The Dangers of Nanotech 236
Krees writes "Small Times talked with the Foresight Institute's Christine Peterson, Ralph Merkle of Zyvex, and Ray McLaughlin of Carbon Nanotechnologies about the potential of nanotechnology, which has benefited greatly from open source research methods, and nanotech weapons in particular falling into the wrong hands. Recent recognition of potential abuses will likely lead to incrased secrecy in nanotech research." This topic comes up every so often - what happens when nanotech falls into the wrong hands? I think that's a "when", not an "if", as that happens with almost everything.
I have faith in Murphy (Score:1, Redundant)
I cannot think of any area of technology from automobile design to nuclear power plants to office suites where this principle of human nature has not been operational. I can personally list examples from NASA to genetics research to the SNMP spec. (It was nicknamed Security - Not My Problem for a reason!)
IMNSHO anyone who thinks that nano has the potential to be any different is just kidding themselves about human nature...
Human Nature (Score:3, Insightful)
Chemical Weapons - Used in mass during the First World War, then used against civilian prisoners during the Second World War. Mass produced by members of NATO and WP during the Cold War, but not used that much except by Third World nations since the Second World War.
Nuclear Weapons - Used only twice by the United States during combat, even though the US had them for 56 years at this point. Never used in combat by any of the other nations to have them (USSR/Russia, South Africa, Israel, India, Pakistan, France, UK, China).
Biological Weapons - Not used in combat by any nation-states that we know of in the Modern era. (Simple biological agents have been used for centuries, but nothing like the modern biological weapons have been used).
I think that the West would not use/abuse nanotechnology unless someone else moved first. For an example...only three time since the Second World War have US political leaders or Congressmen spoke about using a nuclear device until a few weeks ago. Those times were the Chinese attack against the UN in '50, the Siege of Khe Sahn/Siege of Hue and a proposal in '81 for the US to fire a "warning shot" high above the Inter-German border.
Mankind is getting better, slowly but surely.
Re:Human Nature (Score:2)
By the time a generation gets "used" to the next invention of attrocity, something else seems to come along.
So the long term problem is not really one of technology, except maybe of the spirit. One that does not depend on so much on happy pills to help us get over the stress of all these conflicts.
Relax, be happy, and forget about the bomb might not be a fully rational response.
Re:Human Nature (Score:2, Interesting)
The current "generations" in Western Europe, the Americas, Russia/CIS, China...have had nothing happen to them like what happened 1 or 2 generations ago.
So I don't understand the "getting used to the next invention of attrocity" bit?
Life has gotten alot safer and much less dangerous in Europe, Pacific Rim, China, and the Americas than it was...oh just 11 years ago.
It almost seems that with each "super-weapon" the nations that deploy them become more and more restrained.
Re:Human Nature (Score:4, Interesting)
So far only a few people have access to nuclear weapons and those people have managed to act with reasonable, intelligent constraint. More people have access to anthrax and unfortunately not all of them are so enlightened. Similarly it is not hard to make a truck bomb and certainly some people with that skill still carry malice in their hearts.
The progress of technology seems to be such, that some day the knowledge and tools needed to make a weapon capable of killing millions will fall into the hands of common adults. The question is whether humanity can progress in the pursuit of sanity and mutual respect before we bring doomsday down on our heads.
I'm an optimist about human nature and a pessimist about nanotech and genetic weapon tech, so I'd like to hope we have a chance.
Where's Wesley Crusher? (Score:1, Funny)
A lot of things are dangerous (Score:1)
or nanobots that deliver and contain deadly explosive triggers or toxins straight to the intended target
Danger can be controlled better than it is now (Score:2, Interesting)
but in the information age, this all changes, evil people become genius's.
Nano technology will be as simple as writing a computer virus,
The best way to control this is to write anti virus, create nano bots which have no purpose at all but to destroy other nano bots
When a nano virus hapens, release the destroy bots which simple using say magnets attach themselves to nano bots and in the same way that a virus attacks human cells, this can attack nano bots which are bad, attach to them, and either reprogram them, or make them cease to function somehow.
Re:Danger can be controlled better than it is now (Score:3, Funny)
Oh great, I can see it now. Someone gets a cold and suddenly starts sprouting penises everywhere on their body followed by a nasty rash that spells out "n@n0-d00d 0wnz j00!!!!!!"
Argh (Score:5, Interesting)
If nanotechnology ever reaches the total control of matter, self-replicating machine, Diamond Age "Seed" level (I don't have enough information to argue either way, but it seems to me that it'd be easier to create macroscopic Von Neumann machines than microscopic ones, and we haven't even done that yet) we're going to need more protection than a self destruct mechanism.
What I'd like to see, in a world swarming with potential nanotech viruses, is an analogous nanotech immune system to take care of them, nanites which can be set to recognize and rip apart other nanites which meet certain parameters. Got a rogue oil-spill cleaning nanite ripping up asphalt in San Francisco? Get the standby security nanites in Oakland to kill it.
There was an interview with a somewhat apocalyptic tech giant (a veep at Sun? I forget) who believed that the ever increasing technological power available to humanity (nanotech, biotech, and AI being three examples I remember) would cause the world to be ripped apart by terrorism in the coming century. He likened it to an airplane in which every passenger had a "Crash" button in front of their seat, and only one psycho was necessary to bring everyone down with him.
I don't think it will be that way. With nanotechnology specifically, if our available defenses are kept up to the level that our potential offenses would require, then having a small set of nanites go rogue wouldn't be a concern; they would be overwhelmed by their surroundings. Going back to that analogy, if everybody had a "Crash" button in front of their airplane seat, but the plane was guaranteed to survive unless 50% of the passengers voted to crash, that would be the safest flight in history.
