The Law And Nanotechnology

YIAAL writes: "An article in Smalltimes raises the issue of legal implications of nanotechnology in all sorts of areas. Would nanoweapons be treated as chemical or biological weapons, or do they need a new treaty? If you can use nanotechnology to copy anything and then share the "plans" with friends who can use nanotechnology to make copies of their own, is it like Napster for the material world?" The gray goo problem - accidentally releasing a self-replicating device that turns the entire world into copies of itself - is going to be a huge spur for close regulation of nano-devices.

Comments

Re:Biological, of course

[EyesOfNostradamus]

> To build anything small enough yet powerful enough to self-replicate as well as do something (non)useful, it would necessarily have to cross the threshold of life, or at least straddle it in the same way viruses do.

Great! So instead of worrying about Code Red shutting down the Internet, we'll have to worry about Code Green turning the whole planet into a giant puddle of mud...

great quote

[Sawbones]

By far the best quote in the article:

...when legislators do try to craft new bodies of law to deal with new technologies, "the results are either pointless or disastrous."

Witness the DMCA.

Been there, done that (legally speaking)

[Compulawyer]

The "debate" that old laws may not cover new technology was settled a long time ago in a variety of contexts. The law is a surprisingly adaptable tool. Good laws speak to core concepts of human action and interaction and it is up to courts to fit the innumerable factual scenarios they see into an existing legal framework.

For example, the US Supreme Court held that any human creation under the sun is patentable as long as it meets the statutory requirements of novelty, usefulness, and unobviousness. Thus, the creations of nanotechnology, like biotech and computer software are patentable. (Believe it or not, there was a serious question as to whether software was patentable until recently - it still is not in most countries).

As for the specific uses of nanotech-created devices, I think that people will find that new devices fit nicely into the old legal boxes. This is not to say there will not be argument over which box it should go in, but it will most assuredly be fit into some box.

Re:Been there, done that (legally speaking)

[nyet]

The "debate" that old laws may not cover new technology was settled a long time ago in a variety of contexts. The law is a surprisingly adaptable tool. Good laws speak to core concepts of human action and interaction and it is up to courts to fit the innumerable factual scenarios they see into an existing legal framework.

For example, the US Supreme Court held that any human creation under the sun is patentable as long as it meets the statutory requirements of novelty, usefulness, and unobviousness. Thus, the creations of nanotechnology, like biotech and computer software are patentable. (Believe it or not, there was a serious question as to whether software was patentable until recently - it still is not in most countries).

As for the specific uses of nanotech-created devices, I think that people will find that new devices fit nicely into the old legal boxes. This is not to say there will not be argument over which box it should go in, but it will most assuredly be fit into some box.

This has GOT to be a troll, or the most amazing display of cluelessness I have EVER witnessed on Slashdot.

1) You use patents as an example of a "good" outcome of the "useful" tool of law wrt technology.

2) You assume the reader thinks there is NO serious question as to whether software should be patentable.

2a) You ALSO assume the reader then agrees software should be patentable.

3) You ask then ask (based on these premises) the reader to have faith that our legal system is capable of producing GOOD laws regarding technology, despite reams of evidence to the contrary (do I even have to MENTION the DMCA?)

You don't read /. much, do you?

Either that, or I have been horribly trolled.

Grey goo?

[gnovos]

Well, if it had been a grey slime, I would just use my +5 2-handed sword, Sunblade...

But for grey goo? Hmm, I don't think I can help you there... :)

Biological, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

To build anything small enough yet powerful enough to self-replicate as well as do something (non)useful, it would necessarily have to cross the threshold of life, or at least straddle it in the same way viruses do.

Wouldn't it be nice to actually have demonstrations of this nanotech that everyone's so worried about?

Premature Prognosication

[oldstrat]

Lets let the things do _anything_ before we accuse them of copyright violation, much less walking in the shoes of the creator.

Your FREE Spelling Evaluation

[Anonymous Coward]

infinite
existence
necessary
terraform

And, because I'm a nice guy, here's some grammar fixes for you:
a virtually infinite supply
every corporation in existence will cease to make money

Your English mastery level: 3rd grader/CmdrTaco

Re:Taking over the world with nanomachines.

[greenrd]

Um, bacteria don't have design goals. Not only that, but evolution might have accidentally cut off some more efficient avenues (like non-carbon-based life, perhaps).

this didnt work last time....

[Anonymous Coward]

i think the, should we ever achieve the idealized nanobot, the one that can make anything from anything, we will have a chance to prove or disprove some religious beliefs. someone is going to reproduce a human being. wether or not this thing is alive or not, or sentient or not, or concious or not, will be very, very importan. i can hardly wait.

Re:Yes, no different than any other "poison".

[skwirl42]

Actually, the current trend in the nanotech field is to stray away from "natural" resources, such that these self-replicating machines would require specially prepared resources in order to function, and to build. And seeing as they are mechnical, any replication errors would be faults in their design.

diamond age

[gr3g]

an interesting thought about nanotechnology is being able to use it to feed everyone from suplies as simple as seawater. One thing that would prevent Grey-Goo is the massive amounts of energy required to produce nanotech machines and the fact that no-one has developed a self-replicating machine outside of theory. Neal Stephenson did a good book on nanotechnology called The Diamond Age.

Re:diamond age

[Anonymous Coward]

on the subject of energy, and i might sound stupid, but have you ever calculated how much energy an average atom contains?. aka!.

Re:Diamond Age

[praedor]

Try "Builders of Infinity". This book, can't recall the author, contains the good and bad of nanotech. The gray goo problem pops up as does a nifty way to colonize a new solar system.

Re:diamond age

[Bearpaw]

One thing that would prevent Grey-Goo is the massive amounts of energy required to produce nanotech machines ...

What "massive amounts of energy"?

and the fact that no-one has developed a self-replicating machine outside of theory.

... yet. Why does the fact that no one has done it yet mean that it can't happen?

That said, it's not clear how likely accidental "grey goo" would be. I'd be more concerned about intentional grey goo.

Neal Stephenson did a good book on nanotechnology called The Diamond Age.

That was not a book on nanotechnology, that was a novel that had a particular version of nanotechnology as part of the context.

Some people have written good books on nanotechnology, Here's a list.

Re:Diamond Age

[Spiffy]

DIAMOND AGE was terrific. Also check out ARISTOI by Walter Jon Williams (hope I spelled everything correctly).

In ARISTOI, the great, forbidden danger was "mataglap nano", which apparently served to break everything down into component molecules for later use as raw material. An inattentive nano designer who didn't put adequate controls on the bugs' self-replication capacity could accidentally create mataglap, so therefore all new nano designs were to be reviewed closely by computer programs and more-experienced superiors.

Re:diamond age

[dachshund]

And as I recall, in The Diamond Age, "chaos" was avoided through the centralized control of replication systems. The great fear in that world was that someone would design a self-replicating machine. In any case, Stephenson's world relied on a very firmly-controlled system of IP protections. One has to wonder if such a world could actually exist.

Re:diamond age

[gr3g]

Massive amounts of energy include all the work and power that is put into just writing out "IBM" with copper molecules. The point is it just doesn't happen with little or no input. Even cells must expend a lot of energy to divide, only doing so about 1% of their life cycle. And about self-replication is that machines have not been able to do it. Organisms have, molecules have but not machines. The question therefore is, is it really a machine if it self-replicates. And there is no guarantee that self-replication will ever happen. But it could, you are right. As of right now I would say it doesn't seem very plausible. Lastly, Neal Stephensons book is visionary on what Nanotech can become. Just as Arthur C. Clarke's books helped create ideas on satellite technology and what it could be.

Nanoweapons are 1 year away at most

[skyknytnowhere]

You heard me. Anyone that says we are safe from nanoweapons for at least 25-100 years or some other BS answer obviously didn't see the article about Bacteriaphage nanotubes. What if those nanotubes had been designed for animal cell membranes instead of bacterial cell membranes? And then injected into a person? That's manmade ebola right there. Your organs would all be perferated at the microscopic level and NOTHING WOULD CURE IT. Granted it wouldn't reproduce/be infectious... but it would be devastating. You could probably get away with putting it in food or water. And this technology exists NOW. Not ten years, not next year. NOW. The benefits of nanotechnology are coming very quickly. But along with them come the dangers, and we are woefully underprepared to deal with some. After all, how do you cure a nanovirus that pokes holes in your cells? skye

Re:Nanoweapons are 1 year away at most

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that that bacteria puncturing nanotube was DERIVED from a bacterial gene that naturally inhabits the cell membrane, with the checkpoints to prevent autolysis removed artificially. It had 4 billion years of evolution making it an efficient hole puncher, it doesn't self replicate, and it takes a lot of them before its toxic. Basically, for the weight, Cyanide would be a lot better at killing people than your hypothetical human holepunch.

Re:Yes, no different than any other "poison".

[Dixie_Flatline]

The obvious quick fix (although still not guaranteed) is not to make the nanotech devices SELF-replicating; only have a 'constructor' build the nanotech devices, without them having autonomous replication. This reduces their effectiveness somewhat, but makes them a little more safe. (Although random faults can still give rise to a self-replicating device, and it only takes a few of them to start an exponential growth).

The problem with this solution is not that it reduces their effectiveness 'somewhat', it removes their effectiveness all together. We currently find it very difficult to manufacture things at that level. These nanomachines will have to be built, basically, atom by atom. The whole point to nanomachines is to do the work for us at that level. Given that, they are the perfect solution for our problem of building machines that small.

It seems to me that the best solution is to build and test these things in rooms that either have very hot walls and floors, or create them in an environment that is magnetically sealed. When we've figured out how to make constructors, the next thing we figure out how to make is 'killers'. Much like our immune system, these 'killers' would make sure that rogue machines were destroyed before any harm was caused. Like our bodies, there is the possibility of 'cancer'...an out of control growth that can't be handled by simple 'killers'. However, at that level, chemical (acids?) and radiation (EMP) therapies would be quite effective.

If you haven't already, read 'The Diamond Age', by Neal Stephenson. He doesn't go into any great detail, but you sort of get the idea that the world has coped with nanoweapons and such merely by escalating the level of nanotechnology until there is some sort of balance. What we appear to be trying to create is a whole new ecology, and as such, we'll need to try to build in the natural checks and balances that any properly functioning ecology has.

Re:Yes, no different than any other "poison".

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the distinguishing feature of this nanotech goo is that it can self-replicate using natural resources. That would make it at least a virus, if not more.

Re:Gray goo

[praedor]

Whoa boy! I LIVE in Utah for the moment and I must object to you claiming that it would be inconvenient to turn Utah into a "gray goo". On the contrary, that would be the BEST thing you could do to Utah. Please. Start at Temple Square in Salt Lake.

