside its mathematical formalism. Consequently, quantum mechanics cannot be said to definitively mean anything in particular for ethics. It may, however, mean many things.
As Bentley B. Allan stated in the introduction to this section, “The Newtonian revolution helped reconfigure international order in a variety of ways at a variety of different levels.” The same can be said for other scientific paradigms, such as Darwinian evolution or Copernican astronomy. Generally scientific ideas tend to ‘flow down’ and alter and constrain philosophical and political ideas. If and how quantum mechanics will do this remains to be seen; and it will probably not occur in the same manner of past paradigm shifts. Unless one interpretation of quantum mechanics comes to dominate all others, a universal quantum ethics is unlikely to emerge. But, in the meantime, there are other ethical considerations to be made: how quantum enables new technologies with unique ethical consequences.
Bentley Allan: “I fear that the wonderful creative potential of quantum to undermine a vision of the world premised upon control of that world will be lost. And that the wonderful potential of quantum to make our existence and to make our world seem weirder than it is will be lost, because the only interesting implication of the quantum for social and political interests will be the technological applications that it provides, which merely extend our reach from trying to control other humans, to trying to control natural systems, and now we’re going to try to also control the sub-natural or the microphysical and we’re going to use that to build the kinds of machines that merely enhance our control over the world.”
IV. Some Particular Quantum Ethical Concerns
Most of the known ethical challenges presented by emerging quantum technologies are not strictly unique to quantum. Apart from cybersecurity, which quantum computing is expected to imperil in novel ways, it is possible to approach and analyse the risks of quantum through the lens of ethical challenges posed by existing computation technologies, geopolitics, and problems within systems of research and innovation. Before the innovation forges too far ahead, it is important to take stock of these existing ethical dilemmas and, at a minimum, develop safeguards to minimize exacerbating harms and more deeply embedding power imbalances across the globe.
Quantum computing is expected to amplify existing technologically driven processes, including the development of new drugs and materials, forecasting, and optimization. Many of these processes employ the use of artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) systems. Generative AI systems, focused on creating new content and developing new ideas from existing data, are rapidly advancing. Actors from government, NGOs, business, and academia have expressed concern over a lack of transparency and understanding about how these beta technologies will continue to develop in the context of the rapid commercialization. If speed of development and a lack of sufficient oversight is an existing challenge presented by these technologies, quantum advancement is likely to spur these concerns into overdrive. Likewise with developments in the field of quantum sensing, surveillance and privacy concerns already abound with the proliferation of existing sensing technologies. Quantum advancements in these spaces may further entrench these and other issues.
The promises of the third quantum revolution are great, but so are the risks. Serious reflection, foresight, and planning are of critical importance today if the negative impacts of such a major technological shift are to be minimised. The ability to restrict and regulate quantum technology must be retained if social interests are to prevail over runaway technological development in pursuit of commercial and geopolitical advantage.
Allison Macfarlane: “If you think about some technologies, I think you can make a very strong argument that they should not be developed because the risks are too high. I think it’s good to proceed with precaution.”
Allison Macfarlane: “To do that you have to have some kind of regulator or regulatory scheme and you’re best off with an independent regulator, somebody who is free from industry and political influence. The regulator itself has to be well resourced, both with personnel and with finances. They have to have the support of the government so that they can enforce their regulations and shut down these technologies if they think the risk is too high. So I think to understand the risks of some of these technologies that we’re talking about, especially at the Q, it becomes very difficult. Because to understand the risks you have to understand both the consequences and the probabilities that these accidents or events would happen, and that’s very difficult to know.”
The need for meaningful and effective regulation in quantum is well recognised. Consensus on the best model for achieving this remains elusive, as do serious signs of international cooperation. There are a plethora of accords now on Artificial Intelligence, some 200 written since 2014. And yet AI continues to operate like a runaway train, even when some of the world’s richest and most powerful people, including preeminent tech titans, openly call for restraint and a pause on both development and rollout while serious thinking is done.
Quantum is likely to see a similar blossoming of recommendations for regulation and accords in coming years. One essential facet of effective regulation and accord building is an emphasis on multilateralism, and indeed genuine engagement and cooperation between geopolitical rivals.
Nikita Chiu: “We need to engage in dialogue and strengthen multilateralism in order to create the international environment that could ensure that the development of quantum technologies would be beneficial to society. If you look at the Outer Space Treaty it emerged under the larger disarmament and non-proliferation efforts during the peak of the Cold War. It was an attempt between the two major powers to ensure vertical and also horizontal non-proliferation. At that time, because it was a bipolar international order, once the two major powers agreed on an international treaty basically everybody would adhere to the treaty. Now we are living in a post-bipolar or hegemonic international order and we see that states are finding it difficult to come to terms with that kind of multipolar structure. That is why we see multilateral governance efforts facing so many challenges. I’m afraid at this stage it it could be challenging for the international community to come up with something such as the Outer Space Treaty or the Partial Test Ban Treaty.”
