From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Sun Aug 29 1999 - 17:02:17 MDT
On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Brian Atkins wrote:
> "Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
> >
> > I think it would be nicer to live on some nice, moderately
> > small vista close to your friends, while supervising the assembly
> > of nanotech reefs that could serve a shelters for small fish to
> > promote the repopulation of the oceans?
> >
>
> Wouldn't it better to just have your nanosystems construct
> perfect replicas of living fish? You could repopulate as
> many fish as you like. If you can master that then you can
> have transporters similiar to Star Trek.
Eghaads, no! The whole point of more reefs is to enjoy the
beauty of survival-of-the-fittest game. Provide little
homes for the baby fishes and let them grow up. If they
are clever enough they escape from the bigger fishes
they get to make more baby fishes. (I'll admit that we
have distorted things somewhat by creating more "artificial"
environments, but its a fairly passive distortion.)
I believe one of the books about the Physics of Star Trek
(or something similar) points out that classic "transporters"
are difficult or impossible due to the information and
energy requirements. You definately have a *real* problem
without a receiver at the destination. Replicators are feasible.
Deconstruction with replication is possible. Approximate copying based
on intensive internal surveying seems possible as well. But
moving me atom-by-atom to another place over a carrier wave?
Not! No Magic Physics.
This does raise an interesting point however in a nanotech
world we will have three very interesting possibilities
1) Let the Earth return to a "natural" state.
2) Garden parts or much of it.
3) Engineer parts or much of it.
Another poll perhaps?
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:56 MST