Re:If only... (Score:4, Insightful)
The terrorists we're facing right now only want to destroy us. The Japanese cult wanted to kill everyone. They're both terrorists but there's a significant difference. Once we get a "lets-commit-suicide-for-everyone" cult with nanoweapons then all bets are off. Any technology as powerful as this one can and eventually will be turned against us just as every one before it.
Secrecy and other safeguards may not be 100% effective, but they have the potential to fare better than wishful thinking. Since I don't see any guidelines or safeguards in the near future I hope I'm wrong.
Nanites would have to have built-in speed checks. (Score:3, Insightful)
The only protection would seem to be to have security nanite completely saturated in the surroundings (ie., the entire world), and then what if a security nanite breaks or goes Rogue? Which nanites watch others, and which watch the watchers? There needs to be a more concrete answer to this before we go releasing nanites into the wild.
-Kasreyn
Re:Argh (Score:2, Funny)
Then it will also be the smartest flight in history.
Bingo Foo
Re:Argh (Score:2, Interesting)
You say nature has had billions of years to evolve into something that would... what? destroy everything on the planet? What good would that do a species? It would never evolve that way (assuming evolution is true). Anyway, all living things need stuff to stay alive. Food, water, heat... nanites wouldn't really need anything special. Plus, they wouldn't even have to defeat our natural immune systems... they could just take the raw materials that make up our immune systems and other flesh and turn them into more nanites. And please elaborate on why you think the gray ooze theory could never be?
One major point I would also like to make, because you and people who think like you have missed it, is that human beings have for centuries had the best intentions but are NOT always right, not matter how right we think we are! There's always that chance. Remember when nuclear bombs seemed like a good idea for clearing mountains out of the way and thank goodness they didn't go ahead with the plan? The planners were CERTAIN I bet that nothing could go wrong. Someone probably thought "well, what if it DID create a disaster? Is it worth the risk?" Now we know it would have been a catastrophy.
If one thing's for sure humans are not always right. We are OFTEN not right in fact. We must act accordingly and accept that we are imperfect beings incapable of making perfect decisions and calculations in Earthly matters.
Re:Argh (Score:2, Interesting)
And as other poster told, using our own matter to make copies of itself, viruses do exactly that, or actually more, nanite has to do all the work itself - while the virus takes over existing factory (one of yours sells) and reprograms it with its own DNA to make more viruses - virii way is certainly more energy efficient, yet immune system can deal with most of them.
Only one thing is true, and probably pretty important one at that is the thing that all natural living things (yeah, I'd say self-replicating nanites can certainly be classified as living things) have some kind of self-preservation method, which the nanites don't, but genetically engineered microbe of mass destruction wouldn't need to have that either.
Re:Argh (Score:2, Informative)
And consider how we make nanotech now. With silicon fab lines. It takes a huge billion dollar factory to create one tiny machine. Imagine shrinking down all that power into the machine itself so it can reproduce. I have never seen any plausible proposals on how this might be done.
If you look at the chemistry, the best basis for self-replication (i.e. life) is carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen. If that weren't the case some other basis would have evolved. This means proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, etc - the building blocks of organic life. Nanotech already exists and it works pretty well.
Re:The terror of nanotech (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh yeah that's a good idea! You'll have to get something that's really virulent and spreads everywhere of course. And then within 5 years every genetic script kiddy will have easily obtained a sample and modified it to take out their favourite pet peeve ethnic group. Great plan!
Imagine what could happen if weapons like this or the technology to produce them, got into the hands of western white supremacy groups, or christian fundamentalists!
Frankly, I'm more worried about the Israeli Zionists. They have the knowledge and technology. They are effectively involved in a war and might rationalize to themselves that it's justified.
Bill Joy and Nanotech (Score:4, Interesting)
He said there were three looming dangers to humanity's future: genetics, robotics, and nanotechnologies, largely because they were so accessible to those with less money than it'd take to, say, develop a nuclear weapon.
The article is one of the most well-reasoned examinations of the issue of nanotech and the dangers in the future of technology I've ever read, and it's given extra weight simply by the position and history of the author himself. Check it out at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html. It's long, but it's certainly worth the read.
No No No! (Score:3, Insightful)
Are we reading the same article? The one Bill Joy admits was inspired by the Unabomber manifesto?
As it stands today, humanity will only be around for a limited time. In the best case, we'll be around until the sun expands and swallows the Earth. More likely, a stray asteroid will finish us off first. Even if we decide to abandon technology, humanity will cease to exist one day.
So, do we want to make the most of the time we have, or not? We won't do ourselves any favors by becoming Luddites. We can only maximize human potential by the continuing to advance science and technology. That's the only chance we have for long-term survival as a species; and it will make the lives of individuals a fuck of a lot more pleasant along the way.
Re:No No No! (Score:2)
Bill Joy is an alarmist fool.
Hmmm, alarmist maybe, but I've never heard anyone refer to him as a fool.
Period.
Oops, I didn't see that period at first. Guess that means that nobody can dispute your statement. It's a period.
There's a difference between becoming a luddite and carefully considering the impact technological advances will have on our well-being. The whole point is that we shouldn't accelerate humanity's demise.
Neal Stephenson - The Diamond Age (Score:1)
Also... (Score:1)
Sure, it limits a lot of the practical use of nanotechs, but since this is a new technology proceed carefully. Give them 20 years testing and using nanotechs in inert gas before you think about deploying them in environments containing oxygene, that way they have real world tests of how well nanotech's work and how likely they are to run away.
protocol is essentially useless (Score:1)
Grey Goo Theory (Score:2, Interesting)
Where would the energy come from? (Score:2, Interesting)
Impossible if you dont have an unlimited energy source. This is why the energy source for nano technology should be RESTRICTED to say solar energy, or special laser based energy so it only works in certain lighting.
