Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sneezebag · 05-02-2002, 01:25 AM

I've read and discussed with people about the potential of nano-technology. and, it seems that it has the potential for so much creation but also so much destruction.
It apparently has the potential to (by rearranging atoms)create things out of seemingly nothing. Like materials out of air, water, etc. Also, you could smoke 30 packs in one day, then when your asleep that night nano machines could enter your body and repair your lungs. if cancer had already struck then the malignant cells would be destroyed and replaced with healthy ones.
thus, the technology has the potential to allow immortality by simply repairing out bodies constantly.
but, what if you could create a hydrogen bomb out of sand. that could be a problem.
i could be wrong about this, but this is what i have read.
any thoughts?

Skydancer · 05-02-2002, 09:01 AM

Nanotechnology as currently envisioned is molecular scale robots. They would work by manipulating materials on the molecular scale, and as such could theoretically make any known object by appropriately arranging existing molecules.
They would not be capable of making new atoms or even differentiating between most isotopes, so making an H-bomb out of sand would not be possible. The destructive potential is limited to manufacturing viruses or being set to use some poor unfortunate human as the raw material source.

Quote:

Originally posted by sneezebag:
<strong>I've read and discussed with people about the potential of nano-technology. and, it seems that it has the potential for so much creation but also so much destruction.
It apparently has the potential to (by rearranging atoms)create things out of seemingly nothing. Like materials out of air, water, etc. Also, you could smoke 30 packs in one day, then when your asleep that night nano machines could enter your body and repair your lungs. if cancer had already struck then the malignant cells would be destroyed and replaced with healthy ones.
thus, the technology has the potential to allow immortality by simply repairing out bodies constantly.
but, what if you could create a hydrogen bomb out of sand. that could be a problem.
i could be wrong about this, but this is what i have read.
any thoughts?</strong>

[ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: Skydancer ]</p>

Corwin · 05-02-2002, 09:27 AM

You could also use it pretty creatively in other ways as a weapon... but you can do that with any technology.

Much has been said about preventing this and similar technologies. Bill Joy argued in favor of it. The basic problem is that it just won't work. SOMEONE is going to develop this technology. If we decide not to try, all that will happen is we'll be defenseless against nano-weapons when they become available. With nanotech we can counter nano-weapons. (The nano community is already way ahead of you. They've been thinking about possible nano threats and appropriate counters for a long time now... some very interesting ideas there...)

To those that argue for relinquishment... (not developing the technology because it's 'too dangerous.') Have you by any chance read about German history? Why don't we ask the Germans how well it works?

Christopher Lord · 05-02-2002, 01:21 PM

At first, it will be used for fairly normal things. Cars and airplains will get safer through stronger materials, computers will continue past current 'limits' on silicon, new drugs, new cancer treatments, new TV/Newspaper/computer displays that are much like paper (reflective and thin instead of projective and thick), etc.

Some of this is just starting up, so you could say this is what our next few years will look like.

As we get better with it, we will develop something like the self-replicator. This will be the turning point, where nanotech becomes almost scifi-like. When you have to build nanomachines one at a time, or in small groups, they cant be used for anything more than refining current technology. But when they can build themselves, things get very interesting.

For instance, with ripe nanotech, we can go to the store and buy a 'seed', which contains a supercomputer and a few replicators for a few cents. The super-computer has plans for building ALL machines someone would ever need to survive and prosper. You plant the seed in your garden of dirt, water it, and the machines slowly build up an infastructure for building those things in the plans. the faster this factory grows, the more heat it makes, so taking a few months would be a safe way to go.

Once constructed, you can select 'Corn', 'Car', 'Gun', 'House' or 'Space Station', and it will set to work on its contained plans for that thing. All you have to do is supply it with enough of the right atoms, and anything can be built for nothing more than time.

Great power, but also great danger.

What happens if the program controlling replication fails? these things would go like a global cancer, replicating until all atoms on earth are a part of them, including us poor humans who where to stupid to control our toys.

This 'gray goo' scenario could also happen on purpose, with nano-bots programmed to only replicate until they cross a logical border, or target a certain ethnic group. Such a thing could, oh, say, convert all atoms within the borders of the USA.

Scary, yes, but the only way to fight back is to build an immune system against such attacks, and make them smart enough to kill things which have never been seen before (sort of like our own, but it will need to be even more clever).

[ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: Christopher Lord ]</p>

elwoodblues · 05-02-2002, 01:40 PM

Quote:

For instance, with ripe nanotech, we can go to the store and buy a 'seed', which contains a supercomputer and a few replicators for a few cents.

