From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Mon Mar 18 2002 - 07:47:28 MST
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > A smart solution would require a worldwide nanoimmune system, but if you
> > look at it en detail you realize that the presence of blue goo screws the
> > ecology just as badly. (Even if you manage to install blue before someone
> > starts peppering you with gray). Machine phase stuff can be in a dynamic
> > equilibrium with each other, but unfortunately wet life winds up at the
> > loser end.
>
> What assumptions are you basing this on?
>
Yes, I too would be interested in that. In addition to radiation,
heat, ultrasonics and quantity there would appear to be opportunities
for fouling the intakes with small molecules that would tend to clog
the molecular sorting rotors. The blue goo doesn't have to be deployed,
it can be stockpiled in local caches to be released upon detection
of excessive thermal densities. As Robert pointed out in the ecophagy
paper "goo" scenarios are detectable by the heat density of rapidly
replicating nanotech. If it keeps its replication level below
the detection threshold (i.e. no more than the background biomatter)
then random sampling techniques should suffice to determine whether
a stealth breakout is being attempted.
I don't see blue or grey goo interfering that significantly
with the green goo.
(As an aside, I'll note a new theory on the breakout of HIV
is attributing its spread to blood-sucking flies in African
markets where Chimpanze carcasses are sold as food. The goo
is here already.)
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:01 MST