Re: Leading nanotech experts put 'grey goo' in perspective

From: Jim Logajan (JamesL_at_lugoj.com)
Date: 06/15/04 

Date: 15 Jun 2004 05:15:34 GMT

iph1954@msn.com (Mike Treder) wrote:
> A paper published today in the journal Nanotechnology warns that fear
> of runaway self-replicating machines diverts attention away from other
> more serious risks of molecular manufacturing.

The paper is only four pages long and is appropriately categorized as
"Opinion". It makes a number of unsupported claims, arguable conclusions,
and even embraces Bill Joy's relinquishment proposal when it states:
"Accordingly, the construction of anything resembling a dangerous self-
replicating nanomachine can and should be prohibited."

Ugh. Any really useful "self-replicating nanomachine" is likely to
"resemble a dangerous" one - it's the nature of the beast. Why doesn't
CRNano and Foresight simply come out and embrace relinquishment then? I'm
at a loss to see where else this line of reasoning can lead to.

If the objective of this paper was to take the focus off of the grey goo
issue, in my opinion it appears to have implicitly adopted a proposal of
dubious utility to do so.

> Contrary to previous understanding, self-replication is unnecessary
> for building an efficient and effective molecular manufacturing
> system. Instead of building lots of tiny, complex, free-floating
> robots to manufacture products, it will be more practical to use
> simple robot arms inside desktop-size factories. A robot arm removed
> from such a factory would be as inert as a light bulb pulled from its
> socket. The factory as a whole would be no more mobile than a desktop
> printer and would require a supply of purified raw materials to build
> anything.

About the only thing I agree with in the above is that the robots do not
need to be "free floating" or "complex". But the first step toward MNT WILL
require the need for exponential growth, and tiny self-replicating devices
are still the best way to attain that curve. The opinion piece simply
doesn't attempt to compute the size of the nanofactory in terms of number
of base pieces or how the first one is to be built or how fast it can be
built. A "desktop-size" factory is HUGE (really really huge - seriously)
relative to the molecular scale - no matter how you slice it. Without some
relatively TINY self-replicating device available to boot-strap the
construction of the first nanofactory, the nanofactory approach is a
non-starter (unless you are willing to wait millions of years for
nanofactory number one to roll out of the lab!)

Also, can a nanofactory build a copy of itself or not? If all I have access
to is a nanofactory, solar energy, and soil, am I self-sufficient or not?
If I'm not, why not? Will it be because I and other people like me are not
to be trusted? Will there be an elite, select few, who have access to full
nanotechnology and decide who is trustworthy and who isn't? Just how will the
prohibitions be enforced? How will violations be detected? What remaining
freedoms will be sacrificed?

> "An obsession with obsolete science-fiction images of swarms of
> replicating nanobugs has diverted attention from the real issues
> raised by the coming revolution in molecular nanotechnologies," said
> Drexler. "We need to focus on the issues that matter how to deal
> with these powerful new capabilities in a competitive world."

Yes, but if you outlaw ownership of self-replicating nano-assemblers, only
oulaws will own self-replicating nano-assemblers. ;-)

> Mike Treder, Executive Director of CRN, said, "We hope that this
> article will advance the discussion of the actual implications of
> molecular manufacturing. There is no need for panic, but there are
> urgent concerns that must be addressed before the technology arrives."

There are no reasons to panic simply because no one is in a position to
build either a nanofactory or even the simplest non-self-replicating
assembler - and wont be for many years.