From: Ramez Naam (mez@apexnano.com)
Date: Mon Dec 02 2002 - 22:26:53 MST
From: Robert J. Bradbury [mailto:bradbury@aeiveos.com]
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Ramez Naam wrote:
>
> > Okay okay. Maybe I'm out of date. The safety concerns I've
posted
> > deal specifically with self-replicating assemblers.
>
> But we already have self-replicating assemblers. Every
> single living microbe (not viruses) matches this description.
> In fact there are more copies of microbial self-replicating
> assemblers in or on your body than there are copies of your
> own cells making up your body (documented in Nanomedicine VI).
Sure. But microbes occupy a tiny tiny fraction of the total design
space for self-replicators. They're limited by the materials they're
constructed of, the substrate their design data is encoded in, and the
fact that a huge ecology of competing microbes already exists.
When we start talking about fabricating new replicators out of whole
cloth, we're radically opening up the design space. Some of what
we've learned from microbes will apply, but there will also be many
surprises.
> If you want to be specific then you need to state
> a "universal assembler". It isn't clear that a "universal
> assembler" can exist. It isn't clear whether it is possible
> for an assembler to assemble both diamondoid (largely C
> based) and sapphiroid (largely Al2O3 based).
Excellent. I have just adjusted my vocabulary. In the future when I
wish to speak about self-replicating assemblers capable of building
anything, I will refer to them as "universal assemblers". Hopefully
that'll avoid any future confusion on this point. :)
> You have to get this Mez -- we already have self-replicating
> nanotech. You use it every time you eat a slice of cheese, a
> container of yogurt, consume a bottle of wine or beer, or
> wash your clothes in detergents equipped with "enzymes"
> (derived from bacteria). Many of your prescription drugs are
> also produced using this technology.
I get it Robert. I understand the proof of principle that biology
provides. I understand how we've manipulated biological
self-replicators to do our bidding. It's truly impressive.
My problem is not with the idea that we can build self-replicating
assemblers - I believe that we can. My problem is with the belief
that any extremely novel (read: not based on existing biology)
self-replicators we build will behave in a manner that we can
anticipate and control.
cheers,
mez
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:32 MST