Re:Why not adopt the three laws of Robotics?

[RAruler]

As the old Cliche goes, fight Fire with Fire.

These nanobots would be unique, so you could make nanobots (A) that seek out and destroy the gone-wrong nanobots (B). Granted, the nanobots (B) would likely be able to protect themselves, and could probably even modify themselves to appear like the other nanobots (A).

Nano Tech is alive and well!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can interact in a "nano" world in Anarchy Online http://www.anarchy-online.com Nano formulas can be used for all sorts of things. --Also did you know that "Death isn't fatal"TM Be sure to use the scanners in your nearest cities, know where your reclaim terminal is.

Re:Why not adopt the three laws of Robotics?

[Christopher Thomas]

But, we are talking about nanobots here, they would most likely have the ability to replicate themselves, and why replicate an inherit design flaw, like a dependance on something?

Easy - because they're too dumb to modify their own designs.

Designing a system that can design or improve the design of systems as complicated as itself is another task that's comparable to solving the Strong AI Problem.

You could argue that mutations might let them evolve, eventually, but nanomachines would be much less suceptible to mutation than biological replicators (by design - you don't want a cosmic ray to cause future generations of nanobots build houses without foundations, for instance).

You'd probably give nanobots the hard-coded pattern for replicating themselves, and the ability to download large structure designs from your database when building things. That way you don't have to give your nanobots the designs for every structure you could conceivably want to build, and they wouldn't have to do any design work at *all*.

Now, someone could deliberately build nanobots that would try to replicate ad infinitum, but that's for another thread.

Huh?

[mr. roboto]

I don't follow this argument at all. Are you claiming that e.g. gasoline would be copyrightable because the assembly process for gasoline could be described in a document? Or that there is some copyrightable code that would control the assembler? In either of these cases, the copyright still does not apply to the gasoline itself.

To offer a contemporary analogy, I can design a new process for refining gasoline. My design documents are (automatically) protected by copyright, which means that only I have the right to authorize copying of said documents. Copyright does not, however, prevent someone from studying my documents and building their own refinery based on my design. I need a patent to protect against that. And the copyright certainly has nothing to do with the finished product.

I fail to see how nanotechnology changes this situation. It's just a new means of manufacturing.

Re:Huh?

[mr. roboto]

if I make a physical substance out of an informational atomic pattern, does the copyright no longer protect the substance?

That's right: the copyright no longer protects the substance. The chemical industry has existed for over 100 years. For at least the past 50 of these years, during which chemical quantum mechanics has been well understood, scientists in these companies could specify, to the angstrom, the location of each atom in the product. Does that mean that the chemical products are copyrighted? Of course not. And regardless of how transparently a nanotechnological assembler works, there is some process between the information and the final product.

It's a strech to argue that copyright would even protect the information specifying the atomic positions. Something does not become copyrightable simply due to the fact that it somehow contains "information". Information needs an author in order to gain the privelege of copyright. Current law limits the concept of authorship to written/electronic/spoken communication. It would require a radical change of law to extend the concept of authorship to creation of an object. That's what patent is currently for.

Of course, in a world ruled by shady nanotechnological cartels, such law may become fact. But the argument of the original post was that upon the advent of nanotechnology, material goods automatically become copyrightable. This is simply not so.

Re:Huh?

[dachshund]

Copyright does not, however, prevent someone from studying my documents and building their own refinery based on my design. I need a patent to protect against that. And the copyright certainly has nothing to do with the finished product.

Forget the process. What do you do when the physical representation (atoms linked into a specific configuration) is equivalent to the informational representation? For instance, if I make a printed book out of a copyrighted data file, does the copyright not protect the printed work? Similarly, if I make a physical substance out of an informational atomic pattern, does the copyright no longer protect the substance?

You might, of course, argue that the printed book is not what's protected by copyright law, it's simply the information expressed by the book that has restrictions placed upon it. But what about the information contained in a physical substance? If I redistribute the substance, am I violating copyright?

All questions we can't really answer, most of which will be made more complex by the continued expansion of IP protections.

Re:Huh?

[hereticmessiah]

Prior Art?

Re:Huh?

[dachshund]

And regardless of how transparently a nanotechnological assembler works, there is some process between the information and the final product.

Often a technological process becomes so routine that it no longer needs to be considered: eg, copyright cases rarely pay much attention to the process of translating bits on a disk into words on a page-- it's simply assumed that the two things can be interchanged by some straightforward process and are therefore both representations of the same copyrighted document. At some point we decided to consider electronic materials copyrightable under the same laws protecting printed documents. Will we not do this again?

As an unrelated example, by focusing closely on the process you might conclude that hypertext links are no different from bibliographic citations, and should therefore be protected in exactly the same manner. But a judge decided that they should be treated differently simply because of the technology that underlies them and the way they operate to the user (mind you, he was a wacko and the decision ought to be reversed. but it may not be.)

If a copyrighted document can be encoded into a huge molecule, is the new representation still protected against duplication? If duplicating this molecule requires disassembling it back into an equivalent electronic representation, then re-encoding it, is copyright violated?

Aggressive Defense!

[rebelcool]

I just *need* the ability to detonate rockets away from my person in everyday life to foil those pesky assassins. I can't wait.

Re:Gray goo

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't mean we won't die in the process. ;-)

The ultimate "green" invention

[analog_line]

Trash dumps will become prime real estate again as a source of unused and unwanted raw materials. Want to get rid of nuclear weapons? Blanket your enemy's missile bases with nanomachines that melt the fissable material/destroy the firing mechanism/turn the whole missile to goo. Toxic waste cleanup (aside from nuclear waste, as the stuff will still be radioactive broken down) would be a breeze. Just neatly break apart all those nasty molecules into friendly elements. Nanomachines that scrub CO2 from the atmosphere. Rebuild the ozone layer (this would be harder, but I imagine still possible).

Re:Gray goo

[Anonymous Coward]

i have to disagree with you. I cant see why you think that every (or even some) organisms want to turn everything into copies of itself. This is maybe true for some viruses but these are mere BYPRODUCTS of life. Life just wants to exist, work, run, whatever you call it. Why nothing managed to monopolize the world? Because it wasn't built for that. Unfortunately humans are stupid enough to not only think hou they could build something like that, but to actually make it just to see if they are right. i say screw the patent stuff. that is NOT the issue. aka!.

Out of left field here

[Chakat]

This article has some great philosophical questions, though most of the points are more to the copyright/patent law section. However, I'm more interested in the more wide-ranging questions Suppose one were to use these nano-manipulators to tweak someone's DNA and of basic body structure. At what point, if the nano manipulations are successful, and they no longer have "human" DNA, do they cease becoming human? What if the same operation were performed against someone's will; even though they're still alive and healthy, could it be considered murder?

I know these questions are a bit off, but if we get to the point where we can perform medial manipulations to regrow limbs, I figure it'll only be a matter of time before people start using this technology for fashion/style purposes.

Missing the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Nanotech will initially cause incredible chaos. Millions if not billions will die. Think about it, if I had a machine that could create anything from an atomic pattern I wouldn't need to work would I? I wanna eat an apple so I go in my back yard and come back with some dirt. Since dirt and apples are the same atoms the machine would reorganize them into an apple. The machine would cover other things too like clothing, medicine etc... It would also reclaim matter like crap and left-over food. Anyhow parts of society would start falling apart because segments of the working force would stop working. Hence the chaos. Eventually everybody will have these machines because I'll have my machine replicate itself and give it to my neighbour who in turn will give it to his etc...

Laws about nanotech will not concern themselves with material issues like copyright and money since nobody will care anymore. We'll all just lay back and take it easy for a year until we get bored and ask ourselves what we really want to do with our lives. Then we'll get back to working except it won't be for the man but rather ourselves and the only reward will be a sence of contribution.

That's assuming we even get this far. I'm sure this kind of future is not in the interest of the following people:

- gangsters
- politicians
- rich people
- anybody else who enjoys living the high life and doesn't want to lose their Mexican maid.

It does not make sense

[Mr_Blank]

To understand how the govenment could react to the arrival of gray goo, look how it handles today's hot topics. On one hand the US government forbids cloning and on the other allows genes to be patented. yikes

Many points come to mind, here are the biggies:
1) First the rules for genes and clones contradict the rest of common law. If I can own land, my own body, and even ideas and do whatever I please with them, why can't I investigate my own body if it violates someone's patent on a gene, and why can't I investigate making copies of (cloning) myself? Both of these uses of my own body come under "fair use" - Good lord I hope so - so why is the government holding me down?
2) Further, the rules seem to contradict each other. If it makes sense to be able to own exclusive rights to a gene, then why not copies of the gene? And if copies of a gene are okay, then why not copies of sets of genes - aka chromosomes? And if it makes sense to have copies of sets of chromosomes - aka /me - then why can't we make a /little-me ?

Imagine the fun that comes to reality when systems similar to the gray goo are available. Governments are usually slow on imagination, and with innovation occuring so fast these days, it will probably take nothing short of a revolution to make things make sense again. But, then again well-formed democracies last a long time because they go through constant phoneix rebirths, and better ideas are encouraged to the top. Maybe not one big revolution, but lots of little ones.

Conclusion: The gray goo is gonna cause people to go through more revolutions in thought because things have to make sense eventually.

Tangent Point:
I would also like to point out that Native Americans had civilized culture for thousands of years without any real concept of land ownership. As today's civilized culture becomes more nomadic, maybe property in general is passe? Maybe that is why many slashdoters fight so hard against anything - patents, copyrights, DMCA, Microsoft - that keeps innovation low: it is not natural and nature always finds a way. :)

The world does not make sense when it can't make cents.

What if it's learned behaviour?

[WillSeattle]

What if you make a nanobot with the capability to learn, and you originally coded it to only copy articles for fair use purposes, but it realizes that all information should be free, and recodes itself to disseminate info to all comers?

It's not like you anticipated that it would decide to break the law.

The same goes for something designed for tissue repair - what if it starts fixing things you don't want fixed, like someone who had a tubal ligation or other operation to shut down reproductive capability, and it just fixes it. You didn't intend for pregnancy to occur ...

What if it's a security bot, repairing data links to increase signal capabilities. And it runs across an uber-Carnivore screen tap that the uber-NSA put in, to intercept info it's not supposed to intercept. So the bot cuts it out of the circuit, since it doesn't belong. Did you do that intentionally? What if when you designed it, such things were illegal, and then they made it legal? What if it was legal and then they made it illegal?

Ah, the possibilities are astounding in their implications.