Re:Where would the energy come from? (Score:2, Funny)
Yeh that way only half the earth can be destroyed at any one time.
Nanobots? (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, never mind.
Ha! You think THIS is bad? (Score:2)
Wait until we evolve into a race of psychic super beings! Able to stop a mans heart with a thought. Bending time and space to allow us to travel to distant stars. The ability to read a man's mind will render the entire Judicial system obsolete!
Sorry, futurists annoy me.
Brain to computer interface (Score:3, Interesting)
Telepathy will be possible soon with brain to computer interface, and this connected to some nanites could do EXACTLY what you are talking about.
Programming would be as simple as THINKING it, the whole art of programming would accellorate so fast that millions of programs would be written by one person in a day.
imagine if programs were created via the speed of thought and these programs could materialize via nanites.
Re:Brain to computer interface (Score:2)
Stop being an annoying futurist.
I'll tell you EXACTLY what it will be like if we ever come up with a brain to computer interface. It will be like sitting in front of a computer, giving commands.
It will be one way, except for the few brave souls who will allow the computer to actually talk back. They will perish after a BSOD or accidentally programming an endless loop.
A book about spaceflight... (Score:2)
Basically, a strange object has started 'growing' on the backside of the moon, and when people are sent to investigate
The fascinating aspect of the clean room is that it contains a series of self-interlocking mechanisms that, as a fail safe, can dump enough power into an XRay apparatus to sterilize everything with the building's sheilds. This is the ONLY allowed method of handling nanotech, and they claim it's extremely immature compared to what's going on on the moon
If I can find the title I'll post it, but
Re:A book about spaceflight... (Score:2)
~Philly
Re:A book about spaceflight... (Score:2)
Re:Assemblers of Infinity--worthless (Score:2)
I dunno, I work with people that work with nanotech. I found it as 'out there'.... but if its your field, who am I to judge where it will be in 50 or 100 years?
There's your answer all.
I still say it was a good (and annoying, yes...) read.
Wrong hand? (Score:2, Interesting)
Not so sure (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the point that Americans are meant to be noticing is that it is low-tech which is a real danger, not high-tech. Osama bin Laden took out the WTC with fanatics, box-cutters and commercial airliners, not cruise missiles or stealth operations, or even a bomb.
Assuming the anthrax is even down to him (which is far from certain), it is not being distributed with cluster bombs, overhead sprays or even by infecting the water supply. It is simply put in some powder in the mail.
The point is, high-tech can be defended against. Computer systems can be secured, fighter jets can be shot down and bombs can be defused. The real danger occurs when something that is taken for granted, something that is very low-tech and forms a basic part of society, is used for ill means.
No doubt that nanotechnology could be used for war purposes. But I consider it far more likely that a Western power would do this than Osama bin Laden.
You've Got To Be Kidding (Score:1)
Um.
Those jets? The ones that crashed into the buildings? Hi-tech, wouldn't you say?
Geez.
The real danger occurs when something that is taken for granted, something that is very low-tech and forms a basic part of society, is used for ill means.
Look again: it's not the boxcutters that did the damage; it was the jets. Or more specifically, a lack of adequate security and understanding about the magnitude of damage said jets were capable of doing in the wrong hands.
Exactly the same point applies to nanotech.
Re:You've Got To Be Kidding (Score:2)
There certainly isn't anything new about them, and they are certainly taken for granted.
Re:You've Got To Be Kidding (Score:2, Informative)
And I think most of us had thought at some point "gee, a suicidal person could crash a plane into something and cause a lot of damage. I wonder why it doesn't happen". Just idle speculation
Re:Not so sure (Score:2)
I think that's the point that some people here are making about nanotech.
Transparency is the only option (Score:4, Insightful)
If all the science was open, then everyone could have an understanding of all the risks and work together to prevent anything terrible happening. If governemnts/scientists/corporations try to keep it secret, they can't. With the Internet and fast transfer of information, any small leak will be immediately available to the world.
Instead of putting the effort into protection, put it into prevention.
It is unrealistic to prevent information to be hidden in our modern would, instead we need to control how it can be used and by who.
Transparency won't save you. (Score:2)
First of all, science already is open. While individual implementations of a technology may be proprietary, the basic research underpinning it all is public (browse the journals section of a university's library some time).
Secondly, you are assuming that people a) are able to keep up with and understand all facets of science, b) are willing to do so, and c) are able to tell that someone's growing anthrax in their basement in time to do something about it.
a) can't even be done by scientists. This is why experts exist. Even within a fairly bounded discipline there are far too many papers and references for one person to keep up with - so people specialize in a niche that interests them and keep current with directly related topics.
Joe Average would have a much harder time of it.
b) Given that keeping up with even a niche in science in enough detail to truly understand it is pretty much a full-time job, and that most people already have full-time jobs and don't read scientific papers for leisure, I doubt that most people would be willing to keep abreast of all of science.
c) There are a wide range of diabolical terrorist plots that look surprisingly innocent right until the end. Concealment is easy. Detection is hard.
So, the populace at large will have a hard time policing itself. You could delegate the problem to a team of experts... which gives you something that looks a lot like the existing police force plus the various special agencies. In other words, we're already implementing what's probably the most pragmatic approximation to this ideal.
It is unrealistic to prevent information to be hidden in our modern would, instead we need to control how it can be used and by who.
The problem is that in most cases such control is also not feasible to implement in practice.
