| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Nanotechnology Forum » Nanobot dangers - dismantling
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Rory McLean |
 Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
One form of particular danger from nanobots might be the
inappropriate use of dismantler nanobots. If you are going to get
nanobots to dismantle something in the environment then you need
to ensure that the item is very clearly identified, and that you
have legal permission to do this, otherwise the owner could get
very unhappy. In fact you had better have some way of claiming
and verifying ownership of it before you start dismantling.
This is not even a matter of whether the dismantler nanobots can
self-replicate, just how they are used. Even if you think you
have got the design right so that they wont 'clean up' living
creatures, e.g. humans, due to being able to detect an active
metabolism, it is still very likely a bad idea having dismantler
nanobots without a highly specific target out in the environment.
You might argue that general purpose dismantler nanobots would be
a good idea in a highly restricted environment, e.g. inside a
'recycler box'. And that they just work on things placed in the
box, and only when the lid is closed. But, even if they are
designed to not operate outside that environment, you are going
to want to think about the problem very carefully.
One way of avoiding having general purpose dismantler nanobots
would be to have some way of analysing what you want to dispose
of, which might involve some exploratory nanobots, verifying the
target, and then building specific dismantler nanobots for that
specific target. Issues of the target changing over time would
have to be considered, and the risk that any flexibility to allow
for this change would mean mis-targetting.
In general building general purpose dismantler nanobots should be
at least a very highly restricted activity.
All-in-all an interesting problem!
And one where living with the consequences of it not being solved
correctly might be difficult!
--
Rory McLean
rory@romsys.demon.co.uk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:19 am |
|
|
|
|
Again I think looking to nature is helpful for solution already
designed.
Dismantlers will be created and released, if not as commercial products
at least as viruses or military weapons. We now see China adopting
hacking as a tool in its military arsenal that it sees as a clear
advantage for reason beyond the scope of a quick post. Dismantler
nanobots will be part of competition, for example the US would probably
have some that will work against Indias for at the least defence, and
perhaps commercial, and kids with access to these devices will make
them.
So rather than trying to control the dismanters, which will be
impossible, nanodesign needs to think about how to make their
ecosystems of nano more defensive. Some means of tracking unusually
large loses and identifying threats, and countering acting them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Rory McLean |
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <120dvnr9inu1ec8@news.supernews.com>,
<URL:mailto:rhooker123@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
Again I think looking to nature is helpful for solution already
designed.
Dismantlers will be created and released, if not as commercial products
at least as viruses or military weapons. We now see China adopting
hacking as a tool in its military arsenal that it sees as a clear
advantage for reason beyond the scope of a quick post. Dismantler
nanobots will be part of competition, for example the US would probably
have some that will work against Indias for at the least defence, and
perhaps commercial, and kids with access to these devices will make
them.
So rather than trying to control the dismanters, which will be
impossible, nanodesign needs to think about how to make their
ecosystems of nano more defensive. Some means of tracking unusually
large loses and identifying threats, and countering acting them.
We desperately need to control nanotech. If we don't then at the
very least it will be a disaster on a massive scale, particularly
if we release any general-purpose self-replicating nanobots "into
the wild", before there are effective defences against them.
I'm not even talking about "grey goo". Just something that, for
example, thinks the lubricants in machinery are pollutants that
need to be cleaned up. Or the dead skin still attached to the
humans is part of the dust needing to be 'swept' up.
Dismantlers are going to need to be under particular control.
Anything that can treat organic material, and humans and a great
deal of the things we value are organic, as something to be
converted into feedstock...
Nanotech can be as dangerous as radioactivity - you can't see it,
hear it, taste or smell it, but it can do massive damage to you
and your environment. Incredibly useful, incredibly dangerous.
--
Rory McLean
rory@romsys.demon.co.uk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Steve O'Hara-Smith |
| Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 09:45:16 -0000
Rory McLean <rory@romsys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Quote: We have managed to keep the nuclear genie (mostly) in the bottle
for sixty years or so now, and we need to be at least as good
with nanotech.
I don't see that this will be possible, the nuclear genie is
quite easy to bottle up because it relies on rare materials that are
hard to refine to the required degree. There are very few places in the
world where U235 can be extracted from ore and the ore deposits are pretty
much all mapped and controlled. If I wanted to build a nuke, I would have
extreme difficulty in obtaining fissile material and substantial difficulty
in obtaining the high explosives.
OTOH there will (I hope) come a time when desktop nanofabs are
about as common as CD burners are today. Therefore I expect the problem of
controlling them is likely to be as intractible as the problem of preventing
people violating music copyright.
Several years ago I read an article covering the difficulty of
controlling genetic engineering because a decent genetic engineering lab
could be built in a small space (a few rooms) for an outlay of about a
million dollars. AFAICS once nanofabs are available experimenting with
nanotech is likely to be at least three orders of magnitude cheaper than
experimenting with genetics these days.
Quote: Which means international regulatory bodies that everyone can
respect, and whose agreed rules apply everywhere on the planet,
top secret military labs and teenager's basements included, and
anywhere off it that we get to.
You are dreaming if you think that's going to happen - There
are *no* rules agreed upon that apply everywhere on the planet, and that's
before you consider the impossibility of enforcement. Even where copyright
laws are agreed upon they are proving impossible to enforce in the face of
widely available cheap copying equipment. I see no reason to expect that
nanotech will be easier to control or legislate globally.
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Dec 01, 2008 8:47 pm
|
|