Slashdot Mirror

There is a limit to how far we should tamper with the human body ...

FWIW

Sounds an awful lot like Michael Crichton's novel Prey. The story's description (from the above link): cloud of nanoparticles -- micro-robots -- has escaped from the laboratory. This cloud is self-sustaining and self-reproducing. It is intelligent and learns from experience. For all practical purposes, it is alive. It has been programmed as a predator. It is evolving swiftly, becoming more deadly with each passing hour. Every attempt to destroy it has failed. And we are the prey.

I hoped that this was more fiction than reality. Perhaps Prey is going to become a movie and they are writing this up to get people interested?

Doesn't the thought of an intelligent swarm of nearly indestructible particles scare people? I know I am paranoid and all but I can't fathom the damage that could occur if these got out and were self-sustaining even for a short time.

Sagan himself fell into the same traps though. Read Michael Crichton's excellent speech on the dangers of "consensus" science. It has a number of other good points to add to this dicussion. One very pertinent one is that we should be cautious of a bunch of concerned scientists :)

I realize you were trying to be funny. To be in the mind of someone who modded you interesting must be amazing. But in any case self-replication is not that good. Think of cancer. And if you want to read more about nano particle world domination, you should read Michael Crichtons Prey. Why yes, it is fiction. And why yes, it is worse than most of his other books.

Whoa.......
You just gave the Real Short(TM) summary version of Michael Crichton's "Prey"

Only a matter of time...

Actually a pretty good book, too.

• Who was 13th?
• And did anyone Eat their Victims?

Where's the numbers to back up the assertion that 1 billion birds are slaughtered every day. 200 slaughters per skyscraper = 5 million skyscrapers. That's a lot of slaughtering by a lot of skyscrapers....

I have birds hitting my windows (reflective tint film makes them mirror finish, I guess), but I have yet to see one slaughtered in the process.

So, where's the science?

Sounds like more of the same

Michael Crichton's Prey is an excellent science fiction novel about nanotechnology and the possible problems with it. Its an awesome technology, but I would be very concerned about possible abuse or mistakes.

Haven't you read Why Speculate yet?

"My topic for today is the prevalence of speculation in media. What does it mean? Why has it become so ubiquitous? Should we do something about it? If so, what? And why? Should we care at all? Isn't speculation valuable? Isn't it natural? And so on."

And Greenpeace aren't head cases? What do you call ramming Sailboats with powerboats because you don't like their sponsor?
Believe it or not, some of us happen to think owning firearms and hunting are basic human rights and necessary survival skills, your religion ( which is what environmentalism is) notwithstanding.
The "Deep Ecology" movement is at least as intolerant and militant a fundamentalist religion as militant Islam. It also presents a much greater threat to human life. After all, one of environmentalism's greatest "achievements", the banning of DDT, causes the deaths of over 1 Million people a year from Malaria.

Strange that a science fiction author seems to understand the scientific method better than most scientists. Michael Crichton's lecture Aliens Cause Global Warming shows the potenital source of all these massive death and doom predictions, historically. Like Mr Crichton, I do not claim to say that man has no impact on the environment. But rushing to fix a problem that may only be caused by numerical modeling and financial politics is something we should think twice about.

Any computer model is as good as the underlying assuptions and the initial data. This research seems to be more political than scientific. Pro-Kyoto people must maintain a sufficient level of public fear to receive further funding.

Give me money and in a similar study I will prove that by 2050 up to 30% new species will be created due to global cooling.

Read Crichton's recent lecture for a more elaborate discussion.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches _quote05.html

Thought you might want to know

But what if global warming is caused by an increase in the amount of radiation emitted by the sun?

Ain't nothing gonna stop that :-p

The number of variables that effect our planetary climate are so vast and varied and interconnected and probably more then a few are still unknown, it seems quite arrogant to think we know how to solve the problem.

And is it really a problem anyways, since we know the earth in the past has been MUCH hotter then it is today...

But really, the truth is that aliens cause global warming:
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches _quote04.html

More commentary here.

Yes, I'm familiar with it. I posted this link to a speech by Michael Chrichton in an earlier post. He says it better than I can:

The problem (...with the Drake equation...), of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice.

As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science.

Look at your post. fi can be anywhere from 0 to 100%. At the risk of seeming hubristic, I'll quote myself: There are simply too many variables that we have no way to quantify. The simple answer is that we don't know, we have no way of knowing (now or in the reasonably near future), and any claims to the contrary are sheer speculation. The Drake equation and your sheer speculations on what the values may be not only do not disprove my statement, they're excelling evidence in support of it. Thanks for posting.

According to Michael Crichton, your belief is responsible for global warming.

Michael Crichton has a fine article about the sacred cows of science. It gets better after the attack on SETI. Read Aliens cause Global Warming.

Seriously... this is the title of the Caltech Michelen Lecture, 1/17/2003 by Michael Crichton.

Since this discussion will lead to the inevitable global warming flap, this paper offers a good viewpoint on the issue (although I disagree with his assertion that SETI is a religion - it isn't - it's an experiment).

A few quotes:

Regarding Sagan's claims of nuclear winter:

Although Richard Feynman was characteristically blunt, saying, "I really don't think these guys know what they're talking about,"

In my book, if Feynam said it, it was almost certianly true. I used to go to his lectures at Hughes Malibu Research Center and it was an amazing experience. ...and...

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Alar on apples. Bogus

Silicon Breast Implants Bogus

DDT Mostly Bogus

Somewhere along the way we lost our ability to actually use science and facts to evaluate things and have fallen back on a faith based consensus pseudo-science.

Remember, None of us are getting out of here alive. Life - A sexually transmitted terminal disease. Always fatal.

What we've got right now is an establishment of Environmentalism as the new worldwide government sponsored and supported religion.
Michael Crichton said it best in a speech in September.

You may also be interested in this speech by Michael Crichton. He states "The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda." He goes on to compare environmentalism to religion, pointing out that environmentalism is becoming more about belief than about cold hard facts. Overall, it's a good read and he makes some incisive points and offers some solutions to the increasing politicization of environmental science.

I'm getting sick of greenies who skew numbers and facts to scare everyone. If you listen to what they've been saying for decades, you'll see that they change their minds more than almost any other "science" which is why I refute environmentalism as a science.

Here are some great articles about the "science" of environmentalists:

More Religion than Science

Eco-Detectives Literature

Enviro-Capitalists

Not a point for point rebuttal, but I rather enjoyed what Michael Crichton had to say to the Commonwealth Club.

Ok, so it's popular trash literature - but did anyone else who has read Michael Crichton's Prey get a little uneasy after seeing this article?

Along Similar lines: "Prey" by Michael Crichton.

hey... did you see that SourceForge 3.2 gets a plug in the new Michael Crichton novel, Prey? The blond, surfer hacker guy wears a SourceForge 3.2 t-shirt! It's weird what the authors pick up as signs of the community.

BTW the movie Timeline Movie trailer is out and looks pretty good if you like 13th century adventures mixed in with time travel.

This is, of course, how Michael Crichton's original bestseller The Andromeda Strain ended when it was written almost a quarter century ago. As this review so aptly notes, TAS is still ahead of its time. Perhaps it's worth a quick (re)read?