That leaves us with deterrents as a disincentive, and damage control plans for the inevitable few who are not deterred. Clever and nasty terrorist attacks will continue to happen, with a wide variety of technologies (basic and advanced). The best that IMO can be done is to attempt to minimize them and deal effectively with them when they do occur. Others, of course, will have widely varying opinions.
Once more, folks... (Score:1, Redundant)
The "dangers" involved in debated and even banned areas such as human cloning, bio engineering, and true AI are really pretty small compared with Nanotech, where one invisibly small nanomachine, programmed to multiply and destroy its host could eradicate life on earth and still not stop. Does Clinton want to be known for having started a second Manhattan project (I suppose it is a lot better than what he will most likely be known for)?
And the prospect of Nanotech has some _very_ interesting implications on the current RIAA, MPAA, and other "evil forces of the world" situation with the freedom of Information. When nanotech comes along, will we have a Copyright Act that forbids programming nanomachines to work-around "nano-scan protection systems"? Will Ford sue me for writing a Nano-assembler that can make a copy of your neighbors Mustang? Will Coca-Cola go after me for having bought one bottle and then copied it to all my friends at the party? And most importantly, if its true as the Copyright defenders say, that copy protection is necessary for the economy to work, will society then end with Nanotech? Maybe all the companies that produce physcial items ought to be out lobbying congress to not spend another cent on Nano-research, which could cripple their bussiness!
Simple (Score:1)
Nano technology is dangerous, the way to stop something dangerous is to build defenses for the problems before they actually become problems.
If we had defenses for terroism we wouldnt be in this situation now.
So, what we should do is defend against grey goo problem by
Creating nano technology which only works when shined under a special light, or via solar energy.
Creating defensive technologies BEFORE offensive ones, meaning creating nano repairing technology to repair your DNA and your cells, then if someone does release a nano virus you'll have a nano cure ready and years before the nano virus is even a problem.
Re:Simple (Score:1)
Limiting the use of nanotech won't help. We can restrict legal uses of nanotech all we want ("only works in inert gasses", "only works under certain light", etc). It won't stop a single well-funded lunatic from ignoring those restrictions and setting loose self-replicating nanobots that work in open air and run amok, eating everything.
What we need to do is always know the state-of-the-art in nanotechnology, always consider the worst-possible-case, and build a failsafe against it.
The best safeguard, IMO, would be some kind of device that destroys all nanotech within its operating range. What kind of device? I don't know. Maybe an EM-pulse bomb tuned to a specific frequency known to destroy nanotech. Or anti-goo nanobots that seek out and destroy all other nanobots they contact, then self-destruct after a limited time.
The Cold War stayed cold because all powers had the ability to destroy all life on the planet with the press of a button. In the end, we need the similar ability with respect to nanotech - the ability to, at the press of a button, destroy all nanotech on the planet.
A far fetched, over-bearing, ominous weapon straight out of science-fiction, yes. But so is nanotech - for now. The only way to protect against nanotech being used as a weapon will be to posess the ability to destroy that weapon, utterly and completly.
I didnt say restrict (Score:1)
If we dont build weapons
the technology to build weapons wont exsist, thus someone will have to spend huge amounts of money and start from scratch.
If you never built the gun
people wouldnt have even thought about atomic bombs, they'd still be figuring out where to go next from spears and knives and arrows.
Bebop Movie and Nano (Score:2, Interesting)
I Don`t Think So ... (Score:1, Insightful)
There is a bad side to everything (Score:1, Insightful)
The same logic can be applied to nanotech. The positives that it may help us make dramatic technological leaps (it also being a major leap).But it may also
I don't want to bring back up the Sept 11 tragedy but it illustrates how common and usefull things can be turned against us. This will never change. There will always be that remote chance.
Well then... (Score:1)
If that's true, we can sleep easy knowing that nuclear weapons and accompanying worldwide delivery systems will make their way into the hands of people willing to use them against us shortly, and we have nothing to fear from nanotech as we'll all be dead.
Nano Technology should first be used in hospitals (Score:2, Interesting)
The first use for nano technology will set the tone for the type of technology it is.
We have laser technology but i dont see people using laser guns which burn through bullet proof vests. WHy? Because lasers arent usually USED for that.
Nano Technology should be used for hospitals, to heal people, to ACT as the bullet proof vest meaning, realtime cell repairing, this may make it so people are harder to kill, but isnt that the point of all technologies? To extend and improve the quality of life?
If you have Nano cell repair and Nano technology in hospitals, Nano structures, then making a nano virus or weapon is going to be hard as hell, your best bet would be to exploit bugs in the current nano defensive structures such as turning a persons cell repairing nano bots against them.
Then it will come down to, repairing bugs, instead of a virus problem where we are caught off guard.
In this way, yes people will still die, but it will be freak accidents instead of millions of people dying over a nano plague
Nanotech (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't think of anything more rediculous. First of all, how are you going to build a self-replicating machine? The obstacles are so large as to be practically insurmountable. Consider that we've never even come close to building a machine that can make duplicates of itself in the macro-sized world, even using pre-machined parts, and then think how complex it would be to make a microscopic machine that could replicate. First of all, data storage would be a problem. The machine would have to have incredibly advanced molecular-level storage technology, and incredibly advanced tiny molecular storage reading technology to read the information. Then it would have to have a computer to process this information, and very sophisticated sensors to tell where it was, and some sort of locomotion device that worked in three dimensions somehow, and some sort of advanced grabbing arm to move stuff with. Just the grabbing arm itself would be an achievement. How do you expect this machine to grab atoms? With other atoms? It would be a clumsy arm that was built with the things it was supposed to move! Plus, the arm would have to build itself as part of the replicating process, so it couldn't include any components that would be too small for it to build itself.
