From: Michael M. Butler (butler@comp-lib.org)
Date: Sun Mar 17 2002 - 07:02:34 MST
Which is another reason that wet nt leading dry nt might actually be _good_
news. Depending on the devilish details. Apologies for not trimming this
reply.
Mike B
"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote:
>
> Mark Walker wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury@aeiveos.com>
> > To: <extropians@extropy.org>
> > >
> > > Nanotech can be completely disrupted by high levels of radiation or
> > > high temperatures, both of which may be produced using non-nanotech.
> > > This is something generally ignored by people overly concerned with
> > > some-color-of-goo scenarios.
> > >
> > How much comfort should we take in this? Unless I am in a hermetically
> > sealed container surrounded by a sphere of high temperature or radiation it
> > seems that some of the darker goo scenarios really are a worry. A fleet of
> > microsubs and microhelicopters carrying nanotroops could destroy our
> > civilization in pretty short order. How will we disinfect and protect the
> > world's air and water supplies? And if a few manage to survive holed up in
> > some fortress protected by radiation or heat, it seems the nanotroops still
> > have the option of constructing retroweapons such a nuclear bombs to coax
> > you out.
> > I would love to be convinced that the reality of the situation is happier
> > than this.
>
> No, I'd say you've stated it pretty much correctly. Offense has so far
> tended to run ahead of defense at extremes of technology, and an impervious
> shield against military nanotech must not only defend against bots but also
> against fusion weapons constructed by those bots.
>
> -- -- -- -- --
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/
> Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
--
butler a t comp - lib . o r g
I am not here to have an argument. I am here as part of a civilization.
Sometimes I forget.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:00 MST