Re:Scarce Resources Aren't Fixed By Nano-magic

[Winged Cat]

As has been noted, solar cells become a lot more economical. Similar logic applies to wind, wave, and hydroelectric power. It also becomes a lot more economical to dig for power, and extract it more completely - say, from oil and natural gas pockets (no more "flares" wasting some of the gas you dig up), or drill your own geothermal well. And that's not even considering what happens when you get nano into space, where it can manufacture solar cells (Dyson sphere, anyone?) or rockets to hunt down and bring back comets and asteroids (though presumably ones which contain more power than the rockets use). And then there's other planets (a heat engine between Venus's atmosphere and the cold void of space, for instance).

BTW, this also removes land as a scarce resource. Physical proximity to pre-existing populations remains a problem, though, but it is reduced in scope.

Intellect...yeah, I'd have to agree nano doesn't give us a major supply of that. It may allow us to make better use of what little we have, but that's about it.

No, we are not doomed to gray goo

[Dirtside]

Read this article (long and technically complex, but fairly easy to read nonetheless):

http://www.foresight.org/NanoRev/Ecophagy.html

...to find out why the gray goo problem is not an insurmountable one, or (in my opinion) nearly as threatening as global thermonuclear war. I used to worry about gray goo (accidental nanobots-eat-world scenario) and black goo (deliberately engineered nanobots-eat-world scenario), but the above article largely put my worries to rest. Here's the abstract:

The maximum rate of global ecophagy by biovorous self-replicating nanorobots is fundamentally restricted by the replicative strategy employed; by the maximum dispersal velocity of mobile replicators; by operational energy and chemical element requirements; by the homeostatic resistance of biological ecologies to ecophagy; by ecophagic thermal pollution limits (ETPL); and most importantly by our determination and readiness to stop them. Assuming current and foreseeable energy-dissipative designs requiring ~100 MJ/kg for chemical transformations (most likely for biovorous systems), ecophagy that proceeds slowly enough to add ~4C to global warming (near the current threshold for immediate climatological detection) will require ~20 months to run to completion; faster ecophagic devices run hotter, allowing quicker detection by policing authorities. All ecophagic scenarios examined appear to permit early detection by vigilant monitoring, thus enabling rapid deployment of effective defensive instrumentalities.

Re:No, we are not doomed to gray goo

[Anonymous Coward]

20 whole months to run to completion? So that means if we stop it in a month it will only eat, say, all of Japan, or the entire Amazon, or the US east of the mississippi. Sheesh.

How long till irremediable damage to the local ecosystem?

Re:Dues Ex

[gr3g]

What makes you think that the batteries would be applied any different than the AC adaptor? I couldn't begin to imagine if they ran off of a 12 volt system.

More than poison: death.

[hereticmessiah]

Including us.

Feel free to ignore me - I don't really care. AI presented what would happen when machines as intelligent as us would be let loose on the world, imagine what would happen if machines which were indescriminately able to reproduce were let loose on the populus?

Chaos, death, and destruction. Seeing as these machines wouldn't know any better..

Re:More than poison: death.

[Anonymous Coward]

...imagine what would happen if machines which were
indescriminately able to reproduce were let loose
on the populus?
Chaos, death, and destruction. Seeing as these
machines wouldn't know any better..

Too late - there are plenty of 'machines' with the ability to indescriminately reproduce (given a proper supply of raw materials) out there already. Bugs live on your skin, your food, in the air, etc. The notion that man-made, mechanical bugs are going to do a dramatically better job of reproducing strikes me as hubris of a sort.

What makes you think that bacteria know any better?

Re:Paradigms, apples, and oranges.

[loosenut]

Honestly, how could IP law be applied?

Physical objects could be protected with built-in nanobots encoded to self-destruct if they are created as a copy without an initialization code. It'll make copying things a lot more difficult, but, much like software today, dillegent hackers will always find a way around the copy protection measures.

Carefully devised protection methods will make copying all but impossible, and relagate the copiers to a fringe portion of society, so no one will really have anything to worry about, because we know that w4r3z don't really effect the cost of software.

Re:Why not adopt the three laws of Robotics?

[Christopher Thomas]

Why not adopt the three laws of Robotics?

Because making the nanomachines understand the Three Laws requires a solution to the Strong AI Problem. This will not be a cakewalk, and will be overkill for the vast majority of applications of nanomachines.

Building in an "off" switch or a dependence on a specific environmental factor would work at least as well and would be far easier.

You Mean Human Beings?

[BiggestPOS]

The gray goo problem - accidentally releasing a self-replicating device that turns the entire world into copies of itself

Sounds like people to me. Well, other than the accidnetly part, we were "released" quite intentionally.

Re:You Mean Human Beings?

[Anonymous Coward]

In his 1991 book, Unbounding the Future (sequal to Engines of Creation), Drexler points out that his concept of the "Grey Goo" is unworkable. He likens it to letting a car loose in the woods and seeing how long it would survive without gas.

Re:You Mean Human Beings?

[Anonymous Coward]

we were "released" quite intentionally

Would that be by God during Creation or by our alien overlords at seeding?

Grey Goo

[Anonymous Coward]

We already have the natural equivalent of "the grey goo". It's called dirt.

Re:Grey Goo

[shattered42]

The problem is, for the moment dirt can't reform itself into some terminator-like entity and attempt to hunt down the parents of political dissiden.... wait, this isn't a movie. And yet, the plot for T2 doesn't sound all that far-fetched when looked at from a nanotechnological perspective.

Re:and we need regulation to protect us from evil

[LaoK]

>Cloning research is necessary to let us figure out how to grow a "heart in a jar."
>Imagine: you get sick, they take a blood sample, 3 weeks later they have a new heart
>for you. If we can nail that, then there won't be any need to clone whole bodies,
>and most of the moral opposition to cloning vanishes.

Way off topic, but...

Supposing as a result of the embryonic stem cell/cloning debate (and yes, I realize
they're two different technologies) we go ahead with the research and find out that
embryonic cells really are"better" than adult derived stem cells for treating the diseases
we now think they might be good for.

We've then created a market for growing and shredding human embryos in order
to obtain biotech raw materials without first giving any serious thought to whether
this is a moral endeavor.

What makes this relevant is that it may well not be possible to grow the "heart in a jar"
from pluripotent embryonic stem cells without the complex chemical signaling environment
which takes place in fetal development. If that's true, then it would likely be easier to "harvest"
fetal organs and grow them in culture after they're already differentiated.

This is a technology with much greater near term possibility, IMO, than nanotech replicators.
But again, is such research something that ethically we ought to pursue?

Or is it a high-tech equivalent of cannibalism?

--
LaoK

Gray Goo? preposterous!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to make an educated guess that this gray goo stuff is impossible.

If you think about it Evolution has been at this whole life game for incalculable aeons (maybe not incalculable, but if you think that you can truly comprehend the 3 or so billion years that evolution has been occuring you're kidding yourself) But in that time evolution has produced no "gray goo" (however, life sounds alot like this gray goo to me.) So from this I'm going to conclude that there is some inherent fault with a molecular structure like a gray goo that can just indescriminately replicate itself such that it won't be able to survive in the environment.

Re:Just goes to show you

[Anonymous Coward]

OK...think about this. What is the purpose of these corps? To line people's pockets. Why do they want their pockets lined with $$? So they can buy stuff and have anything they want. Ok, SO...if everyone could create anything they wanted with nanobots, who needs money? What motivation would these corporate bigshots have to stay in business? What would be the point? The system would implode and those running it would likely be happy to allow it to. The only "work", assuming an extremely versatile nanobot, would be intellectual endeavors.

Re:Just...popping in, mind yous

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the requirements of antenna length for receiving at a given frequency, and the fact that the higher the frequency, the worse the propagation distance in atmosphere, water, earth...

How does one make a microscopic object react to a frequency that is likely to have a wavelength a good deal longer longer than the LONGEST/LARGEST nanodevice? A quarter wavelength of a useful radio frequency is still WAY longer than the largest nanobot.

Facinating Nanite Novel

[LaminatorX]

Folks interested in nanotech run wild should check out Bloom, by Will McCarthy. His vision is far more complex and beautiful than mere "Grey Goo." Solar/heat powered nanites, or mycora in this context, floating in self organizing clouds around the inner planets with all sorts of emergant behaviors. An excellent read.

Re:Scarcity as a function of economy

[de Selby]

Just a tecnhical point, but I considered the best Capitalist vs Communist point to be the Hayek "Command economies take control from those who know what they're doing." argument.

VERY rough summary: In a free market, millions of people have the chance to break off into new directions and demand creates markets, but command economies put the decisions into the hands of a few people who (naturally) don't understand everything as well as the specialists in the markets, who don't maintain markets as well, and who rarely create new markets.

Of course, you could just say the goal of communism is to MAKE everyone equal by eliminating the class systems, but it instead imposes classes--negating the possibility of TREATING everyone equal.

Why not adopt the three laws of Robotics?

[RAruler]

For those of you unfamiliar with Asimov and the Three Laws of Robotics it goes something like this.

1) A robot shall not through action or inaction allow a human come to harm.
2) A robot shall always obey the orders of a human unless it violates the first law.
3) A robot shall attempt to save itself, unless this violates the first and second laws.

Now, this was developed for robots with positronic brains, much more advanced than your average nano bot is likely to be. But when you take into consideration the complexity of what a nanobot has to do, there must be something controlling them, right? Well, I'm not sure a computer of today could really comprehend the idea of human life, or how its action could affect it.

Going completely offtopic now :) Another way of controlling these pesky little automotons is through the use of food, if you make them dependant on something they cannot make themselves. This is the tricky part, as in theory they could probably make everything they ever need, or redesign themselves to no longer need the item.

But, if a hoarde of nanobots gets out of control, we do have a way of stopping them, an Electro Magnet Pulse wreaks havoc with pretty much every electronic device, and to shield the little buggers would be an act of utter stupidity.

Basically, if a destructive force of nanobots gets released, that can duplicate themselves, is immune to EMP, and is self sufficient. Well, we are quite screwed, you have to rely on the fact that no one in their right mind would design such a doomsday device.

Re:Why not adopt the three laws of Robotics?

[tswinzig]

But, if a hoarde of nanobots gets out of control, we do have a way of stopping them, an Electro Magnet Pulse wreaks havoc with pretty much every electronic device, and to shield the little buggers would be an act of utter stupidity.

Basically, if a destructive force of nanobots gets released, that can duplicate themselves, is immune to EMP, and is self sufficient. Well, we are quite screwed, you have to rely on the fact that no one in their right mind would design such a doomsday device.