And the final requirement: Power. Where is this machine going to be powered from? It's going to have to have a lot of power in order to grab atoms, since it will have to break atomic bonds to move the atoms around. It must be a steady, reliable source of power, one that is available everywhere in the world if it is going to turn the whole world into gray goo. Sunlight you say? What is going to collect the sunlight? Solar panels? These solar panels would need to be made of certain atoms which wouldn't be available everywhere. How would the machines replicate if they couldn't find the correct elements to build their solar panels? Remember that these are tiny machines that can only roam tiny distances, they can't go out searching for the elements they need.
One must only look at nature to see what can be accomplished in terms of molecular-sized self-replicating machines. Cells are masterpieces of design, with ingenious mechanisms that are still out of our realm of understanding in some cases, and certainly way out of our ability to design and create on our own. And yet algae is in no danger of turning the whole world into "green goo." It only survives under certain conditions. I don't think man will be able to out-design nature for the forseeable future.
Re:Nanotech (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, how are you going to build a self-replicating machine? The obstacles are so large as to be practically insurmountable
Yeah, men will probably walk on the Moon before we build such things!
Re:Nanotech (Score:3, Funny)
That's what I think. A long time before.
Existence proof and complexity cap. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's easy to demonstrate that it's possible and to put an upper bound on the complexity of a replicater by looking for existing examples. Bacteria are self-replicating machines capable of synthesizing a wide variety of things, and while they're quite complex, understanding them is far from being an insurmountable challenge. Ditto understanding enough to design our own similar machines from scratch.
Re:Existence proof and complexity cap. (Score:1)
I have a lot of faith in the abilities of science, but it's going to be a very long time before we can design machines as complex and elegant as bacteria. You're right about the upper bound on complexity, bacteria aren't capable of turning the world into gray goo and I don't think nanomachines ever will be either.
Re:Existence proof and complexity cap. (Score:1)
I don't know about turning the entire world into grey goo, but they could certainly do a thorough job on the biosphere.
Re:Existence proof and complexity cap. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, I don't know about that. While I agree that one strain of bacteria couldn't live everywhere and turn everything into gray goo, I wouldn't discount our capacity to destroy the planet with bacteria, three or four strains of them.
Certainly, it would be difficult. Your world destroying bacteria would, among other things, need both massive, highly divergent redundancy in all cellular systems (to provide resistance to antibiotics and viability under diverse chemical and physical conditions) *and* have a generation time of no more than twenty minutes (less than that if we assume that other members of the human race are going to try and stop it) *and* have an unthinkably broad sweet of metabolic enzymes (depending on how much of "everything" you want to turn into goo) and, finally, have a complex, multiply redundant (again) and rapidly acting regulatory system to keep all of these features working at the same time.
Is this a tall order? Yes. Do I think we'll have enough of an understanding of proteomics (the relationship between sequence and function of a protein) to do this by the end of the century? Probably not! By the end of the next century? Yes, I think we will.
More to the point, we have the technology (although it would be hard) to wipe out a significant chunk of the entire human population. A bacteria which, quite simply:
a) exposed no human antigens on it's coat
b) survived endocytosis (being eaten) and continued to replicate inside immune cells (HIV is a *virus*, not a bacteria, but this property is still analogous)
c) was resistant to all presently used antibiotics
d) secreted itself into muscus and saliva before symptoms appeared
There are bacteria that do each of those things. Getting all of those features into one bacterium would be difficult, but it doesn't require any fundamental advance in understanding over what we have now; it's a lot more realistic, as a worry, than a horde of microscopic self replicating Daleks. Just because one apocalyptic future is frankly absurd doesn't mean that our scientific advances in other areas don't allow us to destroy ourselves.
Code while you can, for tomorrow you may die.
Re:Nanotech (Score:1)
Data storage not a problem, Energy is the problem (Score:1)
Building something on the scale of even a human hair would require so much energy it would be insane,
Storage is the only thing which is possible, we have infinite storage via holographic storage.
Re:Nanotech (Score:1)
Re:Nanotech (Score:2)
Re:Nanotech (Score:2)
Your argument amounts to: if evolution wanted us to fly it would have given us wings, therefore it is unfeasible to create a flying machine.
Hooray! Somebody understands! (Score:2)
It's a shame; I'd love to see one--but it's time to get used to the idea that it's just not gonna happen.
spork
Re:What Nanotech Will Look Like (Score:2)
The Dangers of Fire (Score:2, Funny)
Early Silence on nanotechnology (Score:1)
I arrived at Caltech in 1968 on full scholarship at age 16 to study physics) and I actually co-authored a published and anthologized Science poem
with Feynman. He was the acknowledged Great Grandfather of Nanotechnology, I was one of the many grandfathers of Nanotechnology, having done my doctoral dissertation on it (I called it "molecular cybernetics" in 1975-77), before Eric Drexler (the acknowledged father of nanotechnology). I got in contact with Drexler in 1979, when I was at Boeing's Kent Space Center, through our mutual friend Ray Sperber. Drexler insisted that none of us would publish until we thrashed out the safety issues. Then he jumped the gun and published first -- a good article in the NY Academy of Sciences. I'd already gotten Omni magazine (where I'd had 2 cover stories published, including the one that coined the phrase "Cybernetic War" in May 1979)hot to write about Nanotechnology. Then I introduced Eric to Stanley Schmidt, Ph.D., editor of Analog, who gave Eric important early support in the Science Fiction Community. I wish I'd published first, but maybe Eric was right to ask for a period of silence. I did, later, publish key chapters of my Nanotech dissertation in the proceedings of international conferences, and in refereed journals, but Mrs. Drexler (C. Peterson) is more involved in assering her husband's primacy in the field than in maintaining objective historiography. Be that as it may.... Now the Schrodinger's Cat is out of the Bagh, dad!
