Don't Stymie Nanotech 352
Anonymous Coward writes "A new paper released by the Pacific Research Institute says that nanotechnology holds benefits for society if not blocked by misguided regulation or outright bans. Already, some prominent individuals (like Bill Joy) have questioned the rationale of continuing nanotech research - PRI's paper explains that nanotech has more benefits than drawbacks, and that bans and heavy regulation are not in society's best interests"
It has more benefits than drawbacks... (Score:4, Insightful)
2) Only if the infamous 'grey goo' problem doesn't become reality. Then we're ALL fucked.
It's like nuclear bombs. We're stepping into unknown territory here, and there is lots of potential for evil. Hell, at first, they weren't even sure if an a-bomb detonation would IGNITE THE ATMOSPHERE, killing us all. Luckily, it didn't-- we dodged a bullet. We may not be so lucky next time.
On the other hand, if you ban it, then (not to be trite or anything, but...) "only criminals will have nanotech." So the terrorists will have nanotech, and the Mafia, but not the legitimate scientists.
Really, it's a lose-lose situation any time you open such a Pandora's box. Either way, you have to worry.
On the bright side, a lot of good can come out of new developments like this too.
w00t! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:It has more benefits than drawbacks... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's kind of like saying, "This morning I got out of bed, had my oatmeal, and went to work, all without getting gored by a unicorn! Whew! That was close! Dodged a bullet there."
The idea of self-replicating nanotechnological assemblers is a dumb one, and Drexler deserves a special form of ridicule for ever seriously proposing it. That said, though, the "gray goo" problem is already here, and it's widespread. Except it's not gray. It's green.
Re:It has more benefits than drawbacks... (Score:2)
If you're going to get a (3, Insightful) for this post, then you really ought to back up the above with a good solid argument.
Re:It has more benefits than drawbacks... (Score:3, Informative)
Didn't realize I needed one. It seems to me that the drawbacks to Drexler's ideas are blindingly obvious. But, if you need to hear them, try reading this [slashdot.org]. What you're looking for, stated incredibly briefly, is near the bottom.
The problem is (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't know anything about bacteria, and imagine bacteria sized self assembling little armored tanks with superior memory and AI to bacteria, that can somehow extract energy from their environment faster and more efficiently than bacteria (maybe with little nuclear engines?) the idea makes alot of sense.
And the divide is rather hard to cross unless you've had at least a college level micro-bio course or done equivalent research. (though I would disagree with the 'green' part, the 'grey goo' is already here, and it is inside us [wadsworth.org], but it more white to transluscent than green:-).
sorry forgot to close my tags (Score:4, Insightful)
Which was the point I was trying to make, thanks! (I thought "little nuclear reactors" would make it pretty clear I was pointing out the "gray goo" idea ignores the basic problems of energy source and heat dissapation).
But you're right, with folks seriously going off about the dangers of molecule sized diamond tanks, they might not notice the sarcasm tags around the nano-nukes:-)
Re:It has more benefits than drawbacks... (Score:2)
That said, I think we can agree that any of the alternatives suggested would be an order of magnitude better than the current plurality system, and that therefore the most productive use of one's energy is to get one of these systems adopted, rather than to bicker about which is the theoretical best one.
To that end, IRV has several advantages: First, it's easy for anyone to understand how it works, which is extremely important -- people won't trust a system they can't understand, and they won't adopt a system they don't trust. Second, it has a decent amount of political momentum behind it already, with IRV already having been adopted in San Francisco, and being seriously considered in Vermont and elsewhere. Other methods would have to start from scratch, which would mean more elections held using the current, inadequate plurality system.
If it weren't for the political realities mentioned above, I'd probably advocate Borda count or Condorcet voting instead -- but since I want to see reforms actually happen and not just get discussed, IRV is good enough for me.
Re:It has more benefits than drawbacks... (Score:2)
Because I'm fairly sure that those exist.
Re:It has more benefits than drawbacks... (Score:3, Insightful)
These people have no idea what nanotech IS (Score:4, Interesting)
If people want to debate specific techniques, that's fine, but the huge variety of techniques unfortunately clustered as "nanotech" share only one common thread: they have small, well-controlled features. Is small inherently evil? Should we fear dwarves and chihuahuas? I mean, this is honestly ridiculous. Many of these evil "nanotech" research pursuits are nothing more than attempting to make stronger materials and more efficient solar cells, for example. No one would fear this if you didn't call it nanotech.
On the other hand, if you ban it, then (not to be trite or anything, but...) "only criminals will have nanotech."
Would that be the criminals with multi-billion dollar research AND development laboratories? Right. This is exactly the view shared by the non-tech world, and it shows a lack of understanding of what nanotech IS (no offense). I can't just go to the garage, make some nanotech, and kill someone with it.
People outside (and many in) the scientific community simply have no real idea of what nanotech is. For a few years there, the best way to get a research grant approved was to make sure that the word nanotech was somewhere in there. That was just as dumb as saying "ban nanotech." Banning specific techniques perhaps makes sense, but again, why ban something because it's small? Don't throw out the solar cell with the self-sharpening bullet.
Re:These people have no idea what nanotech IS (Score:3, Insightful)
You can argue all you want about the "benefits" any technology has, and that resistance to the "advances" it has brought are Luddite. That doesn't change the fact that there are more poor, starving, diseased people on this planet RIGHT NOW than there ever have been at any one point in history.
That's only because there are more people alive now than ever PERIOD. As a fraction, the portion of starving and/or diseased people is lower now than ever, as evidenced by the doubling of life spans in the thrid world, and tripling in the indistrialized world. That much is indisputable.
"Science" has had nearly three hundred years to show how it can benefit the bulk of humanity, and yet most people--outside of those who would ever read this forum, sadly, still live lives of quiet desperation, with little or no voice in the direction that "science" is taking them and the rest of us.
First, you assume that someone who doesn't live in your world is miserable, which is not necessarily true. Second, coming to America and studying SCIENCE is a very common way for people to come from very poor areas and learn skills to improve their lives. Frequently these people go back to their homelands, trained, to make their nations better.
Since almost every modern technology emerges out of militarism--whether as an advance of it or in response to it, and since we might be able to agree that killing entities other than ourselves for dubious reasons determined by the upper class is less than optimal, the jump from nanotech being a scientific endeavor to an evil pursuit is not that great of a leap.
That was true 500 years ago but not now. The drug industry (and non-combat related biotech) is the largest growth industry right now. Communications is not far behind. Neither industry arose from military (Alexander Grahm Bell's telephone, germ theory, viral vaccinations all arose from civilian research). As far as nanotech=evil....where is the first world committing genocide? I don't know where these myths come from, but not anytime in the last 50 years.
Nanotech research, in my opinion, should go forward, but it needs to be absolutely open, WITHOUT a market-driven force propelling it (the same applies to genetic engineering, as well.) I realize that is a pie-in-the-sky requirement
Pie in the sky is an understatement. People are inherently lazy, and don't want to do anything unless it will also benefit them at the same time. Does that suck? Yes, but that means if we want things to help people, we have to help the helper at the same time (say, financially). As for open, I agree, and that's the role of the peer-review publication system. But the market driven force has to be there or nothing will come of it.