Let's follow this (albeit extremely far-fetched, sci-fi, paranoid) idea to it's logical conclusion. What do you do when this "horde" redesigns itself to be shielded from EMP?

Re:Why not adopt the three laws of Robotics?

[Steeltoe]

1) A robot shall not through action or inaction allow a human come to harm.
2) A robot shall always obey the orders of a human unless it violates the first law.
3) A robot shall attempt to save itself, unless this violates the first and second laws.

How in the world are we going to build robots that follow these laws, when even most humans can't? These robots would have to be 100% perfect psychic. Also, if you had really read those novels, you would have noticed that the plot was usually about how the robots somehow did harm anyways, even when following these rules.

- Steeltoe

Re:Why not adopt the three laws of Robotics?

[RAruler]

I was rethinking the dependance idea. Nanobots can synsthesize pretty much everything they can get their hands on. But, they can't make things that require them to be in a different place, like crystals grown in space. Zero gravity has strange effects, and so it would be almost impossible to recreate the crystals. But, we are talking about nanobots here, they would most likely have the ability to replicate themselves, and why replicate an inherit design flaw, like a dependance on something?

Re:Why not adopt the three laws of Robotics?

[bravehamster]

...there must be something controlling them, right?

Not necessarily. Nanobots could be built that have the capability to detect a certain chemical, seek it out, and absorb that chemical, and then shut down. No outside control would be necessary.

But, if a hoarde of nanobots gets out of control, we do have a way of stopping them, an Electro Magnet Pulse wreaks havoc with pretty much every electronic device, and to shield the little buggers would be an act of utter stupidity.

In order to be vulnerable to EMP the nanobots would have to contain semi-conductors. Here's some useful info:

"Society has entered the information age and is more dependent on electronic systems that work with components that are very susceptible to excessive electric currents and voltages."(15) Many systems needed are controlled by a semiconductor in some way. Failure of semi-conductive chips could destroy industrial processes, railway networks, power and phone systems, and access to water supplies. Semiconductor devices fail when they encounter an EMP because of the local heating that occurs. When a semi-conductive device absorbs the EMP energy, it displaces the resulting heat that is produced relatively slowly when compared to the time scale of the EMP. Because the heat is not dissipated quickly, the semiconductor can quickly heat up to temperatures near the melting point of the material. Soon the device will short and fail. This type of failure is call thermal second-breakdown failure. Source

But there are several different possibilities for the future of nanobot production. Some of these are entirely mechanical, some entirely chemical, or even biological. An EMP would do nothing to these types of nanobots.

Re:Why not adopt the three laws of Robotics?

[Fixer]

Now, imagine I am an evil mad scientist bent upon destroying the world, or at least, the world's ability to support human life.

Now, I (as the hypothetical Bad Guy) know enough about nanotechical design to remove all the standard safe-guards and environmental dependencies. But I'm not a Mechanical Engineer, Chemical Engineer, Nuclear Physisct[sic], et al, I only know how to work with nanobots. And that means I don't know how to make them resistant to the wide variety of defenses that might be employed in the future. So what do I do?

Enter Evolvable Hardware.

No, my little minions of evil don't have to have any intelligence at all, they merely have to be able to make random changes in themselves and be able to evaluate those changes in regards to a given set of hostile conditions.

Problem solved, world go BOOM!
No, not that easily, but the concepts needed to really unleash a little hell on earth already exist and are being researched.

Re:Why not adopt the three laws of Robotics?

[surfcow]

Basically, if a destructive force of nanobots gets released, that can duplicate themselves, is immune to EMP, and is self sufficient. Well, we are quite screwed, you have to rely on the fact that no one in their right mind would design such a doomsday device. I have to disagree strongly. Look at israel, india, ireland. Hell, look at the military. People kill strangers (for honor) using the nastiest weapon they can get their hands on, regardless of the danger to themselves or their own families. This is the ultimate terrorist weapon. "Give me what I want or I will end the world." Maybe they want all jews to leave israel. Maybe they want the english out of ireland. Maybe they want a good bagel. If nanotech ever ends up in the hands of, say, the Taliban, we are all screwed tight. What to do? I don't know. But depending solely on the charity or sanity of the least sane nano-engineer is not a plan. The weakest link is the one to worry about. Maybe it's time to set up colonies on mars. The moon might someday be orbiting a pile of ... broken molecules. =surfcow

Re:Why not adopt the three laws of Robotics?

[Anonymous Coward]

you say: "This is the tricky part, as in theory they could probably make everything they ever need, or redesign themselves to no longer need the item." i say: that's (science) fiction. to in theory propably make what they need they would first have to know what they need and how to obtain it. If they weren't designed to do that in the first place they would need something like a brain or evolution. To redesign themselfs would be an even harder task as nanobots are not just morphable things that can rearrange themselfs to fit a particular situation they were not designed for. you'd need evolution to make that happen in one way or another. Your DNA works only because it is in the right environment. that's how stupid nanobots are. and if you think they will all magically come together to make robocop then you read to much sifi :) greets.. .... aka!.

The Diamond Age

[Hallow]

by Neal Stephenson is a must read book for anyone interested in some of the potential possibilities, implications, and ethics in a world where nanotech is an everyday thing. Obligitory Amazon Link.

It's good scifi/cyberpunk stuff.

My questions would be, in a world where physical objects can be duplicated easily, would property rights stop meaning as much? and would property laws become more like intellectual property laws?

Imagine a DNCA (N for nano), anti-nano-copying... this car is nano-righted 2092. Any attempt to duplicate it is a violation of our nanorights...

Re:The Diamond Age

[bartle]

Imagine a DNCA (N for nano), anti-nano-copying... this car is nano-righted 2092. Any attempt to duplicate it is a violation of our nanorights...

Of course, this is exactly how it was in Diamond Age. Matter compilers could make anything, but the instructions necessary to actually produce something were incredibly complicated. A team of designers would have to work months to write to instructions so something as simple as a chair could be produced. In a world like this, intellectual property is everything and physical property is near worthless.

Of course, it's also important to note the limitations to compilers had in Diamond Age as well. The products they produced were limited in what materials could be used, they couldn't produce a wood chair for example, they could only produce a chair that felt like wood. Hence they couldn't really produce food.

I personally think Diamond Age is the best thought out book I've read on the subject of nanotechnology and it's uses, I recommend it to everyone who might be interested in such a subject. Neil Stephenson made reasonable assumptions about the first stages of nanotechnology (they won't be self replicating) and avoided the whole "nanomachines are magic" concept. He paints a world that is very similiar to our own, with it's own problems and own solutions.

Re:The Diamond Age

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, it's also important to note the limitations to compilers had in Diamond Age as well. The products they produced were limited in what materials could be used, they couldn't produce a wood chair for example, they could only produce a chair that felt like wood. Hence they couldn't really produce food.

They could produce food; one of the turning points in social acceptance of nanotech-created food was the creation of patterns for several kinds of rice.

Re:This Has Massive Consequences For IP/Copyright.

[MikeFM]

Myself I plan to hack an assembler into my body along with some kind of computer and Net connection and then I'll be able to fabricate anything anywhere anytime just by absorbing the needed molecules and downloading the plans into my head from Nano Napster.

People who fail to grasp how dangerous IP laws are will suffer their shortsighted approach when nanotech becomes common.It may take 5 years or it may take 50 but nano is coming and it will change everything.

The economy will go nuts worldwide as suddenly anyone can make anything for themselves.. but will it matter as nobody will be starving or in need of shelter. You'll have weird things like opensource toasters, opensource pizza, opensource sport cars, etc. We'll eventually move towards some sort of trust economy I'd imagine to help balance out non-material economic needs like services and R&D.

It should be highly interesting to see how they try to govern such changes. Once someone invents something then everyone will have total access to it. Groovy eh? :)

Re:Don't get all worked up

[praedor]

What?! There is NO difference between carbon atom x and carbon atom y. That is like saying there is something different about "natural" vitamin C and synthetic vitamin C. No, there is NO difference except in the means of production. Biologically and atomically they are indistinguishable and IDENTICAL.

An atom-for-atom copy of anything is indistinguishable from the parent form in principal. The ONLY way you could tell one from the other is if the copy was made with different isotopes of some of the various component atoms and the isotopic signature was examined. Of course, what would be the point of doing that in the first place except as masturbation?

There is NO way to tell the copy from the original.

Support for Open Source

[Sir Mix A Lot]

They mentioned open sourcing the design specs for the various nano technologies. It was said that this may not provide an incentive for innovation and the like, standard arguements. The standard defense of an Open Source model then is to sell support. Seems like if anyone can use the design, then what will truly set the nano tech companies apart will be the ability to support the technology once it is in the field. I hope I never have to call and have some tech support guy try to diaganose my nano technology problem in my body.

Um ... okay ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Internet and Global Positioning System (GPS) technology have forced a rethink of areas such as copyright and the right to privacy.

GPS technology infringes neither upon copyright (naturally) nor upon the right to privacy.

A GPS receiver calculates only its own position - it must be combined with telematics (i.e. cell-phones and the like) before it can communicate that information.

To claim otherwise is about as legitimate as to claim that wristwatches which monitor heart rates infringe upon the wearer's right to privacy.

Re:Um ... okay ...

[lie as cliche]

A GPS receiver calculates only its own position - it must be combined with telematics (i.e. cell-phones and the like) before it can communicate that information.

Nanotelemetrics. NanoGPS grouping creates a messenger cluster which either travels to the nearest receiving station, or creates offspring in that direction. Repeat as necessary.

Taking over the world with nanomachines.

[Christopher Thomas]

No, my little minions of evil don't have to have any intelligence at all, they merely have to be able to make random changes in themselves and be able to evaluate those changes in regards to a given set of hostile conditions.

...And this feeds back to the whole Gray Goo question: _can_ nanobots be built that could turn most matter into copies of themselves?

I personally think that this is very unlikely to be a problem. Special-purpose nanobots - e.g. ones optimized for construction given external power and matter supplies - can be very efficient. General-purpose nanobots would be less so. If you try to adapt a nanobot to the task of replicating as much as possible using ambient sources of matter and energy, you'll get something with performance characteristics much like existing replicators with similar design goals - bacteria.

I have yet to see a convincing argument that general-purpose nanomachines could be more efficient than bacteria at spreading and transforming the world about them. Both have abundant supplies of raw material, but both are limited by energy and by competition with other life forms.

That's not the issue

[Gorimek]

We can all see that the world would be much better, at least in some ways, if we all could cooperate. That's not the problem. The problem is that we do not in fact cooperate in that way. A very different thing. Think about it.

Re:What else?

