From: Max M (maxm@maxmcorp.dk)
Date: Mon Jan 11 1999 - 09:03:59 MST
From: Spike Jones <spike66@ibm.net>
>>Eugene Leitl wrote: P.S. You non-believers in the gray goo being
>>dangerous are really scary.
>thanks gene. to not acknowledge the danger would be like the first
>users of microscopes discovering anthrax and concluding that they
>are interesting but couldnt possibly be dangerous, as they are so
>very tiny. spike
There is a strong argument that under the conditions that we now live in,
that the biological form is close to optimum. If a simpler nano machine
could develop the infinite reproduction loop, it would probably allready
have happened. wouldn't it?
If grey goo is simple, shouldnt it happen spontaneous in nature or at least
in the complex chemical compounds in living creatures?
>From the evidence available it seems that "life" is the simplest form of
reproducing grey goo, that can function in the atmosphere, and there seem to
be some kind of minimal complexity for a system that can reproduce. the
simplest system we know of is probably the virus, and even it needs a
biological host mechanism to function.
Probably something that has been engineered can be better than what nature
has stumbled upon, but we simply don't know how much. Perhaps grey goo is
impossible because of complexity factors. I hope so.
This doesnt rule out the development of extremely dangerous viruses of
course. Which can equally as dangerous as grey goo from a human perpective.
Probably nonbiological nanofabrication has to take place in controlled
enviroments. Just like we living creatures has skin to protect us from the
enviroment, an advanced nano facility will exist in a nano-womb.
#------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Max M Rasmussen, New Media Director http://www.normik.dk Denmark
# Private mailto:maxm@maxmcorp.dk http://www.maxmcorp.dk
TheWorld =~ s/Microsoft Corporation//g;
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:46 MST