What is wrong with using the loaded word of evil in describing those who do what they want without consulting me when I am directly affected by what they do?
Well, it's a bit arrogant if you define your sphere of "being affected" so broadly. Other than intellectually, you haven't been harmed in any way that I can see.
(Certainly our President has tossed the word around at least as "carelessly" as I.)
Comparing the nanotech industry to the atrocities committed by the North Korean or Iraqi dictatorships is a bit much. We're talking genocide here.
Re:It has more benefits than drawbacks... (Score:3, Insightful)
Saying "We might destroy everything while trying to do this one thing. Therefore we shouldn't do it" is a horrible reason to not do something. If that were actually a real possibility, destroying everything, there would be many more concrete reasons in plain sight explaining why we shouldn't do something. Saying be careful is a non-issue. Saying people should be responsible is part of an after school special. Saying, hypothetically, we could turn every single thing into grey goo is pure BS.
Re:It has more benefits than drawbacks... (Score:2)
That's 'cause "...democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." -Winston Churchill
Not in this sense (Score:2)
Once these things get into nature, it's anyone's guess what would happen. Since bacteria haven't evolved to compete with this form of life, it could seriously disrupt bacteria in the biosphere. Without the proper balance of bacteria and other microorganisms in the soil, the massive disruption moves up the food chain and we have big problems.
It's also kind of FUDish (Score:2)
If they are made of metal, it's going to take a bunch of energy and/or time for one to make another, being "nano" doesn't get you a free pass from 2lot.
If they are made of flesh, then they are not going to be very tough, not any tougher than rats or starlings anyway.
So you have can fast replicators that aren't very tough or you can have slow replicators that are more tough. Either way, it's pretty hard to get something bad enough to cause human beings serious trouble.
I mean we have tank making factories that are pretty much automated now, if we made tanks that could make other tanks in the field, they would still need tons of steel, plastics, energy, etc. delivered to them, and (lacking things like cranes, assembly lines, forms, etc) probably would be a whole lot less efficient than making a tank in a factory anyway.
I'm not saying that the technology should be unregulated, but I am saying that the 'end is near' prophecies like Joy's are not born out by the facts & probably do more harm than good in the search for responsible and reasonable controls.
Bill Joy (Score:5, Funny)
It doesn't take half a brain to see this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It doesn't take half a brain to see this. (Score:3, Interesting)
We can't 'eat' air and dirt and use it (and it alone) to grow and reproduce. Nanites could, in theory, do just that, by using raw materials in the air and the earth to reproduce. It all depends on (A) how they are programmed, (B) how they mutate, and (C) how lucky (or unlucky) we are.-
Re:It doesn't take half a brain to see this. (Score:5, Insightful)
NO, neither could "Nanites"; simply being super tiny dosen't confer upon you the ability to circumvent the laws of thermodynamics! The amount of negative entropy available in any such reaction from eating air and dirt would be so miniscule as to prevent the Nanite from reproducing uncontrollably. Just like THESE [wisc.edu] bacteria that acually DO subsist on air nd dirt alone(nearly).
The parent post's point still stands, as I see it.
Re:It doesn't take half a brain to see this. (Score:2)
And they have, essentially, reproduced out of control. Every place on Earth where a plant could grow, there's one growing.
Except that goddamned bare spot in my lawn. But that's another issue altogether.
Re:It doesn't take half a brain to see this. (Score:2)
what's "control"? They obey the same laws of physics and chemistry as every other organism on the planet and through millions of years of adaptation they exist in balance with those other organisms, consumning and being consumed by them.
Why can't I consider bacteria "Nanites"?
Re:It doesn't take half a brain to see this. (Score:2)
Control in the nanotechnology "gray goo" sense. Arbitrary and externally imposed limits on growth. Like I said before, everywhere plants can grow, they are growing. I doubt we would like it very much if self-reproducing nanotechnological assemblers followed that same pattern.
Re:It doesn't take half a brain to see this. (Score:2)
Plants need both roots and leaves to grow and reproduce. The roots collect nutrients and the leaves collect energy. Nanites, however, can't be in both the ground and the air at once.
Re:It doesn't take half a brain to see this. (Score:2)
Re:It doesn't take half a brain to see this. (Score:2)
Uh... what do you think a plant is? A plant uses nothing but air, dirt, sunlight, and water to grow and reproduce. What's the result? Little bastards are everywhere, man!
Re:It doesn't take half a brain to see this. (Score:2)
I am not saying that this kind of stuff isn't dangerous, but I think the "grey goo" possibility is more than a bit far fetched, and to have pompus jackasses who like to be quoted using it for publicity even damages the credibility of smart, hard working people who are trying to rationally analyize the real dangers of nano-tech and bio-engineering.
This is not a moral issue (though some people may have moral issues with it). This is not an issue to be addressed by making impassioned speaches, or eloquent essays backed by political ideologies. There are right answers here. we have or can learn what we need to make good, well-informed decisions.
Re:It doesn't take half a brain to see this. (Score:2)
These "Nanites" or whatever-you-want-to-call-em would need power. Where will they get this power? Solar? Derived from feul of some sort? Parasitic?
How will they store this power? Will they just go dormant while waiting for power? Or, will they store it onboard and in what form?
They will need motive capability, reproductive options, self-repair, recovery of resources, command and control(brain) etc... which would make for a not so nano nanocreature.
Biological systems are put together in such a way that a nanotech machine would have to mimic them at a molecular level to even be viable. Why mimic what we already have? Biological systems are mutatable/recombinable/breedable. Heck, we've been doing the breedable part for thousands of years with much success.
Mod me down, call me a critic but...This nanotechnology has about as much chance of becoming reality as human beings going backward in time. Aint gonna happen in yer lifetime bud... mine neither.
So, get real. Don't be afraid. It ain't a reality.
P.S. Hey everybody! Let's reinvent the wheel! Now there is an idea who's time has come.
But wouldthey play by the same rules of physics? (Score:2)
They would probably do better if they did, after all terrestrial biology does a very good job of extracting the available energy & raw materials and turning it into new terrestrial biology.
Nanites could, in theory, do just that, by using raw materials in the air and the earth to reproduce.
Huh? What "theory" is going to free them from the need for an energy source? Are they powered by minature nuclear reactors then?
It all depends on (A) how they are programmed,
Ahh, then they will have nano-scale Pentium 8s with AI 2020 pre-installed on nano-scale terrabyte hard drives?
I mean if they are "going to be programmed" they need processors to run the programs, memory to hold the programs, and a power source and cooling system for the above. Even given quantum computing, it seems pretty unlikey you are going to pack all that into a little bit of goo that can also defend itself against a predatory nematode. [blm.gov]
Re:It doesn't take half a brain to see this. (Score:3, Interesting)
No, ma'am, it's not. Molecules are basically all the same when it comes to interacting with their environment. It's only when you start to look at them on the macroscopic scale that you start to see factors like hardness and tensile strength come into play. At the atomic level, a molecule composed of iron and lead is just as fragile as one made of nitrogen and oxygen. The same outside factors-- temperature, pressure, pH, radiation, etc.-- can crack metallic molecules apart as easily as anything else.