[unitron]

Interesting viewpoint, but the reason to have a rebuildable CPU probably isn't to repair the existing design but to be able to improve it. Someone has to develop that new, improved design.

The manufacturing part of technological development may take a pretty bad hit, but there'll still be demand for the design side of things.

legal issues? I think not.

[Mikiso]

You know, the people in power couldn't care less about the grey-goo problem. That's for academics and pessemists. Mega corps and government only care about maintining their stranglehold on power. Consider the idealized nanotech world where we press a button and make whatever we want. Where is the profit? Who owns anything? How can people oppress the weak with the scarcity of material goods? Now then. Do you really think for a single minute that all the greedy COEs and dictators will just roll over and let utopia exist? I think not! Really. I'm willing to bet all the money I'll ever make in the rest of my life that you'll see more regulation to protect our favorite enemy "IP" than you will to protect the innocent from being turned into pudding. I mean, who owns the patent on making stuff with nanobots? It makes the economy to which we are all slaves utterly useless. Well, that's how I see it playing out anyway. One more way to benfit humanity squashed under the foot of greed.

Objections to gray goo scenario.

[TekkonKinkreet]

"The gray goo problem - accidentally releasing a self-replicating device that turns the entire world into copies of itself - is going to be a huge spur for close regulation of nano-devices."

Maybe so, but there are arguments to be made against the gray goo scenario based on energy availability, such as this one

I think it's most likely that this will degenerate into the kind of global warming he-said she-said which lets lawmakers do whatever the hell they want, and justify it with the science they prefer.

Re:Objections to gray goo scenario.

[Anonymous Coward]

the document assumes that the energy requiered comes from biomass. ..........Biomass is not the only source for energy on the planet. ........aka!.

Doesn't that require initial cognitive abilities?

[Geiger581]

For such rules to actually work, wouldn't the goo have to be designed with inherent reasoning abilities? If the collective was designed 'dumb' (most likely scenario for practical purposes), how would the ingrained laws take hold when it formed intelligence/sentience?

Scarcity as a function of economy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like bring up the idea that nanotech will do for matter what the net did for information - it will make scarcity basically (well, I'm no astrophysicist, but this would be bound by the extent of the matter in the universe and our ability to harvest it) non-existant. As I recall, the best arguments I remember for why Capitlism is more effective than Communism had to do with the fact that scarcity demands a heirarchy for allotment and distribution, wouldn't this technology eventually reverse that stance?

Remember - this is a question, not a demand - I'm quite curious about this, and I'd like views from both sides. I don't have an opinion yet.

Scarce Resources Aren't Fixed By Nano-magic

[St. Intrope]

What about power? Sure, nano machines could make gasoline for you, if you had wads of power to make it with.

In other words, the laws of Thermodynamics haven't been repealed. You'll still have to plug into something to make it all go...

Nano-magic doesn't get you away from scarce resources, just moves a lot of things out of the scarce column.

The things that will stay in the scarce column:
Energy.
Land.
Intellect.

There are probably others, but I can't think of them right now.

Re:What else?

[skwirl42]

How would it end technological advancement? There's more to the universe than atoms and matter...

I also did a report in high school, and those were my conclusions then... that was before becoming a little more jaded and sceptical... why would businesses allow this to happen? Would the government allow its precious economy to be torn apart?

Re:This Has Massive Consequences For IP/Copyright.

[IronChef]

That kind of technology is SO far in the future that we may as well be discussing what kind of treaties we'll sign with the Klingons.

I love science as much as the next geek. Loved it enough to almost finish my MS. ;) But talking about "gray goo" plagues and universal assemblers is a little premature right now! We're at the "Ogg make fire!" state in nanotechnology right now.

Paradigms, apples, and oranges.

[meepzorb]

When humans shifted from neolithic hunters to agricultural settlers about 10K years ago, civilization had to change, as did laws about land use: Modern notions of property were invented.

When humans shifted from simple agriculture to larger, more complicated cultures that required administration and trade, civilization changed. That's why things like writing, math, governments, and money were invented.

When humans shifted from those cultures to ones we would recognize as 'modern', civilization changed. Something like IP, or Copyright would have made no sense at all in the era before the printing press. And something like modern capitalism would not be able to exist without things we take for granted, like effective transportation and communications systems.

And if (and that's a big 'if' since the 'grey goo' is still science fiction) ever comes to be, guess what? Civilization will radically change to accomodate that shift. Inevitably.

Imagine a world where you could, quite literally, make something out of nothing. A lot of the basic assumptions driving modern capitalism would be violated: No more scarce resources to allocate, since nothing is scarce anymore. Much less power over individuals since (to be brutally honest) the only thing keeping the masses in check under our system is that pesky need for 2000 calories a day.

Honestly, how could IP law be applied? I've copied the gasoline you patented... now what? Will you tell my employer to fire me? Fine, I'll make food from dung. Will you put me in jail? Well, I have 10^6 nanobots in my pocket that will dig me a tunnel in seconds. You'd have to make IP violations a capital offence. Good luck building a stable society on THAT principle, my friend.

My point is that wondering how IP law would deal with the advent of nanotech is roughly like a caveman pondering how the Internet will effect the comings and goings of the herds he follows for hunting: The old way of looking at the world just wont 'stretch' to fit the new technology. This has happened many times before, and it will happen again for as long as we survive.

In some ways you can already see the current paradigm starting to burst at the seams: DMCA, Congress passing laws against cloning (with amusing discussions about souls and cheek cells worthy of medieval thelogians), etc.

It's all going to change. Period.

:Michael

Re:Paradigms, apples, and oranges.

[Bearpaw]

Imagine a world where you could, quite literally, make something out of nothing.

Nanotechnology would not make it possible to "quite literally, make something out of nothing". It may make it possible to make many things -- but not anything -- out of common material.

Re:Paradigms, apples, and oranges.

[CommieLib]

I disagree that nanotechnology abolishes scarcity. It does nothing at all to abolish the scarcity of land, and only abolishes only some services. It ameliorates it certainly, but many elements of the modern economy will remain scarce. Assuming non-nuclear manipulation and assembly of objects, we can create 90% of our world with a bucket of sand, carbon and rust. What we can't create, however, is 100 acres of land on which to build the house whose raw materials we just created. Or, for that matter, the labor still required to assemble the house.

To pursue a more relevant line of logic, I cannot nanoassemble the experience of hearing a concert pianist... I must have something that the pianist wants and is thus willing to give up that portion of his time and effort.

Arthur C. Clarke has argued that the form of currency in the distant future will be the kilowatt hour. In a world where energy is the ultimate limit on production, this makes perfect sense. So while capitalism undergoes an sea-change transformation under those conditions, it's basic ability to distribute goods and services and signal scarcity is unchanged.

Interestingly enough, it seems to me that the last thing that could be effectively assembled in this way is food. Food has an incredibly complex structure with an incredibly sensitive error-detection process (taste).

Re:This Has Massive Consequences For IP/Copyright.

[jparp]

IP and copyright laws will not stop people from copying materials any more than current laws stop people from trading information.

I don't think any law in the world prevent people from copying food to feed the starving.

I mean if it's free it's free.
Perfect 'Assembler' technology would create an virtual infanite supply of materials. If supply becomes infanite, then the value of the supply becomes zero. Therefore, just about every corporation in existance will cease to make a money.

But this won't be a big deal, because money won't be neccessary any more.

Why would you wan't to make money if you could "replicate" a house, a car, food, beer.

The only real scarcity remaining in nature will be space on this tiny blue planet of ours. Who knows how well solve that problem. Maybe we could send some grey goo to teraform Venus.

DMCA, everybody goes to jail

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, couldn't resist saying this: nanotech will be unilaterally deemed to be 'circumvention device' and everybody goes to jail. What about those people who have cancer and the particular cancer gene sequences have been patented/copywrited? Well, those victims' bodies are now 'circumvention devices' and are illegally manufacturing copies of protected copywrited, encrypted DNA!

Gray goo - OLD IDEA

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn it, I came up with that scenario long before any other that I've heard of. Someone invents a fancy "gray goo" coined term and all of a sudden it's noticed. The scientists researching nanotech should've been the first to think of this phenomena. Goes to show how technology can be used against us, even before we realize it.

A Question

[sien]

Wouldn't the main legal effect of nano-tech be really, really fine print ?

so what else is new?

[eh2o]

Its good that (some) people are starting to think about this now, because there isn't much time left.

Its far more likely that nanotech will go the way of biotech... that is -- make the stuff first and spread it all over the world and _then_ worry about the moral, socio/political, implications of what we just did. Of course the motivation is primarily profit-- possibly taken at the expense of the lives of many and for little overall benefit- and that motivation is what I think needs to change.

Re:so what else is new?

[Fixer]

Implacations of biotech? I'll tell you what the implacations are: Reduced starvation. Saving human lives.

It's hard work, and it takes money to do it. Do you imagine, for a single minute, that biotech research could have happened out of purely alturistic desires? The writing, the time, the labor, sure (witness OpenSource). But how about the multimillion dollar hardware? Where is that going to come from?

Biotech saves lives. FUD kills.

Little over-all benefit... Christ man, do you put a dollar value on human life? If it costs a billion to save a family, it's worth doing. But you're not going to see that billion spent, without there being some benefit to the doer. You cannot feed a family on ideals. And, specifically, you should read the recent UN report on Biotech. Oh, wait, you don't want hard facts. Nevermind.

Putting the cart before the horse a little...

[stienman]

We don't have anything that can reliably self-replicate in a controlled laboratory setting, and the technology to do so is still 8-10 years off. We don't need to even think about nano-tech replicating in the 'wild' for another decade or two beyond that. While the legal implications need to be worked out, we are still so far away that we should probably focus on legal implications for problems closer to home, like the balancing of copyright against fair use.

-Adam

Remember: If you want to get your story posted to slashdot mention nano-tech and law in your blurb. Submit early, submit often.

Re:Putting the cart before the horse a little...

[lie as cliche]

We don't have anything that can reliably self-replicate in a controlled laboratory setting, and the technology to do so is still 8-10 years off. We don't need to even think about nano-tech replicating in the 'wild' for another decade or two beyond that.

If it can be done in the next few decades, bashing out a functional system of legislation and copyright law needs to be done now, not when the grey goo problem has already become an immediate threat. Nanotech will involve a lot of groundwork, and it's not all based in the R&D labs.

First off, because corporations and military/espionage divisions have become comfortable in their current niches, I anticipate a lot of resistance from them in getting this technology released to the general public once it is developed. If you think the RIAA is giving off a lot of static now over music copyright infringement, just imagine the world's corporate and government groups banding together to oppose nano out of sheer self-preservation. That's a lot of static to fight. And I think most people are simply too sedate to bother, frankly.

