From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sun Mar 17 2002 - 10:37:54 MST
Mark Walker wrote:
> 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.
One could extend the MAD paradigm (not that I'm happy with that mind you).
I believe this is the current position the U.S. (or any other nuclear power
would take), e.g. that the use of any nanoweapons to attack their nation
is justification for a nuclear response.
> A fleet of microsubs and microhelicopters carrying nanotroops could
> destroy our civilization in pretty short order.
If someone is mad enough to seek the destruction of civilization.
Otherwise there is little point to launching a nanoscale attack.
> How will we disinfect and protect the world's air and water supplies?
You have that problem already to a lesser extent with currently existing
chemical weapons. Anthrax as well has a significant clearance problem.
If one has the technology to produce and distribute nanoweapons
presumably one also has the technology to clean it up.
> 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.
Nuclear weapons do have depth limits.
> I would love to be convinced that the reality of the situation is happier
> than this.
Until one can build a society where everyone highly values
one anothers security I doubt that will be the case. But
as current reality shows, it seems fesible to survive even
though the situation is risky. It is probably worth pointing
out that humanity has always been at risk from "natural" hazards.
With regard to nanotech, it is important not to underestimate
the complexity of the design problem for "nanotroops". If we sit
on our hands while some crazy person manages to develop these
then we are likely to get what we deserve. As Eric and others
have pointed out we already have a good example in our immune
system of how to repel such attacks. In that case there is
a much simpler weapon in addition to heat or radiation --
more mass. Macrophages trump bacteria because they are much
bigger, can engulf them and then rain harmful substances
down on them.
I see no reason why the same approach can't work with nanotech
*if* we are wise enough to design nanomacrophages first. A
really simple defense would be defensive utility fog -- bacteria
sized nanobots designed to engulf a nanotroopbot, link arms,
deploy a spherical plating surface. The interior of the sphere
is evacuated and there is no more material for the nanotroopbot
to use for replication. The exterior defense bots would deploy
radiators that would allow them to remain cool, then direct high
temperature torches onto the engulfed nanotroopbot until it is
nothing more than a mass of slag. So long as you have sufficient
numbers of nanodefensebots stockpiled there isn't any problem.
There might be some good in investigating the history of weapons
development to try and understand *why* offensive weapons have
lead defensive weapons. I would actually question the claim.
Walled cities came before cannons that could destroy the walls.
Presumably offensive weapons have developed because people wanted
the wealth associated with some land, buildings, possessions, etc.
As "wealth" becomes increasingly virtual, offensive weaponry would
move into that realm. So nuclear weapons and nanotroops become
increasingly irrelevant. Instead we will be looking to defend
ourselves against viruses that seek to gain control of the
computronium.
The current vectors seem to suggest we will get molecular electronics
first. That means we will have the computing capacity to support
uploads. Then the pressure will start to build on producing methods
for uploading. Once uploaded, you can distribute yourself to
a much greater extent, making the goo scenarios pretty irrelevant.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:00 MST