That said, nobody has proposed molecule-scale structures made of metal atoms. Carbon is just too damn useful not to construct the basic structure of your nanotechnological machine out of it. Once you start thinking about these things, the realization dawns that the most suitable elements for molecule-scale machines-- carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous, oxygen-- are the same elements that comprise all life on Earth. Maybe there's a reason for that...
Re:It doesn't take half a brain to see this. (Score:3, Interesting)
Famous last words, friend. If there is anything humanity must learn, it is that we are imperfect. We must integrate into our planning the possibility that we are dead wrong, or face the consequences.
Anyway, by the time nanotech advances to a point where gray goo is conceivable, the world will probably suck bad enough and most people will be too self-absorbed to care if it all disappears.
On a brighter note, I believe that nanotech holds the possibility for a whole new way of living; a much happier way of living. It would turn our system upside down and revolutionalize what we spend our time on every day. The reason I have negative feelings is that the powerful and corrupt will have a hard time letting go of a world where they are on top and we are just peons. They'll be trying to find a way to stay on top.
Re:It doesn't take half a brain to see this. (Score:2)
Re:It doesn't take half a brain to see this. (Score:2)
Huh? The only reason we humans haven't destroyed the world is that we're physically incapable of doing so. This planet is bigger than we are. Don't underestimate it.
We would eventually destroy the earth for the purposes of supporting most animal life if we continued down the path we started in the industrial revolution.
There's no evidence at all to support this statement. It is possible to introduce substances into the soil or the water that prevent plant life from growing, but can you imagine what it would take to cover the entire surface of the planet with such substances? It's simply not possible for humanity, even if we put our minds to it, to manufacture that much of anything. We might mess up a few places here and there, but the vast majority of the biosphere would survive just fine. Ten thousand years or so-- the blink of an eye in geological terms-- and you won't even be able to see the bare spots.
If you need convincing of this, just remember that life-- complex life, not just microbes-- thrives around deep ocean volcanic vents. A less hospitable environment would be hard for us to imagine: superheated, saturated with heavy metals and other unhealthy substances, and yet crab-like arthropods and other complex animal forms survive down there with no trouble at all.
The world is bigger, older, and more complex than you give it credit for being.
Already happened (Score:2)
It already happened millions of years ago.
Darwin's menagerie of creatures actually did consume much of the planet, leaving behind waste products such as coal, chalk, and the biggie: oxygen in the air.
Re:It doesn't take half a brain to see this. (Score:2)
In fact, they managed, that's the key of evolution and why many species have lasted till today and why hundred million other have not.
It may well be true that after the grey goo era end, humans will not have survived whereas probably some other creature or bacteria would have survived. Several million years later, I can be some stupid cochroachs or rats leader will fully embrace their own extinction, leaving place for another kind of creature to screw themselves.
In short, we are not discussing if they can completely erradicate life on earth on a permanent basis, we are only caring that they must obsolete US, driving us to extinction. That's something I'd be very worried about.
Banning? (Score:2)
They're against it because he's for it? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, okay, he (Prof. Reynolds) makes a strong case against prohibition (of course, as a ccientist, I'm easy to persuade that R&D should never be banned outright.) Military secrecy is something I dislike, again, because secrecy is not good for science. Neither of these proposals are being floated in reasonable circles anyway, so this is something of a straw man proposal.
So, why does he oppose even modest regulation? From the paper, as it is academic in nature, it can be difficult to tell what policy he advocates, but I'm pretty sure he favores the lassez-faire option. He makes some arguments about deregulation generally which I regard as pretty vaccuous. Requiring companies to use the best available technology encourages other companies to research it and then force the first company to buy.
Anyway, to answer your question - the reason we'd want to regulate nanotechnology is because it might be dangerous. The thousands and thousands of completely harmless applications of nanotechnology - basically just material science - don't need any special regulation. It is only when the nanotechnology begins to resemble a living organism that the need for regulation comes into play. The fear, and it is remote but still legitimate, is that someone would make tiny robots that would breed out of control and become a social problem.
He points to biotechnology (which is basically unregulated, except in so far as it is also medical) as a big success. It has been - SO FAR. As yet, we have had no environmental catastrophes resultant from biotech, and the medical errors have been fairly small in scope, and would have been prevented if existing laws/procedures had been followed.
However - that doesn't mean that what we're doing is safe. It means, either, that what we've been doing is safe OR that we've been lucky. Personally, I think biotech is "pretty safe," but that agro-biotech (Monsanto, in particular) has too much free reign.
In any case, until we have a better idea of what nanotechnology will actually be like, it is premature to discuss regulation to make sure it is safe. Banning nanotechnology outright would be impossible for the reasons he has mentioned. Banning specifically self replicating nanotechnology, though I think it inadvisable, WOULD be feasable. Regulating self-replicating nanotechnology is probably desirable.
Re:They're against it because he's for it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, I am pretty far from a libertarian - in fact, I hate the fact that Slashdot message boards often have a very libertarian slant. However, that being said, Glenn Reynolds is far from a libertarian nut job. I've been reading his blog, Instapundit [instapundit.com], for a while now, and he's not a crazy by any means. As for his paper, your summary of it makes it sound ridiculous, when in fact it is not. Simply put, he is arguing that the people's right to guns was intended by the crafters of the constitution as a way for the people to be able to maintain their liberty against an oppressive government by force if it was necessary. Given that Jefferson famously said that the tree of liberty needed to be watered by the blood of revolution every twenty years, it is not crazy to argue that the founding fathers intended for people to have funs so that they could overthrow a government that attempted to take away their freedom.
It may not be correct, but it's not an illogical argument. And Reynolds is not a nutjob, by any means.
Re:They're against it because he's for it? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it merely grants us the facilities to do so, ie guns. Obviously you're breaking the law when you attempt to overthrow the law. The second amendment can be thought of as a "failsafe" in case the the law gets out of hand. Quis Custodiat Custodes?
That's why I own many guns.
Re:They're against it because he's for it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, not really. He takes the assumption that the right of armed revolution is a given, which is fair considering that the concept is basically codified in the Declaration of Independence. But the bulk of his paper refers to Tennessee state case law, which actually has supported the idea of the right of the citizenry to possess arms for the purpose (among others) of resisting oppression should it arise. Frankly, it's a pretty interesting idea in the age-old gun control argument.
So, why does he oppose even modest regulation?
Short answer: because there must always be those who favor total regulation, and those who favor no regulation at all, so that the rest of us can adopt the measured approach of some regulation.
Compromise can't happen unless people disagree. I salute the Libertarian nutjobs out there, because they're doing us the service of reminding us why some encroachment on freedom is necessary in a free society. And, bless their little hearts, you've just gotta respect people who stick to it even though they never, ever get their way.