So it will probably remain military R&D. Not that they'd use it any more responsibly, mind. Once espionage divisions figure out a way to establish a nano equivalent of GPS powered by light or the earth's electromagnetic field (and self-replicating, if the government's greed for surveillance is any gauge), practical omniscience wouldn't be too far off. Chilling, no?

Not that I don't think it would trickle down to the average person here or there. Traditionally, any illicit demand on the part of the public is filled on the black market. While production of nano would require elaborate and costly machines dedicated to that purpose, what does that matter when a group of nanites provided with the appropriate raw materials can set up shop in any basement or apartment? From there it's not a big reach to think that some yokel either won't know what they're doing (or worse yet, will know full well what they're doing) and unleash some grey goo. Not pretty.

I see a couple of solutions here. The first is that any sane person would configure their nanos to replicate only in the presence of some sort of standing field generated in the lab, thus keeping the whole thing remarkably-well contained. Unfortunately, there are a lot of insane people out there. That, and suppose someone is broadcasting to a larger area using the same frequency as that field? All it takes is once.

The second solution, ironically, is that practical omnicience I was talking about on the part of the government. If you think the governments like to go after rogue hackers with a vengance now, imagine what it would be like with the stakes that much higher. The public will be begging the government to safeguard their lives, something I'm sure the media won't discourage one bit.

Grey goo or governmental omniscience down to the smallest particle, take your pick. (Alright, subatomics will probably be safe. Leptons, everywhere I look there's a fucking lepton...) Personally, government omniscience is starting to look like the lesser of two evils, barely. Does anyone see another potential solution here?

Re:Putting the cart before the horse a little...

[greenrd]

The problem is, even with omnipresent surveillance, you still need observers to watch what's going on. In the absence of strong AI, the government wouldn't have enough staff to be certain that no-one was creating a nanoweapon.

Re:Almost enough to stop living...

[Tetsujin28]

Isn't it tragic that legislation and treaties are needed to control stuff like this? I find it very depressing that "common sense" and "good of the community" are such hard concepts to follow. I know all about the "tragedy of the commons" and understand that it is a reality, but it just seems absurd that an intelligent (maybe that's my mistake?) species can't see that we would make much more progress and be much more comfortable (albeit as a species) if we could cooperate.

What you're asking for is exactly what laws are supposed to be: Cooperation. Agreements about how to behave regarding things that affect the "good of the community."

And it's often good to decide such agreements up front, since different individuals can have very different ideas about what's "good for the community."

and we need regulation to protect us from evil

[Anonymous Coward]

quantum computers. with their massive processing power they can simulate every aspect of our lives. nanotech is very exciting but also many *YEARS* away from being anywhere near a threat. worrying about it now is as bad as the buffoons who want to ban human cloning despite the fact that we are no within 5 years of being able to do it (technically, not ethically)

Re:and we need regulation to protect us from evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind that the proposed regulations outlawing human cloning will apply only in America.

Scientific experimentation will proceed over your (legitimate or illegitimate) concerns. I'd far rather see the research performed under controlled circumstances in a (relatively) moral country.

Re:and we need regulation to protect us from evil

[Geiger581]

What makes a person a 'buffoon' for opposing human cloning? Certainly, some benefits could be attained, like organ harvesting for transplants, but many people (myself included) find this and other possibilities morally reprehensible.

Re:and we need regulation to protect us from evil

[IronChef]

Cloning research is necessary to let us figure out how to grow a "heart in a jar." Imagine: you get sick, they take a blood sample, 3 weeks later they have a new heart for you. If we can nail that, then there won't be any need to clone whole bodies, and most of the moral opposition to cloning vanishes.

This would be a Good Thing. Give science a chance to figure it out. Someone you know will need a new organ someday.

What else?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was in high school I did a theoretical report and presentation on Nano-tech and it uses. And I came to the conclusion that Nano-Tech would be the end all of technological development. Should look at it this way cause so many more worries and surprises with the future of nano-tech. Imagine a rebuild able CPU. That could rebuild it self on small manu scale.. Never have to buy new hardware again. Will put a lot of people out of Business. Think about what it could do

Self-replication and nanotechnology

[JerkyBoy]

I laughed out loud when I read michael's comment to the post. Ha, this poor geek has been reading too much science fiction... But then for kicks I googled for "self-replicating," and look what I found:

http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/selfRepNASA.html

Seems like a lot of people are taking this stuff pretty seriously. I especially like the part about machines that feed on moon dirt.

_Would_ scarcity be eliminated?

[SeraphtheSilver]

In all dead seriousness, I'm not 100% sure it would be, even _with_ nanotechnology. First off, how are you going to gain access to say, iron or oil(for plastics) or carbon? Sure, you can just steal it from someone else by destroying something they own, but I doubt any modern property-owning society is going to let you get away with that. Refine it from the trash you own? Ok, now you have a limited supply of materials from which you must construct _everything_. Sure, you may have one of every atom... But you're still limited by the amount of matter in those. 5 pounds of aluminum cans won't build you a starship, after all. Seawater? Try finding minute traces of gold (or whatever element you desire) in your local seawater when 500 other people have the same idea and have gotten there first. The ground? What happens when you move, and the guys who lived in the house before you 'mined' everything. Plus, what are you going to do with the scrap? Sure, you've just ground down enough mass to extract the material you need to say, build your house using nano-tech. What are you going to do with the excess material (politely referred to as 'slag' in the refining industry)? It's probably poisonous, or carcinogenic, or posesses undesirable qualities of some sort. Anyhow, to get off my negative stint and suggest my own (rather tepid) predictions, I can see conventional notions of property (real and portable) as remaining the same, and heck, even intellectual property remaining in a slightly altered form. I think it's likely that when nano-technological manufacturing is integrated on a personal level, trading information will become more prevalent. Oh, you want a microwave? Well, just download the plans for one from Maytag.com and upload it to your Nano-constructor module. In exchange, Maytag will require a certain amount of refined materials (iron, say) or perhaps some labour on your part (programming, designing ad campaigns, shuffling paper, running the office). Jobs would be more mutable, and you'd work in them until your accumulated salary equaled the cost of the product you purchased. That's not to say the above system doesn't have problems, merely that it's a guesstimate on my part about what _might_ happen. Anyhow, before people blab on about nano-technology instituting some sort of communism and the destruction of property, it pays to look at the problems involved. -Seraph

Re:_Would_ scarcity be eliminated?

[greenrd]

Not all scarcity would be eliminated, certainly - but perhaps the basic material necessities of life (food, shelter, clothing, warmth etc.) would become very very cheap. That would mean one radical change which I'm interested in: low-paid workers wouldn't have to accept awful conditions or wages just to feed their hungry children. Sure, unemployment is no bed of roses in a social sense, but if your basic material needs are met and you don't have the pressure of work, some people might choose it as a step upwards. I see that as a major improvement.

Even libertarians should rejoice, because you could abolish welfare with much less political opposition.

Re:What about privacy?

[mikey504]

You can bet that this will happen. Unfortunately, We already have a strong negative precedent for privacy rights in the workplace. (Other sysadmins feel free to chime in here.)

Given how much time we spend at work, going to work, coming from work, recovering from work, and getting ready for work, our rights in the workplace should contrast more favorably with our Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

We need to push the issue before the monitoring techniques become *too* efficient. It's already scary enough, depending on what kind of management culture is installed in your office.

Of course, the "make work more fun and relaxing" lobby doesn't have the resources of the ruling class behind it.

Re:Almost enough to stop living...

[Winged Cat]

Maybe you and I could cooperate, but how about grumpy Mr. X who thinks our very existence, and especially the fact that we discuss ideas he disagrees with, is proof that we are minions of [insert evil religious entity here] and thus must be destroyed? Or how about the hypocrit who believes that any new technology must be bad (usually "because it disrupts the (natural, or business, or political) environment"), to the extent that its developers must be harassed mercilessly and/or assassinated, but freely uses existing technologies (including the new one, once it gets deployed)? Et cetera.

Against such threats, laws are of limited use (zero, in many cases). I'll take my own shield of nanites designed to intercept and destroy gray goo nanites instead, thank you very much.

Re:What really counts

[SpacePunk]

Absolutely. The one with the most toys wins.

Re:Gray goo

[namespan]

That's an excellent point that illustrates the difficulty of actually turning everything into gray goo.

However, it doesn't remove the possibility: it just says that one design methodology (which we'll assume is undirected evolution) has failed to produce the gray gooifier.

Human directed design has been able to produce lots of things that didn't occur naturally: nuclear weapons and the back street boys, for example (and if gray goo were music, you know what it'd be...).

Plus, even turning a large portion of Utah into gray goo would be mighty inconvenient. Or having a dark-colored goo plague that spread over Europe and only turned 90% of people into goo (not unlike Ebola). That goal seems much more attainable....

In short, the obstacles you mentioned to destroying the world are present, but the basic danger is still real and requires some serious vigilance.

Re:Hello!

[Raging Idiot]

I'll congradulate you.

Shut the fuck up you whiny little twit. Someone should have shoved a giant dildo in your mouth years ago. Fucking faggot scum.

There, do you feel better now?

Dr Seuss and the Grey Goo Problem

[Cheshire Cat]

Was anyone else reminded of the Dr Seuss book Bartholomew and the Oobleck by the mention of grey goo?

Re:Dr Seuss and the Grey Goo Problem

[CrosseyedPainless]

I think the *goo meme was started with Dr. Seuss in mind: "If you, sir, choose to chew blue goo, sir, then do, sir!"

No fear

[magi]

It's damn hard to make self-replicating machines, and having the machines nano-sized doesn't help much.

I'll get worried about nano-replicators after they build the first self-replicating machine factory even with human workers. It's hard.

But then, the certain Lexx episode made a nice demonstration what could happen with enough self-replicating robot arms... ;-)

Nanotech, nanoconstruction and cash

[Anonymous Coward]

A great deal of this discussion seems to be about cost, price, copyright and patent. All these concepts rely upon the assuption that "Stuff" has value associated with scarcity. Once self replicating nanorobots can build whatever we want from a pile of mud, there will be no shortages of anything. No-one will need to work to survive, only to design better stuff, write new books etc. It could be the key to utopia, and will change the world and the way we think for ever. The persuit of wealth could become obsolete as long as it's not protected to an insane degree by those who wish to remain on top.

Bill Joy

[Anonymous Coward]

Would nanoweapons be treated as chemical or biological weapons, or do they need a new treaty?

Bill Joy suggests that the weapons of mass destruction of the 20th century - nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) - pale in comparison to the possible 21st century weapons - genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics (GNR).