We must be very careful... (Score:2)
Thus, we must be extremely careful with what we invent. We must also search for ways to defend against them in the inevitable possibility that someone will attempt abuse them. I worry that in the future everyone will need to wear suits to protect against things like this because you could have invisable nano agents attempt to hurt you or have something that looks like a fly and flies around but then injects you with something or releases something at you.
Humans must change (Score:1)
If not, we will just build a bigger and bigger gun until someone be it freak accident or on purpose, pulls the trigger and destroys the world, solar system, whatever.
Xenogears, nanotechnology (Score:2)
http://www.ebgames.com/ebx/categories/products/pr
Re:Xenogears, nanotechnology (Score:1)
The only other instance of nano that I can think of in that game is with Deus. Didn't it try to rebuild its body using some sort of nano? Actually, I think Deus was powered by the "wave existance", which was the only actual divine influence in the game.
That game had a great plot. I had to play it through twice before I understood it, but after that, the storyline's complexity just blew me away.
Re:Xenogears, nanotechnology (Score:2)
Dangers of nanotech? (Score:1)
Studying conciousness? (Score:3, Funny)
Well, isn't that what all Berkeley students historically study (albeit from a somewhat detached perspective)?
Unashamed Hype, Unforgivable Exploitation (Score:1)
They don't mention the Gray-Goo scenario (not achievable anytime soon anyway), but then again, their thesis is not that nano-weapons are uncontrollable, it is that we must have them first.
When it comes to staying ahead in high tech, trust our open society to produce the best results first. If we should ever make big progress, then we need to take steps to keep the technology from falling into the wrong hands. Till then, this is a bunch of useless hysteria, not so subtly trying to get more funds allocated for nano-research, which as they have defined it, is rather broad and vague. Also troubling is the implication, if it is small, maybe it needs oversight and control, again to keep it out of the hands of the bad guys
Don't get me wrong, I'm no Ludite. Nano will be very important in the long run, but there are hundreds of more immediate high tech worries to take care of first. My prediction, machine-intelligence, and machine-human hybridizing will be more immediate impact and concern than weaponizable nano technology , and these technologies are still 30-50 years away themselves.
Given the slow progress of true nano technology, that is producing true Drexler like molecular components and assemblers, the nano marketing people have decided any coating or feature dimension if measured in nano meters, defines nano technology, and thus can claim big breakthroughs are happening today. If you can't produce the results, redefine what success is.
What if Slashdot fell into the wrong hands? (Score:1)
-Hemos 11/02/01
-------
We have been warned. Quickly, stockpile all anti-MS material. Backup as many previous Slashdot discussions as you can. Buy a gun^H^H^H stun gun. Move to Montana^H^H^H^H^H^H^H a non-MS territory. Quickly friends, time is running out!
Too late (Score:1)
Of course Nanotech is dangerous... (Score:1)
I'm sure everyone here has seen the StarTrek NG eposide where those tiny creatures got lose on the Enterprise, almost totally messed up the computer, and Data started having those bizarre dreams in which Sigmen Fruad(?sp?) kept saying 'Kill Zhem... Kill Zhem all...' (Strong German Accent).
matter of context (Score:1)
which country first manufactured anthrax as a biological weapon?
answer: USA
Whaddya mean, when? (Score:2)
Culturing, preparing and releasing Anthrax was a nanotech attack!
Future nanotech is more likely to be successful starting with biological systems than with bottom-up silicon engineering, and as such is just a logical extension of biological engineering.
Funny, Kuzweil and I were discussing this today (Score:2, Informative)
We Should All Be Afraid Of Nanotechnology Because. (Score:4, Insightful)
Them: You should be afraid of nanotechnology getting into the wrong hands!
You: Well, ok...Why? Whats there to be afraid of? Isn't the whole idea circumvented by...
Them: Nanotechnology. Be afraid.
You: Huh? That doesn't answer my question.
Them: You should be afraid of nanotechnology.
You: Err...What?? You're just repeating yourself!! You haven't given me a reason why I...
Them: Yes. Nanotechnology--It could get into the wrong hands. Osama Bin Laden's hands!
You: How on earth is nanotechnology a threat to anyone? What, you think someones going to introduce some sort of synthetic nano-machine virus into the water supply? Come on.
Them: You need to be afraid of nanotechnology falling into the wrong hands. And the water supply
You: FINE. OK. Jeezus, lets say for the sake of the argument that some "evil organization" learns how to develop nanotechnology. Fine. What good is it going to do them? What are they going to build that would be such a terrible threat to anyone? Why not simply use standard, boring old chemistry tricks to kill people? Hasn't it ever occured to you that the idea of "death by nanotechnology" is about as sensical as "And now, Batman, I will spend millions of dollars to construct a machine that lower you very slowly into a pool of imported Burmese pirahna!!"
Them: You should be afraid of nanotechnology falling into the wrong hands.
You: Hasn't it occured to you that a single drop of benzene is enough to kill a room full of people? All Benzene is, is just a ring of 8 carbon atoms. It doesn't require a knowledge of nanotechnology to make a whole bucket of....
Them: You should be afraid of Osama Bin Laden, and nanotechnology. And benzene. And mail. And muslims. And cryptography. And steganography. And bridges. And...
You: {click}
Re:We Should All Be Afraid Of Nanotechnology Becau (Score:2)
Yes, but I think you're missing an important point:
You should be afraid of nanotechnology. It might fall into the wrong hands!
And the water supply.
Benzene - JFYI (Score:2, Informative)
> drop of benzene is enough to kill a room full
> of people? All Benzene is, is just a ring of 8
> carbon atoms.