Second amendment. (Score:2, Insightful)
Put yourself in their shoes... they had just broken free from England by force. They firmly believed that English rule was tyranical and took up arms to break free. In this light, it is easy to see how the founding fathers would be weary of government. The second ammendment is not in the Constitution so that every yahoo redneck and crack dealer has the right to shoot tin cans. The second ammendment is a final check-and-balance when all others fail, granting the right of the people to bear arms such that should the need arise, a militia could be formed.... not to fend off the Indians or English mind you.. but the government.
Of course there isn't a "right" to overthrow the government,... they just wanted to make sure it was possible.
Of course, some will say that this is only my interpretation...but don't take my word for it! Lets do a google search and see what thye founding father had to say...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like that Star Trek episode? (Score:2)
The Trouble with Aibos...
Wots in the Turbo Lift? Aiieeee!
I agree with the Report (Score:2)
And since that would be virtually impossible, this would mean that only outlaws would develop nanotech, and rather than stop it we get mostly malign nanotechnologies. The better alternative is to keep it entirely Open Source, which ensures quality control, transparency, accountability, and safety.
Planet P [planetp.cc] - Liberation With Technology.
Re:I agree with the Report (Score:2)
Right, that's EXACTLY what Bill Joy suggested. Totalitarian police state. Right.
Re:I agree with the Report (Score:2)
Problems probably mostly isolated to America (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, not all religious folks are this way, but I presume a large percentage of them are. Furthermore, there are other groups that play an equal role in the problem, such as the human rights activists who are so against stem cell research.
Re:Problems probably mostly isolated to America (Score:2)
I fail to see how you can claim the US has "an abundance of religious fundamentalists" when we have dozens dead in riots against (get this) the Miss World Pagent.
An abundance compared to other Western countries? Maybe, but I'd require proof demonstrating that we have more "fundamentalists" per capita. Throughout the entire world? Hell no.
At any rate, as someone else already pointed out, when the US "bans" some sort of research, they're really just banning federal funding of the research. The big decision of President Bush last year concerning stem cell research, for example, only applies to federal funding of stem cell research, not the research in general.
Re:Problems probably mostly isolated to America (Score:2)
Just don't do it in secret (Score:5, Insightful)
Somethings to keep in mind (Score:2)
F-bacher
Re:Just don't do it in secret (Score:2)
If it allows or eases nanotech weapons it will be a mess. Granted, it probably will be much simpler than scifi a la Diamond Age or Rise of Endymion in the beggining, but i think it can be worst in the future.
I mean, can there be a technology that simply can't be stopped unless you are actually stoping peopl from accesing the technology at all? Nanotech is the worst evemy of the human race for sure, though it could be a great ally, the benefit should be net positive.
As an example, nuclear research has been positive up to 22/11/2002. If there is at any time a nuclear war or detonation, no matter how much it helped, we'd have been better with it than with it.
Re:I'm such an asshole (Score:2)
The weapon that comes closest to perfection is now the same thing that it always has been: an well-trained and well-armed infantryman. Or, even better, a couple million of them.
Re:I'm such an asshole (Score:3, Insightful)
Save that quote, it will be good fodder for a future list of short-sighted predictions about the future. And while you're at it, check out page 11 of the article, which reads:
"Nanotechnology is likely to permit... artificial "disease" agents that could hide undetected in the bodies of enemy populations or leaders until triggered by external stimuli"
Sounds plausible to me (or at least as plausible as nanotechnology in general).
Re:I'm such an asshole (Score:2)
If, on the other hand, you're talking about somehow getting a nanotechnological agent into an enemy leader directly, rather than infecting an entire population, just cut out the BS and shoot the bastard instead. You're close enough, and it's much less expensive.
Re:I'm such an asshole (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong on both counts. Nanotechnological diseases may or may not behave just like biological ones, depending on how they are designed. And in any case, biological diseases are already capable of discrimination. For example, look at malaria, which people from equatorial regions are more resistant to than others.
Nothing on a biological level separates the White Hats from the Black Hats, so it is simply not
possible to engineer a disease-- biological or otherwise-- that gets them but not us.
That depends. If your goal is genocide, there may be plenty of differences. Different races will have different markers in their DNA (those differing phenotypes have to come from somewhere, don't they?), they may have different diets.
The only hope for such a battle plan is geographic isolation, which, like counting on the direction of the wind in the trenches of the Great War, is no plan at all
Not at all. With a properly nasty nanotech "disease", you would spread it far and wide, infecting both your people and theirs. The agents would be program to remain inert and unnoticed until they received a certain trigger message (transmitted by radio or other means), at which point they would activate, killing or disabling their host. The trick would be that only you know the trigger message. You can then go around at will, killing whole populations using nothing more than a directional radio antenna.
Religious paranoid idiots will ban anything (Score:4, Insightful)
We should be embracing the future and figuring out how to use new technologies to our advantage. Not avoiding the inevitable (i.e., human cloning, gene therapy, nanotech, biotech, etc). New technologies will come and be used whether we like it or not. Cloning will occur whether we ban it or not. The only question is if we're going to be left in the dark -- in a relative middle ages -- because of our own irrational fear and paranoia.
Some jelly bottles now say "free of genetically modified organisms". That's nice, considering genetically modified organisms aren't necessarily any worse or better than natural ones -- just different. Also, nice to know there might be millions of natural deadly bacteria in it. Sort of like the "all natural" bullshit -- shit is natural, but I wouldn't want to eat it.
Re:Religious paranoid idiots will ban anything (Score:2, Insightful)
That may be the case in the area where you live, but worldwide, we see that the least religious folk (Europeans, in a somewhat recent worldwide survey) [religioustolerance.org] are also the most stringent about genetically modified organisms [netlink.de].
So, the moral of the story is: just because you might happen to know (alright, we might all happen to know) some religious folk who are not willing to listen to a single new idea, don't blame all religious folk (or even the majority) for resisting technology. The evidence shows that religiosity is not at all correlated to technological resistance.
To go a step further in your thinking, don't just assume that all technology is good. Don't assume it's bad either. Rather, think intelligently about the pros and cons, and based on those make a decision.
Tony
Re:Religious paranoid idiots will ban anything (Score:5, Insightful)
The wonderful thing about being a human being is that we can choose what to do and what not to do. I can choose to stop at a crosswalk, or I can choose to plow through a crowd of second-graders.
Your argument is basically that it's foolish to stop. Somebody out there is going to plow through a crosswalk anyway, so we might as well get in there and figure out how to use it to our advantage. If you think I'm misrepresenting your argument, maybe you'd better go back and read your own words again. "New technologies will come and be used whether we like it or not. Cloning will occur whether we ban it or not." You say this as if there were no moral or ethical aspect to it whatsoever, and that's simply not true.
Some things just should not be done. If you're an amoral person-- and your post, especially the part about "religious paranoid idiots," certainly seems to suggest that you are-- then you probably reject this assertion on its face. If that's the case, I won't bother trying to convince you otherwise. (My opinion is that people with no sense of morality or ethics at all are mentally ill in a way we just haven't figured out yet. Nothing personal; it's just a theory.)