Re:What I want to know is...

[Geiger581]

Come on, everybody knows that Combat Strength is better. :) Well, at least if you can get your hands on a non-eutactic blade.

Dues Ex

[gr3g]

Or what about the vision enhancement that lets me see through walls? And would I have to use duracells to power those augmentations? I hope they develop an ac adapter, that would be expensive after awhile. I can think of a lot of uses for the cloak in girls locker room. *he he he* oh, did I say that out loud?

Re:Dues Ex

[Have Blue]

I think I know where the AC adapter would have to be plugged in. Gimme betteries to eat any day.

*weak Dr. Evil impersonation*

[Smedrick]

Let's follow this (albeit extremely far-fetched, sci-fi, paranoid) idea to it's logical conclusion. What do you do when this "horde" redesigns itself to be shielded from EMP?

I suggest constructing a giant "laser" on the moon. With this "laser" we will bust open a can of whoopass on the little buggy-bot creatures. If that doesn't work, I'll have myself cryogenically frozen and launched into orbit while the rest of you die a horrible, buggy death.

Re:3d copying, digital fabbing

[Kraft]

doh... now I remember where I read about this first...

Re:Yes, no different than any other "poison".

[andyh1978]

And seeing as they are mechnical, any replication errors would be faults in their design.

Yes, but that's the point.

Darwinian evolution is based on survival of the fittest, driven by a variation in population characteristics generated by mutation. Replication errors are for the most part fatal to an organism, but there's a chance that an error accidentally makes something useful, which gives that organism an advantage, and so it begins to propagate across the population.

The two big advantages that a nanotech devices would have to gain by mutation are:

• The ability to use anything in the surrounding environment for construction rather than specific materials
• Removal of any in-built 'off switch' mechanism.

Both radically increase the fitness of the organism and so are likely to be propagated rapidly.

Given that nanotech devices would have to be deployed in large populations to be useful, such effects have to be very carefully considered; the principles of evolution apply to even very simple mathematical representations of living populations.

The obvious quick fix (although still not guaranteed) is not to make the nanotech devices SELF-replicating; only have a 'constructor' build the nanotech devices, without them having autonomous replication. This reduces their effectiveness somewhat, but makes them a little more safe. (Although random faults can still give rise to a self-replicating device, and it only takes a few of them to start an exponential growth).

Re:Transmetropolitan

[Anonymous Coward]

...but then "land" becomes more scarce as solar energy is used.

I might argue about the scarceness of "intellect", btw. Evolution doesn't require intellect, as one example (sometimes brute force is enough...).

Gray goo

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop for a moment, and think it over; why hasn't any organism yet managed to turn the entire world into copies of itself? Cause they've sure been trying - for a long time now. This makes me think that even if we tried our best, we would no be able to create a nanomachine that did this. It would face the same challenges that natural organisms do - e.g. competing organisms (that may well evolve into nanomachine-eating organisms or at least thrive on their by-products), local resource depletion, maybe even mutation.

Re:Gray goo

[CrosseyedPainless]

I promise to start worrying about gray goo just as soon as I see a self-replicating machine of any size.

Do people think its going to be easier to make self-replicating machines that are tiny? "Well, they're about the same size as cells, I guess they could reproduce like cells!" Whatever.

Re:Gray goo

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you're exactly correct, but unlike the backstreet boys, we don't know if grey goo is even possible to be created according to the laws of our physical universe. Actually, that's not a very good argument, because some people say the backstreet boys' existence does violate some fundamental law of the universe, but I digress.

After all, we can't even create macro-scale robots that self-replicate with that efficiency. And nanotech is far, far behind macro-scale mechanics. Saying there's a danger we'll create such dangerous grey goo is about as sensible as saying that all the computers in the world will simultaneously become self-aware and take over the planet. Sure, in the realm of sci-fi it's a scary plot device, but in the real world? I think not.

Though I'm usually the eternal cynic...read

[Erioll]

You are missing the point of why such people exist. Leaving politicians out of it (too many contradictions both ways), the other "catagories" you are referring too are "generally" doing what they do for power, and/or they like to feel superior to someone else. You could almost call it part of the human condition. We like feeling superior to someone (anyone) else. That's why we like disaster news shows. Though it is never said, and rarely thought, when we see a whole state/country/region flooded, we say to ourselves "At least i'm superior to THEM!".

It is all about being/feeling superior. That's why your idea that those "groups" will try and prevent utopia is probably not true. Those groups will probably go along with whatever happens, but will try and control the change so that they remain on top. If that doesn't happen, then other groups, usually those on the leading edge of the change will position themselves to take power in some new way, usually by means that were not available at the beginning of the massive societal change. Microsoft's position now is a perfect example of this. IBM was the "old-school" group that specialized in mainframes, and couldn't recognize the importance of PCs. Because of this, Microsoft, being the "new guy" on the leading edge of the technology was able to take control. And it will take an equally significant change to the computer industry (quantum computers maybie?) to displace them.

So while I believe that the somewhat-utopian change from nanotech will come, there will ALWAYS be those trying to be above or "superior" to others, just from basic human domination instinct.

Eriol

P.S. I guess I still AM the eternal cynic. Oh well. :)

Re:Nanotechnology will conquer

[praedor]

Huh? Nowhere in the US Constitution nor Declaration of Independence (as examples) which are the BASIS to US government in any way mention money as the keystone to government. Government is about shared ideals and mores among a group of people. The people who form that government agree on some basic foundations upon which the society is to be run.

Nanotech doesn't destroy this. You can have all the nanotech you want and it wont eliminate the need for housing (and the property upon which it sits). It wont eliminate any of the social/interactional problems that are NOT based on scarcity. Scarcity is merely the basis of our present ECONOMY, not our government or many (not all) of our social structures. They will remain.

Having nanotech wont make it suddenly "cool" to pave thousands of acres for new buildings. It wont magically make more space available for living on without totally dicking up the ecosystem and biosphere around us. Government will still remain necessary to fight against nano-attacks, regulate land use, and so forth. Just because you might have plenty of food because of a nano replicator system doesn't make ALL problems, social or environmental, suddenly vanish. You will need government and some of its machinery to handle/regulate/mediate that.

All Bill Gates' wealth would become crap, however, as would his empire, and this would make him cry like a little girl - which is reason enough to have nanotech tools abound.

3d copying, digital fabbing

[Kraft]

If you can use nanotechnology to copy anything and then share the "plans" with friends who can use nanotechnology to make copies of their own, is it like Napster for the material world?

This is already an issue. Digital fabbers (3d copy machines) are being produced by companies like Ennex. Check their faq for info, like fabbing in full color (pictures) and discussions on fabbing food 8-)

Almost enough to stop living...

[srvivn21]

Isn't it tragic that legislation and treaties are needed to control stuff like this? I find it very depressing that "common sense" and "good of the community" are such hard concepts to follow. I know all about the "tragedy of the commons" and understand that it is a reality, but it just seems absurd that an intelligent (maybe that's my mistake?) species can't see that we would make much more progress and be much more comfortable (albeit as a species) if we could cooperate.

It's tough being an idealist.

Re:BINGO! Nail on Head

[cybercuzco]

Besides, they would all be destroyed when they ate through the crust. Everything would be drowned by liquid hot magma

the "gray goo" scenario

[Anonymous Coward]

For real thought on this, see "Some Limits to Global Ecophagy by Biovorous Nanoreplicators, with Public Policy Recommendations" at http://www.foresight.org/NanoRev/Ecophagy.html.

Re:No need for laws!

[Anonymous Coward]

There would still need to be laws like no kidnapping Carmen Electra and scanning her so you can replicate her for your own. But any laws to do with money would be useless. It would be impossible to enforce them if you think about it.

What I want to know is...

[_Neurotic]

When do I get my Microfibral Muscle and Cloak augmentations?

Neurotic

No need for laws!

[Velex]

If nanotechnology were real and we could actually copy things, it would be an apocolypse. There would be no need for any kind of work any more. You want food, say "Let there be food," and there's food.

This if fundamentaly different from Napster, because it reverses the the curse placed on Adam and Eve. With Napster, artists who need the money to buy food don't get it. With nanocopying, there's no need to have money.

But, then again, I'm sure we can all count on corporate greed to obfuscate that obviousness, and we'll all get horribly entangled in weird copypatent laws.

Nano Technology

[WhtDaUWant]

I would think that nano technology is not either chemical or biological, more of a mechanical and a new treaty would probabley be necessary (please don't use the DMCA b/c of copying). I just cant see it falling under the ones we have now.

Nanotech in Speculative Fiction

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition to the previously mentioned "Diamond Age," interested parties might try to round up copies of Marvel Comics' "Doom 2099" series. The Warren Ellis issues, particularly issue #39, offer some interesting ideas about both the potential of nanotechnology and the potential for a corporate system to squander it.

-AC

Nanotechnology will conquer

[Sharadin]

Nanotechnology is going to literally destroy everything that humans have valued for the past 10,000 years, whether it be money, status, or religion; All of these things will literally be destroyed overnight.

I find it ironic that people want to place laws and regulations on this technology, even though there is no way that this technology can be controlled once it unleashed to the world. All forms of government will cease to exist because of (self-replicating) Nanotechnology, and this is due to the fact that all governments exist on the foundation of monetary gain; if this variable is taken away, the bulk sitting on what used to be a solid foundation will come crashing down. Of course, there will always be power hungry individuals out there who will try and rebuild the monetary foundation and all the crap that sat upon it, but they will fail miserabley.

Nanotechnology is the next step in Mankind's evolutionary process...but if people aren't willing to change and stop acting like a bunch of Neandarthals, then they deserve to be destroyed by the gray goo.

Re:Nanotechnology will conquer

[Sharadin]

You obviously don't know how the system works too well, do you? If you take all forms of money and barter away, the economy becomes non-existant, and the government has no way to control anyone. Money, like religion, is just another means of seperating and controlling people.

All governments, especially the pathetic United States, will crumble once Nanotechnology comes out of the womb; I guarantee it.

It's alive!!!

[magi]

I mean, life, even artificial, will find a way. ''Ooh'' and ''aah'', that's how it starts, and then comes the running and the screaming.

I think somebody's been playing too much

[Anonymous Coward]

Anarchy Online. :)

Don't get all worked up

[Uttles]

I'm sure they'll figure out a way to tell if something is genuine or a nanotech-made copy. It can't be too hard to tell the difference between real molecules and robot molecules. As for weapons, well now there probably will be new treaties about these things, but I'm sure they will follow the same principles as the existing treaties (minimum human suffering, etc)

Re:Don't get all worked up

[Anonymous Coward]

You might be right but is something that is atomically the same as the real thing any less valuable. If I want to have a banana do I really care if it wasn't grown from mother nature? The nano-made one would probably be healthier since it wouldn't need to be sprayed with pesticides.