Nikita Chiu: “What we see when it comes to quantum development today is that there are a lot of private interests, private investment into these initiatives. With the competitive nature of having private actors involved in this research it has come to this point where it is quite difficult to get everybody to sit together, to plan the necessary pooling of resources and building of infrastructure, and to employ a fully integrated approach in pursuing a large scale quantum collaborative project. It doesn’t mean that collaboration can not emerge and I propose that there are still opportunities to pursue collaboration in terms of standardization and establishing interoperability, through what I would term as a patchwork collaboration. But I’m afraid that we have missed the opportunity to pursue something truly international on the scale that will allow us to prove resources together in, let’s say, developing a general purpose quantum computer.”
The 20th century is replete with examples of even the fiercest geopolitical rivals cooperating on hi-tech arms limitations out of a mutual understanding that unbounded pursuit of supremacy in these fields could be disastrous. Much of the impetus behind the cooperative limitations demonstrated in agreements like the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, came from the development of a common understanding of the catastrophic consequences of a breakdown in nuclear deterrence, which were so vividly captured in the iconic image of the mushroom cloud. Even more esoteric threats to international peace and security from emergent technologies such as Artificial Intelligence and Cyber—which are increasingly linked to, even reliant upon, quantum developments—can at least be imagined in the form of thinking robots or villainous computer hackers. Quantum’s potential disruptive impact is much harder to envision; it lacks a mushroom cloud equivalent.
The quantum advantage in war, and the ethical implications this brings, are more subtly interwoven with many of the themes that have already been in discussion in the first decades of the twentieth century. The effect and moral positioning of drones in warfare, their efficacy, the distancing they affect between operator and target, and the role of algorithmic target acquisition and computational threat calculations are now familiar to many observers. Quantum brings similar implications in terms of space, time, and the increasing abstraction of the human element in warfare.
Dean Rickles: “Since World War I, modern warfare has been characterized by conducting wars at a distance, of non-local wars, where the human parties are outside one another’s immediate causal horizon, to use a term that came up the other day. That is, in terms of what they can do by direct interaction, by contact. So I think this is really the worst problem for the way that wars are fought now. It really took shape in World War I because, I’ll argue, because of the influence of mathematically formulated laws that enable humans to exploit what’s really a curious conspiracy of nature, which is that there are invariant structures in the world that seem to persist at different locations in different times. You can basically perform non-local attacks by using these laws, ballistics for example. To put it in terms that came up yesterday your source and your targets, your victim, don’t need to be simultaneous to have an effect. In fact given that you’ve got a spatial distance between your source and target, and the missile has a finite speed, they can’t be simultaneous, so they’re happening at different points, different moments of time. I’m going to suggest in this talk that a metaphorical link between this idea, this non-local idea, and quantum non-locality.”
The impact of a new military technology on the nature of warfare, the relative advantages it conveys in distance, speed, lethality, battlefield dominance, and how it effects the distinction between combatant and civilian all raise profound ethical questions over its adoption and regulation. One of the widest known examples of political intervention for the regulation of a new military technology that involves these considerations is Pope Innocent II’s issuance of a papal bull in 1139 forbidding the use of crossbows and other missile weaponry in warfare between Christians. The edict described these weapons as ‘deadly and god-detested’, the reasoning being that with greater distance between a violent action and its lethal consequences came less responsibility and consciousness for moral restraint.
Dean Rickles: “Incidentally, Chris Fuchs mentioned a story that John Wheeler mentioned to him which is the Pope Innocent II banned crossbows precisely because of this sort of strange non-local quality, which is that you don’t need to be in the same location and be in direct contact with your victim. You don’t need to take in the full consequences of what you’ve just done. It’s also the same principle of difference that allows people to ignore poverty when it’s not in their direct line of sight, that allows internet bullies to traumatize unseen victims which are just basically text on screen is all they’ve got to go on, or financial traders to screw over millions of people because they’re just dealing with spreadsheets. Or in temporal terms it’s similar to what economists call ‘hyperbolic discounting’ which is where your distant future is discounted in terms of its importance.”