So let's just take as given that you believe, at least on some level, that some things are just morally wrong, and should not be done. I'll take an easy example: we have the technology to safely and painlessly sterilize people who have congenital mental or emotional defects. Such people obviously aren't capable of making rational decisions about reproduction by themselves, due to their defects, and we have the technology to do it for them. Should we do it?
The correct answer here is no. No person has the right to do something that drastic to another without just cause and without that person's informed consent. So some things are simply morally wrong. (You don't have to agree, but you do have to have an opinion. Not having an opinion on this question means you have no ethical sense at all; in that case, just stop reading, because I'm not interested in arguing about the nature of ethics with you.)
Is cloning wrong, morally, ethically, pragmatically, or for some other reason? How about stem cell research using in vitro embryos? I don't have answers to those questions, but it's vitally important that we ask them. Because the answer might just turn out to be yes. And if it is, and we didn't bother to think about it before acting, the results would be tragic beyond any justification.
When you were small, your parents-- or somebody, surely-- taught you to look both ways before crossing a road. This is the same principle. Should we ban cloning, or nanotechnology, or any such thing? I don't know. But I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we must ask the questions, and we must have the arguments, because the risk of acting without forethought is far too great.
Also, nice to know there might be millions of natural deadly bacteria in it.
Jellies and jams, and other canned and jarred goods, are inherently pasteurized. The jelly is poured into the jar while still quite hot-- over 140 F-- and the jar sealed. No bacteria in a jelly jar unless the seal is broken. You don't have to be afraid of the jelly jar any more.
Re:Religious paranoid idiots will ban anything (Score:4, Insightful)
Your analogy with the crosswalk is rather inapplicable to the situation, as at a crosswalk crowded with second graders, I know the outcome, and I know that society will be no better for me turning little Timmy into a speed bump. With nanotech and other stuff, this is all uncharted territory. There is a relative degree of uncertainty as to what will happen. As opposed to driving through a crosswalk, where all I've got is a dead seven year old.
As for assuming he is amoral just because he feels strongly against the religious right is just plain foolish. You are confusing morality and ethics with religion. They are two totally separate things. I consider myself a moral person, but I don't want other people to try and force THEIR morals upon me, which the religious right has a tendancy to do.
The questions you ask are the kind that will probably never have an answer. We have been trying to decide exactly what constitutes "life" (not biological life, but conscious life) for thousands of years, if not longer. I do agree, the risk of acting without forethought is there, but also there is the risk of not acting.
There is no universal answer to questions of morality, as morals vary from person to person, society to society. Myself, I don't find pornography morally offensive, but I know a great many people do. In America, we do not find the sight of a woman's legs morally offensive, but in Saudi Arabia, they do.
The basis for applying these morals gets especially sticky in the areas of 'altering life' (nanotech, gene therapy, even abortion, though that's a whole other matter) because we don't even know what makes "life" exist. Yes, we've sequenced the genome, but without the so-called "spark of life," all you have is a lifeless, gene-sequenced body. What actually creates life? Many would say God. Others would not. But should we not at least try to find the answer, or should we just throw up our arms and say "It is the work of God!"
That is simply ignorant.
Re:Religious paranoid idiots will ban anything (Score:2)
What would you base your decision to promote or ban the technology BEFORE it is developed, if you know that would be the outcome (green/red buttons)?
For: people are good, they will never do the bad thing and if the do, well, that's just what must happen, advances can't be stoped.
Against: we are better of with some scarcity and not putting the end of the universe as an individual choice. Any single human could devastate everything everywhere, no matter what the rest thinks.
This of nuclear power: the against would say the fact that it is inmenselly benefical does not compensate the risk, that is, ending the human race existance on earth. Ok, granted we haven't seen a disaster yet, but the fate of earth lies in the fingers of 10 or 20 people arround earth, sa Bush, France, Rusia. If their leader ever wanted to end life on earth, it's at their reach for sure. IS THAT GOOD?
Re:Religious paranoid idiots will ban anything (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, anything that's morally wrong is simply morally wrong. That's because morality depends on one or more fundamental axioms provided from outside of the moral system. Every culture-- big or small-- has some set of moral axioms, and though not every member may agree on them, they can be used to construct childishly simple moral arguments. Capital punishment, for example, is morally wrong because the question of the time of a man's death is a choice that only God can make, and choosing to kill a man is to place oneself in the position of God, which is blasphemy, which is wrong. That argument only holds water if you accept all of the fundamental assumptions-- that God exists, that only God has the right to choose when a man dies, and so on-- but if you do, the argument is trivial.
Ethics, however, are more complex, because an ethical system is expected to be internally consistent, starting with no external axioms at all. An ethical argument against capital punishment might be that no one can predict what a person might do in the remainder of his natural life, so ending that person's life may be depriving society as a whole of a greater good. That argument, which many people find to be pretty compelling, doesn't depend on any unfounded assumptions, so it's more complex, but it requires less... oh, faith, I suppose, for lack of a better word.
Some people, though, reject all concepts of morality and ethics. These people, as I said before, are basically broken in my opinion. Arguing morality or ethics with them is a fool's errand, because they reject the prospect that one should act based on moral or ethical choices. Talking about ethics with a person like that is enough to make you want to jump off the roof, so I just won't bother.
Re:Religious paranoid idiots will ban anything (Score:3, Interesting)
Even purely theoretical realms like math. How do you prove that 1+1=2 without reference to anything external? Perhaps you can, but as far as I can tell it's basically assumed by definition.
As far as your example of an "ethical" argument against capital punishment, it makes the assumption that a "greater good" exists and furthermore the assumption that "we shouldn't do things that deprive the society of a greater good" and also that "no one can predict what a person might do in the remainder of his/her natural life" and that "if no one can predict what a person might do, then that person may do things which contribute to the greater good" etc etc. You may disagree with the set of assumptions I've extracted but I think my point is clear.
Pretty much all human knowledge and reasoning is either based on assumptions that are just taken for granted, or inductive truths that are never 100% guaranteed to be true. This fact is somewhat intellectually jarring, but we seem to go on figuring things out about the world just fine nonetheless.
Re:Religious paranoid idiots will ban anything (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, yes and no. In the strictest possible sense, you're right. When making ethical judgments-- which are, at their heart, value judgments-- you have to start with some basis for value. There has to be an explicit or implicit "X is good" in there somewhere. For example, in order for my previous trivial example of an ethical argument against capital punishment, you have to start with the implicit assumption that a benefit to society is a good thing, and that depriving society of a benefit is to be avoided.
But there's a significant qualitative difference between starting with "avoid doing harm" and starting with "God exists and he has given us rules by which to live." One starts with a proposition so obvious that it requires no rationalization. The other starts with a proposition based purely on faith, for which no rationalization is possible.
How do you prove that 1+1=2 without reference to anything external?
That's exactly what Whitehead and Russell did in their Principia Mathematica. (Not to be confused with Newton's book of a similar name.) They started with absolutely nothing and developed the principles of symbolic logic, sets, and relations, then finally got to cardinal arithmetic at the beginning of volume 2. So it is definitely possible to reduce something as fundamental as arithmetic down to first principles. It's not easy, but it's possible.