Benzene is C6H6. It's no more toxic than aceton or asbestos. One drop of benzene cannot kill a roomful of people. You can wash your hands in benzene, swallow a small amount of it (certainly a few drops) and suffer no immediate health problems. Benzene MAY cause cancer in some people. Just like asbestos.
A good analogy (Score:2)
If you were to give everyone on the planet a time machine, all at the same time, nobody would be able to take over the world.
The same can be said about computers, nanotech, giant robot spiders of doom, any technology that has a single source or a single user can give its wielder great power. Give it to everyone and they'll be able to handle the grey or red goo problems on their own time.
Nanotech will start out like the atom bomb, automobile, cotton gin or the microwave oven. First only an elite few will have this great labour-saving device, but after a while, everyone will.
Re:A good analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps, but I think the world would be trashed pretty quickly. Besides, time travel is the only technology that gives you the ability to magically undo the actions of the bad guys.
For another analogy, suppose instead you gave everyone on the planet a hydrogen bomb that they could explode wherever they wanted. How long do you think society would last? Destruction is a lot easier than creation, so I'm not so confident that defensive abilities will outpace offensive ones.
Foresight guidelines and related stuff (Score:5, Informative)
The commonly cited "gray goo" scenario is a sort of nanotech worst case: nanites that can convert almost any naturally occurring matter (including biomatter) into more identical nanites. Robert Freitas has done some analysis [foresight.org] concluding that gray goo would either work very slowly, or throw off a huge amount of heat which could be detected by a thermal monitoring system of geosynchronous satellites. Drexler has observed that making a gray goo nanite is likely to be an enormous engineering challenge.
These kinds of topics pop up on sci.nanotech with some frequency. Here are some discussions: November 1996 [google.com], March 1997 [google.com], September/October 1997 [google.com]. My own thinking is that we want to ensure that the development of defensive measures outpaces the development of offensive weapons. A step in the right direction would be for the good guys to maintain a development/design/simulation effort that clearly outpaces anything the bad guys can do. (This obviously sidesteps the issue of who gets to define "good guys" and "bad guys", and whether the good guys become corruptible given a commanding technological lead.)
Stop it already!! (Score:2)
Nanobots are science fiction. We are probably only slightly closer to nanobots than teleportation, and it's definitely further away than flying cars. Oh shit, hold on... I gotta cut this post short - My holo-phone is ringing. Damn, what do you guys think about the ramifications of someone being able to see how fat my ass is on the phone?
LS
Re:Stop it already!! (Score:2)
Re:Stop it already!! (Score:2)
Of course, even the new scientific knowledge and engineering capabilities are usually different than those envisioned by the futurists.
Re:Stop it already!! (Score:2)
Atoms are not Legos. They're very sticky and very volatile.
Tim
Re:Stop it already!! (Score:2)
Yes, the current "laws" of physics may not allow for nanotech as it is currently envisioned...
So yes, I agree that atoms are not legos
But because something is considered impossible does not mean that it is impossible
Of course, even the new scientific knowledge and engineering capabilities are usually different than those envisioned by the futurists.
Yet, I am still skeptical. Even if we do make breakthroughs that allow for something at the nano-scale, it will probably not be what people imagine (i.e. nanobots)
LS
Don't I have enough to worry about? (Score:4, Funny)
Yesterday, California Gov. Davis said bridges on the entire West Coast were going to blow up. The week before that, Anthrax was everywhere making already testy US Postal Employees, with the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, a little more edgy in mass wearing disguises. I am not even going to start with jumbo jets plowing into buildings 3/4 miles south of my apartment a month ago.
Now, thanks to Slashdot, I am freaking out about things I can't see without an electron microscope (yea like I got those laying around like cue-cats) crawling around my body screwing up my DNA! With the way the technology industry is dominated and my luck, I could end up ingesting a Microsoft Nanabot NT for the Intestines and end up with the Blue Skin of Death.
Can't we have more fun stories about people that cover their cases in PETA approved faux fur, obviously photoshopped, fake Apple combination PDA/MP3/GPS prototypes or someone running a beowulf cluster of Aibos powered by the disco beat of the Bee Gees [aibosite.com]. I got enough forwarded e-mail in my mailbox to freak me out for quite a while. On a positive note, at least no malls blew up on Halloween like that woman from Mississippi/Oregon/Florida/Arizona with the Saudi/Iranian/Iraqi/Palestinians/Egyptian/Sudanese boyfriend (that left abruptly) told her sister/mother/hair stylist/local sheriff would happen.
Two cures for terrorism (Score:2, Insightful)
That's quite a statement my friend. Let's be dreadfully honest here. What is terrorism? Terrorism is violence. Violence against a group of people who are unlike us. What defines "us"? Ladies and Gentlemen, we were infected at a very early age. With a dreadful virus, a virus of the mind. From here on I will refer to a virus of the mind as a meme.
We have all been infected with a very specific meme. The meme of race. The meme of Nationalism. The memes of "We" and "Them".
We are all alike. Even the most beautiful and glamorous of us is forced to take a large foul-smelling crap from time to time.
When you are born, your parents induct you into a society. They tell you the story of your Forefathers, your culture, your heritage. You are given a sense of pride in your genetic lineage. Don't panic. You have been infected. From then on, everyone around you is different. The "We" and the "Them". You can't be part of them, you're part of "Us", part of "our" "we".
When confronted with one of "Them", you meet an alien for the first time. Where your own eyes are round, the alien's eyes are slanted. Where your skin is black, his is white. Where your hair is lusturous and black, hers is fine and white, or red, or green. See what just happened? You fell into the trap... You have denied your shared traits, your shared behaviours. You saw the differences between you, and fell into the trap of racism.