Dean Rickles: “Having this the ability to fight wars at a distance lets a strong and highly destructive cognitive bias enter into the operation of wars. When I came up with a title I didn’t realize that this expression war at a distance has already been, somebody had already come up with this expression. This is Jeanne Alexandre who was involved in the early mobilization of French industry for war, in the First World War. She writes that our true adversaries in today’s war are mathematics professors at their tables, physicists and chemists in their laboratories, war at a distance or of industry. We’re used to seeing physicists and chemists cropping up in this context but it’s maybe quite strange to see a reference to mathematics professors because we usually think of mathematics as being the most pure and abstract and disconnected from ordinary reality of the sciences. We might think that it’s gonna be something ethically neutral but as I’ll argue, it basically enables… because of its neutrality and this sort of abstract quality, it enables humans to fight in a way where they’re not in direct contact.”
Another factor that bears consideration in the case of the banning of the crossbow, and indeed when discussing the regulation, limitation, or outright ban of any technology, are its social implications. In 1139, heavy cavalry was the dominant force in European warfare, it took upwards of 100 peasants to support the arming and maintenance in the field of one knight. The knight represented and upheld the feudal social order, and the invention of the crossbow, which allowed a scantily armed and relatively unskilled peasant levy the ability to kill a mounted noble at distance, threatened the social organisation of that order itself. It was a levelling weapon, and it thus became imperative to ban that weapon (albeit largely unsuccessfully) to protect the social order.
When viewed from this perspective quantum is very much a weapon of hierarchy. The embedded costs of developing quantum technology ensure that only a relatively small number of actors are capable of competing in the field. Supercooling, facilities shielded from even miniscule levels of ambient environmental interference, critical raw materials, and intellectual capital in the form of mastery of quantum theory, scientific and engineering expertise are all required to bring quantum technology into the field of security competition. The strategic advantages that it will confer will flow inordinately to those nations and groups rich and powerful enough to harness it, it is unlikely that the those at the vanguard of its development will be the champions of its regulation.
The materials and conditions required to build and operate quantum computers at scale inherently heighten the barriers to entry on both national and global levels. Often referred to as the case of quantum “haves” and “have-nots”, if even a fraction of the benefits promised to society by quantum technology evangelists are realized, it is likely that only a portion of society will experience them. Already we have seen a divide emerge across the globe of countries rich enough to invest significant sums of public funding in quantum research and innovation, and those without a quantum program. In the context of commercialization, nearly all of the companies already capitalizing on the digital revolution are major players in quantum technology development. This concentration of power and money on a private as well as a public scale signifies a wealth gap that will only continue to expand with quantum. Likewise, the geopolitical reality of wars being fought over scarce resources required to build and maintain quantum computers may unfold. Winning the quantum “race” has the potential to destabilize global politics, with consequences such a proxy wars being fought over rare earth resources
Serious ethical accords for quantum technology will have to grapple with the geopolitical and power implications of the technology head on.
- That it will further concentrate power in the hands of the few powerful, developed states.
- That it may well cause economic and labour market disruptions in the developing world, and that this will have social and security implications.
- That we must factor in the needs, desires, and interests of the masses of marginalised people, in both the developing world and developed, who will have no material or democratic say over the development of Quantum technology, but who will undoubtedly live with its effects.
The noted IR scholar Hedley Bull was critical of arms control during the Cold War for its structural tendency to enshrine superpower parity and Mutually Assured Destruction as its end goal, and foreclose radical possibilities of disarmament that would provide global security for the rest of the world too, not just the superpowers. We must be cognisant of this risk when looking at quantum accords too, and not to take a bipolar system of quantum superpower as a fait accompli.
This is why the formation of accords and efforts to regulate quantum must involve not just the superpowers but countries who occupy different hierarchical positions and alliance alignments in the quantum race,
Cameron Archer: “One key point from the Sydney dialogue I’d focus in on, and that was actually addressed from Indian Prime Minister Modi, who said “We are at a historic moment of choice, whether all of the wonderful powers of technology of our age will be instruments of cooperation or conflict, coercion or choice, domination or development, oppression or opportunity”. So, from that, I take it that this workshop has got the opportunity to help shape the future. So, no pressure on you… But it isn’t a stretch, I don’t think, to make that claim. These early discussions will set a pathway forward on guiding, I think helping to guide technology and developments hopefully down an ethical pathway.”
V. Public/Private Considerations
As quantum technologies move from lab to industry, the commercial environment presents new ethical challenges for research translation. This transition blurs the lines between innovation for the public good and innovation for private financial benefit. Moreso than with other technologies, the knowledge capital of quantum is firmly rooted in academia. Quantum scientists are highly trained experts with specialist knowledge that is not easily gained outside of university. At this stage in the development of quantum computing, for example, the only people who have the expertise to lead a project building a quantum computer are those with years of experience in fundamental quantum science research. In the context of academic entrepreneurship, this means that a highly selective, closed group of people will be leading the development of potentially disruptive technologies.
