From: John Marlow (johnmarrek@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Jan 10 2001 - 00:25:22 MST
I'm reading it now. The science is good, obviously,
and I'm not all the way through it, but holes appear
in the first few paragraphs. For example--the comment
that a stealth buildup would take 20 mo to accomplish
and that a more rapid buildup would be detected,
thereby enabling defenses to be deployed.
Yah, right.
WHAT defenses? The basic problem, of course, is that
you really need a nanodefense--and that you can't
possibly develop one until (as Drexler has pointed
out) the tech is already here.
Therefore: If the first guy/nation/AI to develop the
tech screws up or goes psychotic, detection becomes
quite irrelevant because there ARE no defenses.
As to the little buggers not devouring the planet's
core because of meltown--well, that hardly matters to
us, does it?
But, as I say, I'm still looking it over. Homework is
what I'm doing; that's why I'm here.
Thanks to you and those others who've provided helpful
links. Last time I plowed through foresight in-depth,
the ecophagy piece wasn't there.
john marlow
-- --- "Michael M. Butler" <butler@comp-lib.org> wrote: > Well, as long as we're wishing, I'd like a pony. > Jeeze, Mr. Marlow. Do > your freaking homework. Please. Get a copy of the > Freitas paper from > Foresight. > > www.foresight.org/NanoRev/Ecophagy.html. Read it. > It's the first paper > on the subject of any detail. As I say, I think some > of what he says is > arguable. > > John Marlow wrote: > > Meticulous calculations > > showed that to be very, very, very unlikely, if > not > > impossible. > > > > I'd love to see similar calculations regarding the > goo > > situation. > > > > I really would. > > > > ? > > > > john marlow > > > > --- > > > > --- "Michael S. Lorrey" <mlorrey@datamann.com> > wrote: > > > Your position rests, though, on one key > principle: > > > that absolutely > > > nobody can be trusted. I think the fact that > most > > > intelligence analysts > > > will admit that at least one if not more nuclear > > > weapons may be already > > > in the hands of one or more terrorist groups, > yet > > > they have not been > > > used is a pretty good indicator that even the > most > > > extreme individuals > > > can still have the capacity to retain some > sanity in > > > their judgement. > > > The mere fact that the russians, chinese, > cubans, > > > and others have had > > > them and not used them is a pretty good > indicator > > > that most people are > > > pretty good at being responsible with such > power. > > > Accidents do happen, > > > no doubt, however you have not shown any > indications > > > that advanced > > > nanotech would be as uncontrollable as you > claim. > > > You have no evidence > > > (nor, IMHO, any knowledged to judge) that any > > > accidents would not be > > > containable. > > > > > > john marlow wrote: > > > > > > > > All true, all true--but irrelevant; point is > it > > > can happen. Two further > > > > points: nukes can be tracked, perhaps even by > > > satellite, by rad emissions, > > > > making use difficult. Not so nannite packages. > > > Also, any party employing a > > > > backpack nuke must fear massive retaliation > from > > > the target nation. With > > > > the proper nanoweapon, however, the target > nation > > > can be obliterated, > > > > making retaliation improbable and use more > likely. > > > > > > > > john marlow > > > > > > > > Michael S. Lorrey wrote: > > > > > > > > > > RUSSIA MISSING NUCLEAR DEVICES > > > > > > > > > > > http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/lebedlg.htm > > > > > > > > How long have they been missing? For years, so > far > > > as I know. Not one > > > > has been used. How about that? > > > > Here's another question? How do we know they > > > actually had them to begin > > > > with? Perhaps its just a matter of a commie > > > official reporting x number > > > > were made and not actually making that many, > then > > > pocketing the > > > > difference. Not unheard of. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! > > http://photos.yahoo.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:04:43 MST