Exactly. Shoot a few of these packages to the moon... Not exactly 'instant colony', it'll take awhile, but it's possible. Without the risk of human life. Maybe toss over some raw materials as well that aren't native to luna.

The original 'cloud' of nano-bots builds relatively crude factories to build more nanobots. Those nanobots build more complex factories which build more complex nanobots. And with those, you can build anything.

With an anvil, hammer, and forge, you can make crude tools. With crude tools, you can make fine tools. And with fine tools, you can make anything.

It's just a matter of control. I think that'll be a bigger problem than construction. Distributed control, ideally, but centralized control might work for some things (or even just over-arching goal-orientation). Compared to designing control systems for swarms of these things, actually building them won't be so tough, I think.

Christopher Lord · 05-02-2002, 02:01 PM

The control problem has several solutions.

We could go at it with traditional software techniques, which requires a central node controlling dumb terminals spread through out the scaffold, which issue orders. The central computer would have to be very powerful, and has to exist in the seed, forcing the seed to be sized relative to the complexity of the project. Something like a colony would need a computer perhaps as big as an apple. Programming such a computer would be very difficult, making testing and bugs the primary design challenges.

or, we could use something like what life uses. bisected gradients of chemicals. This cant offer exacting control, but its good enough for some things, like large uniform objects such as photocells or displays.

another option is the distributed software idea. This requires a mini-internet to be built, along with a great number of 'nodes' controling subnodes, which in turn direct local construction. This seems to be the best way for complex things, but probably the most expensive in terms of labor/product ratio (in other words, heat production and time taken). The seed need only be big enough to contain the stored plans, and a computer capable of unrolling the plans and instructing the first few replicators to begin work. (depending on plan complexity this could be microscopic)

Another is component construction. Load up several seeds, along with a controller seed that knows how to link up all the parts into the finished product. The benefit is that this forces an object-oriented development model. AKA: replacable/swappable parts.

there are other ways, such as hybrids, or outsourcing computation via radio. Its quite fun speculating on this stuff.

Corwin · 05-02-2002, 02:18 PM

Quantum entanglement/teleportation would probably be the best means of wirelss connection... speaking purely from an infrastructure perspective...

sneezebag · 05-02-2002, 02:53 PM

These are some estimates made by three nano scientists in 95:
Birge Brenner Drexler
Molecular Assembler: 2005 2025 2015
Nanocomputer: 2040 2040 2017
Cell Repair: 2030 2035 2018
Commercial product: 2002 2000 2015
Nanotech laws: 1998 2036 2015

Soliton · 05-02-2002, 03:50 PM

Even better than the Moon...
why not send the nano-packages to Mars? They could transform the ambient gases and a great deal of soil into a breathable, Earth-like atmosphere in decades or less. Phobos and Deimos as well- they could become huge colonies or starships.

Corwin · 05-02-2002, 03:57 PM

Amateurs.

I'm surrounded by rank amateurs.

You people need to learn to think big.

Mars is small time. The moon? Please. Come back when you're ready to play.

Find an uninhabited star system with planets and debirs and a g-type or younger star...

Strip the system and build a dyson sphere.

05-02-2002, 01:25 AM	#1
sneezebag Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: sydney Posts: 51	Nano technology I've read and discussed with people about the potential of nano-technology. and, it seems that it has the potential for so much creation but also so much destruction. It apparently has the potential to (by rearranging atoms)create things out of seemingly nothing. Like materials out of air, water, etc. Also, you could smoke 30 packs in one day, then when your asleep that night nano machines could enter your body and repair your lungs. if cancer had already struck then the malignant cells would be destroyed and replaced with healthy ones. thus, the technology has the potential to allow immortality by simply repairing out bodies constantly. but, what if you could create a hydrogen bomb out of sand. that could be a problem. i could be wrong about this, but this is what i have read. any thoughts?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-02-2002, 09:27 AM	#3
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	You could also use it pretty creatively in other ways as a weapon... but you can do that with any technology. Much has been said about preventing this and similar technologies. Bill Joy argued in favor of it. The basic problem is that it just won't work. SOMEONE is going to develop this technology. If we decide not to try, all that will happen is we'll be defenseless against nano-weapons when they become available. With nanotech we can counter nano-weapons. (The nano community is already way ahead of you. They've been thinking about possible nano threats and appropriate counters for a long time now... some very interesting ideas there...) To those that argue for relinquishment... (not developing the technology because it's 'too dangerous.') Have you by any chance read about German history? Why don't we ask the Germans how well it works?