The first part of research commercialization of course begins with research. This initial phase in the development of novel quantum technologies has been publicly funded, but the commercialization of quantum technologies will reap private benefits for either the universities, if researchers commercialize within these systems, or the individual if they attract private funding. The introduction of commercial interests through the development of IP in an academic setting can also contradict the ethics of an open and collaborative research environment, impeding collaboration due to privacy concerns, and creating potential blocks for an internationally collaborative environment in the development of quantum technologies. Negotiating this murky relationship between public and private benefit raises significant ethical questions, such as which types of research funding should be prioritized, and how benefit will flow to the public from commercial development of academic research efforts.
Andrew Dzurak: “But in order to converge on one big effort you need to down select on a particular technology. The other aspect, which I talked about on the panel, was that I think that there are starting now to be commercial interests that could eventually close things down and want certain things to be protected, intellectual property to be protected. Once that happens it becomes more difficult to imagine… Large scale scientific projects are usually for projects that are not commercially applicable or at least that are so broadly commercially applicable, like the human genome, that not one company is going to own them. So I think the commercial factors will be important and of course so will national security aspects as well.”
In an academic environment, researchers are required to obtain approval for their work from an ethics committee to ensure accountability, manage risks, and limit harms. In a commercial context, risk is understood almost exclusively in terms of financial loss to investors rather than any potential harms that may be wrought by the introduction of novel technological applications to society. Pulling ethics through private funding initiatives is not an easy process. While venture capital organisations may be incentivized to explore whether their potential investments are likely to cause extreme harms to people or planet, the nuances of these considerations are not their area of expertise or interest, nor are academic entrepreneurs trained to think in this way. Without the meaningful involvement of legal and ethical experts and social scientists in the innovation process, questions of ethics and the moral dimensions of technological development are unlikely to become serious considerations early on. The commercial sector also demands that quantum companies hasten the timelines of technological development and deployment to get their products to market faster than competitors. This, combined with geopolitical pressure to not lose the quantum “race”, creates an environment not amenable to deliberation of potential ethical quandaries in the development of novel quantum technologies.
Jarius Grove: “I noticed this time around that there’s a second level of concern, which is — I don’t think until Q4 [the fourth annual Q Symposium] did we really see what the capital investment and startup culture of quantum computing is. And you can tell there’s a different level of investment because the scientists now aren’t just thinking about what does this research mean, they’re also thinking about how is the research going to become a product. How is it going to be something that they have to build a narrative around as well? It’s a very different kind of narrative. I could see it in Mike [Biercuk] I could see it in others, they’re now thinking about not just the application but selling quantum to the world and they react differently to these geopolitical questions and these ethical questions.”
Within a commercial setting, companies are incentivized to overpromise on the impacts of their technologies. As such, the development of novel technologies is often driven by hyped narratives about the transformational or disruptive impacts a product will have. While hype can capture both public and private interest and motivate financing, it can also deliver harmful impacts that go beyond the oft-cited bounds of investor disillusionment and market collapse. While the initiation of a quantum “winter”—a potentially fatal slowdown of private sector interest and investment into quantum technologies—is a legitimate concern in relation to quantum hype, there are other ethical dimensions too. Hype can direct the developmental trajectory of quantum technologies, privileging the development of certain (likely, more profitable or more relevant for defence) applications over others (that may lead to significant impacts for a greater number of people but be less profitable).
The impacts of hype can also bleed into university systems where academic institutions are heavily invested in the development of commercial quantum applications. Hyped narratives have the potential to impact fundamental science research funding priorities in line with media booms, which may not produce sustainable research and development for a greater public good. Limiting the negative impacts of hype is an ethical challenge that will require the management of expectations whilst maintaining investor interest in emerging quantum technologies.
The commercial development of quantum technologies is driven by the promise that they will solve many difficult problems. While we don’t yet know exactly which problems they will provide a significant advantage in solving, we should also be asking who they will solve problems for—the few, or the many? It is unlikely that the benefits of quantum commercialization will trickle down to the many if existing systems of inequality and power imbalances remain unquestioned and directing quantum development priorities.
We are on the verge of a quantum technological revolution that has the potential to reconfigure international, domestic, economic, and social orders. Our world is becoming ever more entangled and interconnected, but our ethical frameworks for understanding this world, and our systems of regulation, cooperation, and diplomacy are not developing apace. Regardless of whether we adopt the quantum ethics proposed by Barad, Wendt, Zanotti, or something completely different, a quantum revolution in ethics is needed if we are to alter the trajectory of the world away from war and environmental collapse and towards peace, sustainable prosperity, and equity.
Peace
The third quantum revolution, still in its early stages but progressing now quite rapidly, is bringing forth the whole range of ethical concerns.