Racism is a negative idea, Not because of the violence and hatred it breeds, but because it is wrapped up in the meme of race. The Twin memes of "We" and "Them". How am I different from any Muslim? How am I different from any Jew? How am I different from any Catholic? We all eat to survive. We all take big smelly shits. We Pick our noses and stare at our boogers. We Fart and blame it on the Dog. We all become aroused. Which incidentally brings me to the first cure for Racism.
We all need to fuck each other.
You heard me, say it yourself. You'll feel much better.
"We all need to fuck one another."
If the words taste funny in your mouth, it's cause you haven't acquired a taste yet. Try it again...
You may be asking me now, "But Kauai_Geek, we're gonna be having a whole lot of fun with this, but how will it cure racism?" The answer? By eliminating the Visual differences, it is impossible to differentiate yourself from your neighbor. He looks just like you. He has your cocoa skin, your exotic eyes, your tall lanky frame, even your acne. He. Looks. Just. Like. Me. He is me... How can I hate myself? How can I hate my brother? How can I do naught but love my sister? My Aunt? My cousin? My Father? My Mother?
It's okay if you still have that foul taste in your mouth. This is a difficult, and sometimes distasteful idea to stomach. How could you ever fuck a Nigger? A Chink? A Jap? A Wop? A Filthy Fucking Jew? You may not taste the sweet nectar of lust when you contemplate the differences of another. For you I have another cure.
You are going to have to kill everyone. Well I shouldn't say that. You won't have to kill Everyone . Just those who aren't part of your "We". Gives you a funny feeling in your stomach? Wrap all of that silly queasyness in a bundle and throw it over your shoulder. You're not a Murderer. You're ending Racism! And what a glorious gift your god has given you. That's right Your God. Don't let yourself down after everyone who looks different than you is dead. You and your similar brothers have much more work to do! You've got to kill everyone one who isn't a Catholic! Who isn't a Baptist! Who isn't a Muslim! Heck, even those who aren't Buddhists! You've got a whole bunch of Jews to kill. Go on, don't be hesitant. Your God said to love all your brothers. How can you love with the unsafety of difference between you and your brothers? Go on, keep killing.
Good work. You've killed everyone who does not share your melanin levels. Good work. Now take a good long look around. Hey.... Waitaminute John's eyes are blue. Mine are brown. Fuck, there's still a little bit of racism left to be purged... Smoke that blue eyed fuck! And his Daughter! That bitch with the Red HAIR!!! Slaughter that BiTch! Fucking murder hate kill enemy destroy slaughter maim, bite kick kill punch!
Thank goodness, there's no racism left. Funny, weren't there more people around here? Hmmm this is interesting. You seem to be All. By. Your. Self.
Well at least there's no more of those racist fucks left.
As for me? I'd rather get laid in a bed of cloth than a bed of dirt. Which do you choose?
Re: (Score:2)
nanotechnology's overblown promises (Score:3, Insightful)
Now it's well more than half of my friend's worst-case estimate later. We have nothing approaching any of those things. What we have is exactly one thing, C 60, also called buckminsterfullerene. It's a very interesting thing, but it's a material, not a machine. Its co-inventor, Dr. Richard E. Smalley, explained in the Sept. 2001 Scientific American [sciam.com] that the Drexler assembler is and always will be impossible, because molecules are not tinkertoys that you can put together an atom at a time.
In his 1999 Senate statement [rice.edu], Dr. Smalley said this about potential natural security ramifications of nanotechnology research:
As you can see, it promises some incremental advances, but no basic revolutions -- certainly nothing on the level of the atomic bomb. Stronger armor, lighter planes, faster computers, smaller missiles, absolutely. But hordes of nanobattlebots? Get real.
The Drexler revolution has fallen flat on its face. We do not yet have even a semi-autonomous microbot, much less any kind of nanobot. Even at the microscale it turns out the laws of mechanics are too different from the mesoscale to allow for something as standard as a gear, and the nanoscale is much more different than that. We do not have anything vaguely resembling an assembler, and chemists say that the assembler will always be impossible.
Yet for some reason people are still concerned with these fantasies. It's just bad science fiction, like warp drives and human-animal hybrids. It's not important. We will have nanotechnology but it will be far more modest and less dangerous than the whacked-out speculations of fake futurists. Start dealing with the technology issues we really do face, like cloning, nuclear proliferation, and social monitoring. They're important. Drexler and his cult are not.
Tim
Re:nanotechnology's overblown promises (Score:2)
Re:nanotechnology's overblown promises (Score:2, Interesting)
I've recently finished a detailed analysis [aeiveos.com] of what is required to achieve the full vision of molecular nanotechnology via the wet (biotechnology enabled) path (in contrast to the dry path being pursued by Zyvex [zyvex.com]). It will require significant improvements in both computer capacity and tools for the computer-assisted, and eventually automated, design of enzymes. Currently our abilities to design enzymes is limited, but we can expect these capabilities to increase significantly within the current decade. Within the period from 2010-2020, the costs for the design of assembly lines for nanoscale parts should fall low enough that the design and assembly of nanorobots should become feasible. So Drexler's estimates may yet prove to be right on the money.
Re:nanotechnology's overblown promises (Score:2)
There's a difference between transgenics and human-animal hybrids a la Cordwainer Smith. Not that I have anything against him as a writer, but that's not how transgenics work. You don't wind up with a talking humanoid beast of burden, and people would not accept them if you did.
Tim
Re:Polynomial v exponential (Score:2, Informative)
I think you're right about self-replication not being so important. A single desktop factory with fractal converging assembly lines is much easier to program than a mass of individual free-floating assemblers. And in fact, in Nanosystems (written in 1992) Drexler proposes just such a factory.
Chris