Re:Religious paranoid idiots will ban anything (Score:3, Interesting)
Depends on how you interpret it. The Bible is a big book, and there's a lot of stuff in there that appears to be contradictory at first glance. There's the eye-for-an-eye stuff in the Old Testament, and the turn-the-other-cheek stuff in the New Testament, for example. Reconciling these disparate doctrines is a job for a person with more patience than I have.
The blasphemy argument is just one example of a moral case based in Biblical principles. You can flip through the Bible to find material to support any argument, any position at all, on this matter.
Oh, by the way, your ethical argument against capital punnishment is faulty because the person could also do unspeakable things if they live.
The chance that a person, duly incarcerated, can commit a crime is slim enough to be acceptable to many people.
At best the argumenbt as stated is a wash and therefore inconsequential.
Not at all, because the argument is based on the idea that it's better to err on the side of caution. A person imprisoned for life can still do good things. A person executed for his crime is lost forever.
There is no reason that any person that believes in the Bible should have anything to do with the abortion issue.
But the Bible should not be taken literally on matters about which biblical authors knew nothing. The concept of the "breath of life" is not meaningful in the context of what we now know about human development. Few could argue that a baby is not just as alive ten minutes before it is born as it is ten minutes after.
It's one thing to use the Bible as a source for moral guidance, for religious teaching and doctrine, for history, and for a whole host of other purposes. It's quite another thing to use it as a science textbook.
PRI -- a word of caution (Score:5, Informative)
Disclosure: My half-sister worked for them
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Neither "good" nor "bad" (Score:5, Insightful)
Diamond Age (Score:2)
Fascinating, scary, and thoughtful... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, Bill made the same mistake as Ursula. Technology cannot and will not be contained. If we all agreed to a worldwide ban on unabated nanotech research, human cloning, or whatever the topic of the day is, there would be someone willing to fund a mad scientist based on a privately owned island[3]. Unfortunately, mad scientists have a bad habit of eventually succeeding.
Curiously, Ray Kurzweil took exactly the anti-cautionary approach in his equally (in)famous article, which actually spawned Bill Joy's. Who is right? Should we proceed enthusiastically to greater and more fantastic worlds than we can imagine, or restrain ourselves from destroying humanity?
The bottom line is that it doesn't matter what we _try_ to do, because someone out there will push forward. We will have nanotech in the most futuristic sense, and we will have human clones, indistinguishable from the originals. When, where, how, and who are irrelevant. It will happen. Be it fugitive criminal scientists working for money and fame, or noble researchers working for the betterment of the race, it will happen. The only thing we can do at this point is ACCEPT, EXPECT, and PLAN. The alternative is to REACT which just doesn't work well.[4]
The very saddest part of this is that it means we should be putting forth the brightest and most creative minds as legislators and policy makers. Seems like an ignoble fate for them.
If this makes no sense to you, then maybe I should quit posting to slashdot after returning from a single malt tasting.
[1]Whew! Don't know when I've had so many capital letters in one sentence!
[2]And I'm not just saying that because he created the One True Text Editor.
[3]It's surprising in this day just how many privately owned islands there are. Just go and check!
[4]I realise this sounds like a stupid slogan on an inspirational poster. Maybe I should write for those guys, despise them as I do.
Re:Fascinating, scary, and thoughtful... (Score:2)
Whenever I hear someone discussing nanotech, it reminds me of the book The Truth Machine [amazon.com] (not a referrer link, don't flame me!). Basically, the book presents (an almost inevitable future) somewhat like a toned down "Brave New World" where nobody can lie and crime and violence disappears. Part of the motivation to build the truth machine is due to rogue nanotech research. It's not as good as it is rated at Amazon, but it gets you thinking and it's worth reading.
A tangent... (Score:5, Interesting)
You know a science is entering the mainstream press when Crichton writes a thriller about it. In other words, you can look forward to several dozen articles in about a year's time on Slate with headlines such as "Nanotech - Is It for Real?"
Drexler said it all before (Score:5, Informative)
He describes an ambitious program which will allow nanotech to be developed safely, via active shields to protect the environment and sealed assembler labs to allow safe experimentation.
Of course Drexler was far, far ahead of his time, but his analysis should be a starting point for any consideration of the prospects for nanotech development.
Re:Sadly misinformed (Score:3, Insightful)
Dear Sadly Misinformed --
If all you are going on is Engines of Creation (or rather, your vague recolection that it wasn't very good) I'd suggest you look into some of Drexler's other work, such as Nanosystems [barnesandnoble.com]. It's always a bad idea to judge someone by a popularization of their work, even if they wrote it.
-- MarkusQ
Re:Sadly misinformed (Score:3, Insightful)
you're trying to stir up some controversy where there isn't any.
By asking you to explain or expand on your statements? You alluded to some objections you had to Drexler and I asked you for more details. I'd hardly call this "stirring up controversy."
Saying that "Drexler isn't ahead of his time" is not the same thing as saying "everything he has ever done is rubbish". I said the former, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped acting as if I said the latter.
What you said was (and I quote):
You mention Feynman's talk, "There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom"; it seems you've not actually read it though. Feynman explicitly mentions building things at that level, and created a prize for the first people to build particular nanostructures (granted, some reprints of the talk might not include the prize information).
As a matter of fact, I have read it. (There's a copy on the web [zyvex.com] for anyone who hasn't.) The talk was mostly about something like modern semiconductors and what we currently call MEMS, including the prize you mentioned.
If you read it, you see that Feynman saying things such as (and again, I quote):
Only in a few paragraphs at the end does he mention the possibility of building atomically precise structures, and then only to say that he thinks it might be done.If you fail to understand what I'm saying, you're welcome to ask for a clarification rather than assuming the worst.
That is exactly what I did. You made a number of statements and I quoted your statements verbatim, and asked you for examples, clarification, etc.
Logically, there are only a few possibilities:
- You think that Drexler is wrong, atomically precise machines are not feasible. In which case, my question is, why do you think this?
- You agree that atomically precise machines are feasible, but think that someone else came up with and elaborated the idea first. If so, who?
- You think that Drexler is correct, and original, but has mismanaged the presentation of the idea. If so, I would be tempted to agree, while laying more of the blame on Foresight than on Drexler himself. But if this is your position, it's hard to see why you said what you did about his books, originality. etc. Further, it's hard to see why you'd object so strongly to whoever said he was ahead of his time, since (on the premise that you agree that Drexler-style nanotech will someday be a reality) coming up with an idea that will someday be feasible but isn't yet is practically the definition of being "ahead of your time". Thus my assumption that you must hold one of the first two positions.
-- MarkusQI wonder ... (Score:2)
Re:I wonder ... (Score:2)
nanotech is science fiction and hype (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, people are making very interesting molecules, but they do so using the traditional tools of chemistry, molecular biology, and materials science.
Somebody is dreaming. (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, bans and heavy regulations are INEVITABLE, for the following reasons:
- People in high office are AFRAID of any development that might reduce their power and control. (Nanotechnology may allow spying and/or other activity with near undetectability.)
- There ARE bad people out there and if they have access to technology like this, they WILL employ it for evil purposes, beneficial as it may be when used for good.