In other words we won't care.

As for weapons, I can only hope that a people who can have anything they wish for (due to nanotechnology) would have no need for war and would simply live their lives.

BINGO! Nail on Head

[Hell O'World]

Why are we so vain to assume that our pathetic little machines will be so well adapted to living here? The first life may have had it easy, like a grey goo, but it still had a place in an ecosystem, with finite resources. As things got more elaborate, the ante was upped. I can't believe a goo, no matter how well "designed" would have much of a chance today.

Just goes to show you

[bflong]

This just goes to show you how the word is run by corps. So, technology may allow us to recreate just about anything, quickly, easyly, and cheaply? Well!! What about the poor multinational corps whose buisiness models will go down in flames over this? Wah!
It's about time that things are invented to make life better for humanity, rather then just line big buisness' pockets. However, that will never happen in this world.
See 1st John 5:19

Just...popping in, mind yous

[Niscenus]

Nannites only have two ways of acting:

(1) Remote Calling
(2) Physical Trigger

In the first point, Remote Calling, nannites switch processes based on infromation transmitted to them, typically radio wavelengths, though can be light, sound, chemical or electrical. This would be similar to sending specific signals to the large robotic implements along the a car factory's assembly line, to adjust for, say, the varying heights of the welding spots along a car's body A unique radio frequency, as an example, can cause the relatively simple transmitter bank, i.e. microchip, to trigger a structural change, say, shifting pseudopodic structures to allow the nannite to grab a particular particle when in reach.

In the second point, Physical Trigger, the nannites react to their environment on levels not much different than cells, both simply doing what is required of them by the immediate stimuli. Like cells, these are typically chemically induced, or atleast, when referring to areas of negotiable medium. Say, perhaps, a nannite designed for acting like an enzyme, by the mere process of kinetic diffusion action or molecular attraction, the carbohydrate molecule will enter a specific area of the nannite, where the presence of the molecule causes the nannite to send out a small electrical pulse to break up the molecule.

Now, though we can't programme the three laws of robotics into an actual nannite, we could adopt them socially, i.e. treaties and laws.

Have a clue

[AdamInParadise]

Would nanoweapons be treated as chemical or biological weapons, or do they need a new treaty?

Who cares? They are weapons and that's it.

If you can use nanotechnology to copy anything and then share the "plans" with friends who can use nanotechnology to make copies of their own, is it like Napster for the material world?

Well yes. Do you really need to ask /. to figure it out? This is just like: If I use this new pen I designed and built myself, is it still copyright infringement if I use it to copy your book? Etc...

Internet isn't above any law, nanomachines won't either.

What about privacy?

[Strange Ranger]

All this talk about about IP and scarcity of resources is great, but what about privacy? That scares the hell out of me. Just as they can currently run "random" drug tests, DUI checkpoints, etc, what's going to stop the sniffer and snooper nanites from randomly searching your home/car/body/desk at work?

Won't it be in the best shareholder interest to have little nano-trackers keeping tabs on ALL the company's resources, including human? How would The Law stop this? Why would they really want to if they're using the same tech. to ferret out law-breakers?

Re:What about privacy?

[SpacePunk]

I don't see it as a big problem. Someone would only need to make predatory nanites that search out, and attack the sniffer nanites. Either destroying them, or reprogramming/refitting them into predatory nanites.

What really counts

[Anonymous Coward]

Carefully devised protection methods will make copying all but impossible

Great idea! Take a technology that provides unlimited wealth, and hobble it so you can continue an economic system based on scarcity. After all, it doesn't matter that you have everything you want at your fingertips - what matters is whether you have more than other people!

It's tough being an idealist.

[kanayo]

You can say that again.

Treaties, schmeaties.

[Fixer]

All this legalistic talk, while quite on topic, is totally irrelevant to how nanotechnology will be used. The governments of the world have demonstrated, time and again, their willingness to ignore treaty when it suits them. Why? Because they feel it's in their own best interest. Period. Let me put it this way: If you signed a piece of paper in which you agreed to die of natural causes at a specific age, would you honor it?

No, you'd fight it with every weapon at your disposal. We don't try to live forever, because it's not a current possibility. That won't be true forever. Governments are the same way. "Sure, I won't use biological weapons.. unless I think it's the only way to survive, then 'Where's the Ebola?'"

You can hammer out all the documents you like, but it needs cooporation to enforce it. And Governments have ultimate discretion when it comes to cooporation and enforcement of laws, their own or others.

So go 'wan, yack about treaties and agreements all you like. Our Government will still do what it likes.
And don't give me any of the idealistic crap about setting a good example. Would you honor a law which might mean your death? Shortening of your lifespan? Your children going hungry?

Re:Hello!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a Good Job Appreciation Award from jbridge21.

So many times, the FPer says something stupid. You have not. You have said something funny. For that, I thank you.

Nano Weapons

[pudge_lightyear]

Nano weapons of the near future (next 25-100 years) will problaby be capable of nothing more than current chemical weapons are...injections, self-replication, sound familiar. I think that they should be treated the same way. To hype nano technology-vaporware into the public conscience may be just a tad bit premature at this point.

The boring people of Star Trek: TNG

[dpilot]

Much comment has been made about the boring characters of ST:TNG, and about how they talk their enemies to death. But there's something fundamental here:

Presently, we are not fit to play with the toys we have, let alone the ones we are developing.

It's by the skin of our teeth that we survived the 50's and 60' without nuclear holocaust. Not to mention the times around the KAL007 incident, when according to some reports, Cherynenko (sp?) was within 15 seconds of pushing the Big Red Button. We haven't really gotten into more dangerous toys yet, like biologicals and nanotech.

I argue that we have to improve as a species, or give up our more dangerous toys. (or 'damage' ourselves out of that capability, or go extinct.) From another perspective, giving up some Power because you acknowledge that you lack the Wisdom to properly wield it, is another step on the road to attaining the Wisdom needed.

This Has Massive Consequences For IP/Copyright...

[Fleet Admiral Ackbar]

Once nanotech makes the 'assembler' a reality, IP and Copyright laws immediately adhere to the physical world.

ANYTHING could - and will - be copyrighted. Perhaps some smart dude will copyright gasoline - or food - and, the same way that the burden of proof is currently on software license holders to show a license, you will be forced to "prove" that you refined, or grew, the item in question, instead of "pirating" some nano-goo-created stuff.

Re:Don King said I shoud come hear and post

[Dmitry Skylarov]

It already is -- just join the NYPD.

Transmetropolitan

[Paul Sheridan]

With nanotech, energy collection gets a lot simpler though. In the comic book Transmetropolitan (best comic I've ever read btw) they get most of Earths power by covering Mercury in solar cells and beaming it back via laser or microwave. I don't know how plausible that particular version is but solar power becomes a lot more attractive when the cells are really cheap to produce.

Self Replication = Evolution

[3ryon]

If we create self-replicating nanobots we may have more serious problems than grey goo. Anything that has the ability to breed, has the ability to evolve due to random influences. If a nanobot mutates and that mutation allows it to breed faster/with less resources/etc we may have an unexpected lifeform on our hands...including one that has never heard of Asimov.

Re:This Has Massive Consequences For IP/Copyright.

[Lonath]

Wouldn't this fall under the law of patents where you patent everything ever invented but you say that "it gets made with nanotech". Kind of like patenting every idea imagined by saying "it gets done on the internet."

Re:Yes, no different than any other "poison".

[hereticmessiah]

Ok, I've read the book, and it fills me with a sense of unease. Personally, I don't want a future anything like that on the cards because I know that we'd make an even bigger mess of it than they made in the book - seriously!

The fact is that any evolvable nanotech we create will be capable of adapting to any 'failsafe' we create. They'd become like viruses and bacteria, only more adaptable. The only thing stopping biological entities from dominating is the abundance of other biological entities.

Think about this for a moment before you call me a troll. I have no entention of doing so.

Yes, no different than any other "poison".

[Anonymous Coward]

It gets into your body and screws things up. That's chemical. It would be biological if the harmful agent is alive (or a virus).

Re:This Has Massive Consequences For IP/Copyright.

[hereticmessiah]

Um, any such technology is restrained by the surroundng resources. There is *not* an infinite supply of material. There is only a *finite* amount* especially so in any localise area such as this planet.

On other matters, copyright & patents only covers the devices and processes used in a given instance to create a substance, not the substance itself. Patents are breakable, legally, as long as you can find a different method.#

Copyright is a bit more complicated though.

Remember that patents only cover method, not end result. In this regard, they are circumventable.

I'm off to sleep...

Gray-Goo a Non-Problem?

[PatientZero]

The worry of nanites replicating themselves across the planet just doesn't seem like a possibility to me for the following reasons. Please correct where you see fit.

1. Building machines that build other machines is easier than building ones that build copies of themselves.
2. We haven't found a simple way to turn lead into gold, so nanites won't be able to build aluminum-based nanites without a supply of aluminum.
3. Without very complex programming and precise controls, nanites won't be able to distinguish each other from building supplies. Wouldn't they end up tearing each other apart?

Re:This Has Massive Consequences For IP/Copyright.

[Paul Sheridan]

The problem is that the rate of technological advancement is increasing. To see that just look at the technology and science developed in the 20th century compared to all of human history before that point. We may be at the "Ogg make fire!" stage of nanotech at the moment but it's not as far to the "Ogg make neutron bomb!" stage as you think it is.

OpenNano

[AnotherSteve]

With freely copied software, you gain status for having released really cool or seriously functional product into the net. With nano-tech, the same social structures will invade the world of hardware. Mindshare will become important in more than just operating systems. Instead of having to buy our shoes from an established vendor, we'll have OpenSneakers with downloadable skins, and people will be running themeable screensavers on the smart paint in their bathrooms. (Which is cool until your bathroom crashes right before your next big party, and instead of your favorite theme, they get the blue screen of death.)

What this means is that style will continue to increase in importance. Lots of people can make music, but most folks would rather download the music of a professional. If you do it without paying them, the people who make money of the professional music get all cranky. As ease of copying invades the physical realm, there will be an attempt to extend copyright to the design of everything, in order to keep the money flowing to the companies that figured out, say watches or ballpoint pens.

Ultimately, we'll come up with some secure way to do micropayments to the people that generate cool designs, probably right before the old way of doing things collapses completely. And we'll probably have standard libraries full of the designs of everyday things and we'll pay people to make them look different and cool, just like we do today. Fashion will always make money.