Slashdot Mirror
The Law of Disassembly
An anonymous reader writes "Smalltimes has a story by Douglas Mulhall, author of Our Molecular Future, which discusses molecular nanotechnology (MNT) disassembly, and argues for what he calls the 'Law of Disassembly,' that 'every MNT product must be disassemblable by at least one [of several possible methods].' The article ends with some good suggestions for raising awareness of this important issue. Gratuitous quote: This is disturbingly reminiscent of "nuclear power will give us clean limitless energy, and don't worry, we'll deal with the byproducts later because we'll have the tools by then.""
An interesting goal, and an innovative approach to the gray goo problem... but I take issue with his statement that *every* nanotech item should be easy to disassemble.
Some nanotech shouldn't be disassembled, and we should know how to make it that way.
There are some nanotech applications where this "Law Of Disassembly" would be a generally bad plan, because there are some things that we want to stay made.
Space elevators and other similar tech come to mind... leaving easy dissassembly possibilities in megastructures is a pretty horrendous risk from a security perspective.
Or... to toss his own ideas back at him, the possibility of long-term nuclear waste storage in virtually-indestructible nanotech containers.
We don't want them breakable, and we don't want them to have flaws that can be exploited by unscrupulous individuals or groups.
An analogous situation would be the single-molecule spacecraft hull postulated by Larry Niven-- completely invulnerable to nearly any conceivable force until it encountered enough antimatter to destabilize the structure and reduce the entire hull to powder. In interstellar space, unfortunately...
I still agree that easy disassembly is a good idea for most purposes, but there are few laws that should always be applied without exception.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
1. A nanite may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A nanite must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A nanite must be microwavable and explode in a flurry of sparks and smoke
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Absolutely any thing that can self-replicate will be subject to the laws of evolution. So if some supposedly self-limiting replicator has any variants that can replicate faster (and pass on that variation), then that variant will become more prevalent. With each succeeding faster variant comes the potential for run-away population growth (to the limit of available resources). And any variant that can consume alternative resources (having consumed the initial set of resources ) will also become more populous. The result is the gray goo disaster that people fear.
Attempts to build in self-limiting features (replication delay clocks, kill switches, error-correcting DNA ROMs, special only-replicates with a special nutrient, etc.) will only present an obstacle to evolution, not an insurmountable barrier. You can add 9s to the probablity that gray goo won't happen, but you can never get to 100% if self-replication is permitted.
That said, you could also create a balanced nano-organism ecosystem with both predators and prey and boost human/animal/plant immune system to fight off nanoorganism attacks. (There is a reason that bacteria have never taken over the world.)
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Nanobot Five is alive! No disassemble!
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
Which is more dangerous: a few kilograms of nuclear waste, packed up in (for example) ceramic blocks; or thousands of kilograms of coal smoke, dispersed into the air we breathe? And by the way, how many people get hurt or killed mining coal (and let's be sure to count "black lung")? (People get hurt and killed mining uranium, too, but you don't need anywhere near as much for a power plant, compared with coal.)
Which is more dangerous: a few kilograms of nuclear waste, or a few kilograms of concentrated weird chemical byproducts from heavy industry?
It would be a good idea to really look at the whole cost/benefit analysis for nuclear power vs. other things we have that don't contain the word "nuclear".
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Why don't they bury the waste on a downward going subduction plate?
Because to get it in an effective locations, you'd have to bury it insanely deep, and it would still only get drawn down below the plate at an incredibly slow rate. The plates move at most an inch or so a year.
I live about 15 miles from a nuc plant that produces my power, far cheaper (per Kwh) than anything else
Your doing better than we are here in the UK then. The entire nuclear industry would be bankrupt if it weren't for the government pouring millions and millions of pounds of taxpayers money into privately owned companies. And even then, it's still virtually bankrupt, and producing power that's more expensive per Kwh than virtually any other method. If we had a true free market in the UK power industry, we'd have no nuclear power.
with no polution that I can see
Yeah, you can't see it, but that's because it's really dangerous, and it's therefore stowed away under armed guard somewhere. Still, it will give your children a good steady job keeping it safe. And your childrens children. And your childrens childrens children. And your childrens childrens childrens children. And so on and so forth for the next ten thousand or so generations.
Diamond flakes and small bits of glass are simmilar enough at scales that small that you can compare them (I guess). If you work with stained glass the next few days you cough up blood once or twice, then as I understand it, your better (I felt better the next day and no longer couged up blood, my understanding is the that blood carries the glass powder); at least, I've not encoutnered anyone who works with stained glass who has serious respatory problems (People who work with stained glass often do so without masks, perhaps unwise, but none of the people in the teaching classes use masks either, and those tiny grinders definatly make powdered glass in the air).
Another 'big if' I keep seeing that seems somewhat unfounded is the 'won't the nanomachines kill us once we breath them in'- Laser toner is molecular scale, while that stuff isin't great for you (possible carcinogin) you don't get 'black lung' from getting a whiff of it, it dosen't poke millions of tiny holes in your cellular system, and it's actually the fact that it's easy to break down that makes it dangerous (your cells can process it, and that's where the carcinogen factor comes in).
As for worries about bizarr 'grey goo' scenarios- EMP, and if that dosen't work; Nuke with associated EMP- then all you have are a bunch of inert bits of metal dust that'll rust soon enough, and otherwise pass harmlessly through your system.
-Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post