- There WILL be screwups that will wreak some sort of havoc. (Computers are beneficial to society, but screwups have cost billions of dollars.) Chances are, this will take place very rarely, but the damages may be great.
For these reasons and others, governments will regulate nanotechnology just as they have regulated everything else under the sun. Thus, I say somebody is dreaming. There will never be a truly beneficial technological breakthrough that does not result in added regulation.The implications, as they personally affect me, are that I must consume an additional beer within the next five minutes.
Nanotech, Science, and Luddites (Score:3, Interesting)
Simply put, nature is not kind, but nature is also not evil. Nature is. Nature does not care if this rock blows up in a nuclear war or solar explosion. Nature also does not care if we become the predominant species in the universe.
What does this have to do with nanotech? Simple: how is an interstellar spacecraft going to repair itself? How is the crew going to survive diseases mankind has never seen? Remember there are dead bacteria on Mars, We can't rule out living bacteria for the rest of the universe. I can't think of a better all encompassing solution than a programmable nanobot for these kinds of things.
I don't know, maybe John Carmack will not just be an amazing game engine programmer. Maybe he and Armadillo Aerospace will be the savior of mankind. What a crazy world we live in.
gray goo? bs actually... (Score:2, Insightful)
Nanobots face a similar problem. Even *assuming* they could (a) distinguish between a silicon and an iron and (b) use them appropriately, they're still gonna need energy. Lots and Lots of energy. Let's see... you've got 6e24 kg of earth, that's ~1e46 atoms (give or take). If you're gonna check atomic composition spectroscopically, that's about an eV (1e-19 J) per atom. So you'll need a grand total of (drumroll...) 1e37 J! A megaton of TNT apparently is 4e15 J (check Google if you dont believe me), so you'll need... oh... 2.5e21 megatons of TNT. 2 and a half billion trillion megatons of TNT, just to know what you have in front of you, if you're gonna make the earth into a giant wad of grey goo. And that's not even counting breaking all those bonds so you can rearrange atoms (rocks aren't exactly known for being easy to break down). Where's all that energy gonna come from? The sun only delivers ~1e3 W/m^2, or about 1e17 J/s over the whole earth. It'll take... oh... 1e20 s to deliver what you'll need. A century is only about pi billion seconds, so I'm not exactly worried about being turned into grey goo.
Oh yeah, I forgot. We're in the Star Trek cartoon universe. We'll outfit them with matter transmogrifiers to make trilithium, then use a (nano!) warp core to get the energy. Uh huh. Let me go start WWIII now so Zephraim Cochran (you listening?) can invent warp drive...
Please, Stymie Nanotechnology (Score:2)
I hope that the Technological powers of the world will move slowly with nanotech, so that by the time it is a fully functional technology, it's properties are well understood. The grey goo scenario, while disasterous, is the least of my worries. The greatest is that military applications for nanotech will fall into the hands of a country which would use it's inherent ability for covert military actions. Simply put, this technology offers enormous effect, as it is extrordinarily flexible in it's applications.
Re:Please, Stymie Nanotechnology (Score:2, Interesting)
The idea that banning it will make it go away is ludicrous. Sooner or later, some country will come up with potentially dangerous nanomachines. We can't prevent it. It reminds me of biological warfare agents. We restricted it, while the Russians continued working on it full-force. They were decades ahead of us. One virus given as an example tricks your body into attacking your nerve cells, basically causing a fatal case of multiple sclerosis. By the time any symptoms manifest, the virus itself is already gone, so there is no way to track it. Really nasty. I don't want some unfriendly group coming up with the nanotech version of that before we discover ways to counteract it.
Basically, the thought of a world where we can do such things is frightening, but the thought of a world where everyone other than us can is worse.
Brendan
The infeasability of breaking Moore's (Score:2)
Nanotechnology is going to redefine what we think of as a computer. People think that 128-bit encryption isnt strong enough? You havent seen "not strong enough" yet. Once nanotechnology is in full force, how long do you think any encryption is going to stand up once we have the ability to make millions of specialized computers in a matter of weeks/days/hours/minutes? Moore's law wont ever break because nanotechnology is going to change the Gigahertz race into a thing where engineers find ways of getting proccessors to work together better. Nanotechnology is going to build things smaller, build them faster, give us data about things even smaller, thus allowing us to keep going smaller/faster/cheaper forever.
Smaller may not always be true, Faster may not always, technically, be true, but once "Nanotechnology" is more than a buzzword you're going to have more proccessors in your computer than you have proccesses, and Moore's law isnt going to die until the engineers just decide not to go any further-> even if they start manipulating quantum states or some shit like that, some asshole is just going to use nanotechnology to make analog computers.
The only problem is that once consumer electronics can display graphics at resolutions which are twice as good as the human eye can theoretically distinguish, and can render those graphics in real time giving each of those vexels the full priority of their own terrahertz proccessor, eventually someone's going to notice that there is absolutely nothing gained from better hardware (at least as far as the general consumers are concerned)
Of course, all of us here who try and make money programming or designing hardware are going to be out of a job (not to mention dead by several decades), since the sloppy, shitty, buggy code all written by machines, will go unnoticed by all, since it'll all be proccessed too fast to be noticed when the system hangs before another proccess finds out about the error and corrects it.
Once the technology exists to create a computer for each possible combination in a 128-bit key, how long do you think your encryption is really going to hold up? Long enough for six million more computers to be built?
Then God will kill us all, just like he did the last time we built real computers.
Encryption (Score:5, Insightful)
Once nanotechnology is in full force, how long do you think any encryption is going to stand up once we have the ability to make millions of specialized computers in a matter of weeks/days/hours/minutes?
Um. Encrypting something is easier than decrypting something by force. Therefore, no matter how much processing power is availiable to the world at large, encryption will still hold (discounting quantum computers or a solution to the NP complete set of problems).
Once the technology exists to create a computer for each possible combination in a 128-bit key, how long do you think your encryption is really going to hold up? Long enough for six million more computers to be built?
A 128 bit key has 3.4e38 possibilities. That's a lot of computers. Now, 6.022e23 hydrogen atoms make up one gram of mass (1 mole). Therefore there are at most 6.022e26 atoms in a kilogram. The Earth weights 5.972e24 kg [arizona.edu]. Therefore there is at most 3.6e51 atoms that make up the Earth.
Therefore perhaps the poster could explain to me how you could have the technology to "create a computer for each possible combination"? It might work for a 128-bit key, in theory. But a 256-bit key has 1.15e77 possibilities, which outnumbers the number of atoms in the Earth by billions to one. Even solving 128-bit encryption by having a computer per combination would require a minimum of weight of 565 million tonnes.
This reminds me of the story of the grains of rice and the chessboard, where one grain was put on the first square, two grains on the second, four on the third, and so forth. It quickly gets out of control, and you find that there isn't enough rice in the world to complete the sequence.
I don't want to think of the poster as an idiot, but he does seem like he's trying quite hard to be.
