Re: Nanobot dangers - dismantling


In article <120dvnr9inu1ec8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<URL:mailto:rhooker123@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Again I think looking to nature is helpful for solution already
designed.

Dismantlers will be created and released, if not as commercial products
at least as viruses or military weapons. We now see China adopting
hacking as a tool in its military arsenal that it sees as a clear
advantage for reason beyond the scope of a quick post. Dismantler
nanobots will be part of competition, for example the US would probably
have some that will work against Indias for at the least defence, and
perhaps commercial, and kids with access to these devices will make
them.

So rather than trying to control the dismanters, which will be
impossible, nanodesign needs to think about how to make their
ecosystems of nano more defensive. Some means of tracking unusually
large loses and identifying threats, and countering acting them.

We desperately need to control nanotech. If we don't then at the
very least it will be a disaster on a massive scale, particularly
if we release any general-purpose self-replicating nanobots "into
the wild", before there are effective defences against them.

I'm not even talking about "grey goo". Just something that, for
example, thinks the lubricants in machinery are pollutants that
need to be cleaned up. Or the dead skin still attached to the
humans is part of the dust needing to be 'swept' up.

Dismantlers are going to need to be under particular control.
Anything that can treat organic material, and humans and a great
deal of the things we value are organic, as something to be
converted into feedstock...

Nanotech can be as dangerous as radioactivity - you can't see it,
hear it, taste or smell it, but it can do massive damage to you
and your environment. Incredibly useful, incredibly dangerous.

--
Rory McLean
rory@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


.

Quantcast