05-02-2002, 01:21 PM	#4
Christopher Lord Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 808	At first, it will be used for fairly normal things. Cars and airplains will get safer through stronger materials, computers will continue past current 'limits' on silicon, new drugs, new cancer treatments, new TV/Newspaper/computer displays that are much like paper (reflective and thin instead of projective and thick), etc. Some of this is just starting up, so you could say this is what our next few years will look like. As we get better with it, we will develop something like the self-replicator. This will be the turning point, where nanotech becomes almost scifi-like. When you have to build nanomachines one at a time, or in small groups, they cant be used for anything more than refining current technology. But when they can build themselves, things get very interesting. For instance, with ripe nanotech, we can go to the store and buy a 'seed', which contains a supercomputer and a few replicators for a few cents. The super-computer has plans for building ALL machines someone would ever need to survive and prosper. You plant the seed in your garden of dirt, water it, and the machines slowly build up an infastructure for building those things in the plans. the faster this factory grows, the more heat it makes, so taking a few months would be a safe way to go. Once constructed, you can select 'Corn', 'Car', 'Gun', 'House' or 'Space Station', and it will set to work on its contained plans for that thing. All you have to do is supply it with enough of the right atoms, and anything can be built for nothing more than time. Great power, but also great danger. What happens if the program controlling replication fails? these things would go like a global cancer, replicating until all atoms on earth are a part of them, including us poor humans who where to stupid to control our toys. This 'gray goo' scenario could also happen on purpose, with nano-bots programmed to only replicate until they cross a logical border, or target a certain ethnic group. Such a thing could, oh, say, convert all atoms within the borders of the USA. Scary, yes, but the only way to fight back is to build an immune system against such attacks, and make them smart enough to kill things which have never been seen before (sort of like our own, but it will need to be even more clever). [ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: Christopher Lord ]</p>

05-02-2002, 02:01 PM	#6
Christopher Lord Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 808	The control problem has several solutions. We could go at it with traditional software techniques, which requires a central node controlling dumb terminals spread through out the scaffold, which issue orders. The central computer would have to be very powerful, and has to exist in the seed, forcing the seed to be sized relative to the complexity of the project. Something like a colony would need a computer perhaps as big as an apple. Programming such a computer would be very difficult, making testing and bugs the primary design challenges. or, we could use something like what life uses. bisected gradients of chemicals. This cant offer exacting control, but its good enough for some things, like large uniform objects such as photocells or displays. another option is the distributed software idea. This requires a mini-internet to be built, along with a great number of 'nodes' controling subnodes, which in turn direct local construction. This seems to be the best way for complex things, but probably the most expensive in terms of labor/product ratio (in other words, heat production and time taken). The seed need only be big enough to contain the stored plans, and a computer capable of unrolling the plans and instructing the first few replicators to begin work. (depending on plan complexity this could be microscopic) Another is component construction. Load up several seeds, along with a controller seed that knows how to link up all the parts into the finished product. The benefit is that this forces an object-oriented development model. AKA: replacable/swappable parts. there are other ways, such as hybrids, or outsourcing computation via radio. Its quite fun speculating on this stuff.

05-02-2002, 02:18 PM	#7
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	Quantum entanglement/teleportation would probably be the best means of wirelss connection... speaking purely from an infrastructure perspective...

05-02-2002, 02:53 PM	#8
sneezebag Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: sydney Posts: 51	These are some estimates made by three nano scientists in 95: Birge Brenner Drexler Molecular Assembler: 2005 2025 2015 Nanocomputer: 2040 2040 2017 Cell Repair: 2030 2035 2018 Commercial product: 2002 2000 2015 Nanotech laws: 1998 2036 2015

05-02-2002, 03:50 PM	#9
Soliton Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: A State of Mind Posts: 19	Even better than the Moon... why not send the nano-packages to Mars? They could transform the ambient gases and a great deal of soil into a breathable, Earth-like atmosphere in decades or less. Phobos and Deimos as well- they could become huge colonies or starships.

05-02-2002, 03:57 PM	#10
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	Amateurs. I'm surrounded by rank amateurs. You people need to learn to think big. Mars is small time. The moon? Please. Come back when you're ready to play. Find an uninhabited star system with planets and debirs and a g-type or younger star... Strip the system and build a dyson sphere.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.