From: Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de
Date: Sat Jan 06 2001 - 10:47:11 MST
"S.J. Van Sickle" wrote:
> You betcha...this scares me a *hell* of a lot more than gray goo nanotech.
> Biology by its very nature operates in the wild. Designing molecular
True, but pathogens are specialists. Rhinoviruses don't eat trees nor
plankton, only nasal epithel.
> nanotechnology that can forage for raw materials and replicate in the wild
> is a much harder problem than most people realize...and there is very
Sure, but it's not impossible. I can give you a blueprint outline.
> litte incentive to develope it unless you want to kill a lot of people.
Or the entire biosphere. Building weapons is a sufficient incentive, last
time I looked. Assuming, you think you can constrain military nanoweapons
to a certain geographic area?
> And I can think of easier ways to do *that*.
No, you can't. Because I don't know of any other artificial mechanism
to effectively sterilize this planet.
> Yes, MNT can be *extremely* dangerous. But I don't think the danger is in
> someone using Wal-Mart (tm) Goo-For-You to wipe out the biosphere. Much,
> much easier ways to do it.
Hmm, like dropping a few 100 km rocks on Earth surface? Or making the Sun
go nova? Easy, indeed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:04:35 MST