Blanket statement: Bad Idea! (Score:2)
Competition for nanotech (Score:4, Informative)
This technology is much closer to fruition than nanotech. In fact, it is practically around the corner.
Re:Competition for nanotech (Score:2)
Craig Venter also very nearly brought us the patented human genome. After leaving non-profit TIGR (The Institute for Genomic Research) to form Celera Gemonics, he hoped to put the human genome into the hands of a private corporation. Because of this move, the Human Genome Project advanced its deadline for sequencing by five years. This ultimately lead to a joint announcement of the sequencing of the genome in 2000.
Craig Venter was looking for Celera to become the Microsoft of genomics--the company without whom you could not do genetic research. (Switching platforms is not an option in this case.)
Working on a minimum gene set for a surviving organism is a neat project, and I look forward to their results. I am deeply concerned about chilling effects if they patent their work, however.
so... (Score:2, Interesting)
Nanotech is the future (Score:2)
Better learn how to combine freedom with openness (Score:2, Interesting)
The exisiting nanotech, biotechnology, will force the world to deal with the perils of cheap, superdangerous weapons (and well-intentioned but misguided tools) well before built-from-scratch nanotech is advanced enough to matter. The world will not be able to afford letting people (including companies and governments!) keep activities of this kind secret much longer.
This will take some adjustment, especially for the USA since it is accustomed to depending on individual, commercial, and governmental ability to act in secrecy as the basis of freedom. (We are about the only holdout on international-inspection treaties on germs and chemical weapons, and we highly value my-home-is-my-castle and no-one-can-see-my-messages privacy.)
Solving this problem will not necessarily require a totalitarian regime, but that is what will happen if people who value freedom refuse to deal with it. We should push for a combination of openness (so everyone can watch for dangers), vigilance (because serious failures will damage both people and freedom), tolerance (so that openness still leaves people free to act unless they are clearly out of line), and widely-distributed prosperity (so that the zealots little base for support). And we should be tolerant of each other as we try to sort out how to balance these sometimes-conflicting goals.
But biotechnology (and later other nanotechnology) are going to be as much part of the solution (especially for health and prosperity) as part of the problem. It's not like everyone is in such great shape to start with.
Can you legislate tech? (Score:2, Insightful)
The whole idea of trying to stop the river of science seems naive. Even if we could, SPECTRE etc would continue development in secret.
Bow to me (Score:2, Funny)
MUAHAHAHA
vaporware? (Score:2)
TECHNOLOGY WILL SAVE US (Score:2)
Re:What really happened to Red Dwarf (Score:3, Interesting)
Um... if you can do that, you can also program them to attack these malicious nanites. Stuff like that only works if you have a monopoly on the technology.
"I don't think nuclear energy really has any upsides,"
So I'm going off-topic. Bah. I have karma to burn.
1.) incredible amounts of power output per unit mass of reactor. Even including radiation shielding.
2.) no need for an oxydizer. Great for submarines and spacecraft.
3.) Properly functioning reactors don't put out toxins (while just about everything else does). At worst you have "spent" fuel to get rid of, which doesn't accumulate anywhere near as fast as spent fuel in fossil fuel power sources (see point 1), and "spent" just means we don't yet have the technology to get more oomph out of it (if it's still releasing neutrons it's still useful). Why do you think we have so much focus on the "storage" of nuclear waste instead of "disposal?"
4.) The fuel itself may be more dangerous per unit mass, but go back to point 1 again.
All in all, nuclear power is probably less deadly than fossil fuel power. Even ignoring the way fossil fuel plants fund terrorism, you'd have no more black lung, no more exploding oil refineries, no more harsh chemicals put out by refineries, no more airborne carcinogens...
"Look up Operation Plowshare, it was the government's stupid plan to use small nuclear explosions to dig canals."
Let's see... bury nukes deep enough that the explosion (and any and all radioactive fallout) is kept underground. The explosion makes a crater, you connect the dots. Viola. What's so dangerous about that? Heck, if the Indians and Pakistanis can pull off underground nuclear tests with zero released fallout, what makes you think we can't?
"Nanite paint that can remove rust and repair damage."
Screw that, you can make a tank out of nanite paint. Remember the game Total Annihilation?
I'm reminded of "Can-O-Man" from The Tick.
Re:Two Points In Favour Of Bill Joy's Views (Score:2)
Re:Nanotechnology could destroy the universe (Score:5, Insightful)
That scenario is only possible with "free-roaming" nanites. These are the most complex type, and the ones with the most restrictive parameters.
1) They need energy. Their fuel will only last so long. If they use solar energy (some super-chlorophyl), they have to face the next problem:
2) They need appropriate building materials. Most nanites are designed to build a certain thing. This is part of their physical design, and not just some program. Unless that certain thing is simple (carbon fiber) they'll need more than air and dirt to build with. But what if they're programmed to build more nanites and those nanites need only air to build with:
3) They are their own competition. At this stage they're an artificial life form. Bacteria don't overrun the planet because bacteria compete with bacteria. Why go through all the hassle of separating out your needed trace element from the environment, when you can just disassemble that nanite over there? And if these guys might actually be edible to bacteria...
In summary, a free-roaming nanite designed to reproduce indefinitely using any randomly available material is just too complex, with too little economic value, and has too many naturally occuring constraints, to be a worry. It makes cool science fiction, but then again, so did little green men living on Mars.
Re:Nanotechnology could destroy the universe (Score:2)
You assume that there wouldn't be others around to eliminate it.
"It would eventually destroy the planet, as well as possibly the solar system and even the universe."
Two words: Fermi's Paradox.
Re:Nanotechnology could destroy the universe (Score:2)
This does nothing to prevent a "gray goo" problem. All it takes is one "mutation"-- an error in manufacturing-- to remove this cap. In biological organisms, this is called "cancer," and it's something of a problem.
2) Add some sort of mechanism to the bots to only allow duplication when there are less than some number of bots in the surrounding area.
So rather than a hard limit on reproductions, you have an environmental feedback mechanism. Again, one mutation disables this feature, or worse, inverts it. Now the assembler only reproduces when the concentration in the local environment is greater than a given value.
3) Only allow bots to reproduce when told to do so by Humans.
Great idea. At this point, they're not self-assembling any more. This is, in fact, the only solution to the problem.
Of course, if the assemblers are able to self-assemble, it's quite likely that they will be caused to self-assemble by some external factor sooner or later. So the only safe way to apply this solution is to make the assemblers physically incapable of assembling themselves.
4) provide som sort of "master kill signal" (i.e. a specific radio frequency) that will cause all bots reciving it to cease functioning.
Just as it only takes one mutation-- or manufacturing error-- to disable a reproductive limit, so too does it take only one error to disable this idea. Too dangerous.
5) Any of several other ideas I didn't just think of in the past 2 min.
I hope the ones you think of in the next 2 minutes are somewhat better that these ones. For inspiration, look at living organisms, and observe all the things that can go wrong with them. Don't suggest anything that leads to one of those states.
And how do we know the goo would be grey, anyway?
The idea of a "gray goo" is favored by people who don't realize that nanotechnology is an old, old idea. There's already goo all over the place, but it isn't gray. It's green.