Slashdot Mirror
Drexler Clarifies Grey Goo Scenario
b00le writes "The BBC says that the scientist many regard as the father of nanotechnology has backed away from his famous claim that runaway nanomachines could turn the planet into 'grey goo'. Eric Drexler now says nanomachines that self-replicate exponentially are unlikely ever to enter widespread use. So that's all right, then, but he also said 'tiny machines would need close control' - which not everyone would agree with. I always imagined some kind of emergent behaviour would, er, emerge." Bill Joy is still suitably pessimistic.
In a world as hyperparanoid as the current one is about weapons of mass destruction you have to wonder about technology that might enable a new class of WMD's when it falls in to malevolent hands, for example terrorists or the U.S. military.
You can't really blame the military. They are just obeying the politicians. If you want to blame someone, blame the 60% of the electorate who can't be bothered to vote.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
They already have -- we call it the biosphere. The real problem with a grey goo scenario is that the nanobots would have to compete on a level playing field with organic life, which has had billions of years to get better at it then them. I expect nanotech will have to be used in a sterile, highly ordered, and energy-rich environment in order to get anything done.
The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must cover
Yhtill forever. (R. W. Chambers, the King in Yellow
"You can't really blame the military. They are just obeying the politicians."
Sometimes. But politicians come and go. The military is a big, self perpetuating bureaucracy and it has ways to get what it wants over time. The military frequently applies significant pressure on politicians to sucker them in to doing misguided things. For example they inflate the power and danger of supposed enemies and they will insist the other guy is doing it so we have to which almost always works. The movie, "Dr. Stangelove or How I Came to Love the Bomb" is about the best parody of this ever, especially when the world is doomed and the generals start claiming there is going to be a "mine shaft" gap after the world is destroyed.
If you look at the history of the Cuban missile crisis you'll see Kennedy barely restrained the military from provoking World War III, they weren't happy with Kennedy's decision making, and he mysteriously gets killed soon after.
If you look to the 50's, MacArthur also nearly pushed the U.S. in to a nuclear conflict with China that would have also probably lead to World War III. Truman once again barely contained him against his powerful set of Republican friends and his huge popular support.
The once place you are right is Iraq where the civilians in the white house and pentagon, Cheney and Wolfowitz, fabricated an entire case for a war and apparently got away with it.
@de_machina
Maybe you should have ended that post with a IANAS (scientist) disclaimer. In both high school and college debate, nano was my primary and favorite topic for years, and I frequently debated on both sides of the issue. The one argument that I could never win against nano was an attack on Drexler's qualifications.
Perhaps he should not be called the father of nano. The real father of nano is Richard Fayman. In his lecture entitled "There Is Plenty of Room At the Bottom" he basically invented the concept. Drexler, however brought it forward. He has a Ph.D. in Molecular Nanotechnology from MIT (a degree that did not exist before Drexler was awarded it). His S.M. and S.B. are both from MIT as well. He was a research affiliate for two departments at MIT and a visiting scholar at Stanford, where he taught a doctorate level class. As recently as 1993 he won the Kilby Yound Innovator Award. He has testified before Congress, written dozens of articles and books, even winning the 1992 Oustanding Computer Science Book for Nanosystems, a VERY technical book almost impossible to understand for anyone without at least a M.S. in Chem or Engineering (or both!). He holds numerous patents, and has lectured everywhere from Apple and Bell Labs to TI and the Xerox PARC.
Disbelieve if you want, but please do not be so foolish as to challange the credentials of Dr. Drexler.
On a related note, consider this readable account of how genetic engineering to insert IL-4 into an otherwise fairly innocuous mousepox transformed this disease to where it would effectively kill all the mice, even those mice that had been previously vaccinated to protect them against mousepox.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Drexler *never* said that "grey goo" would consume the biosphere. What he actually said was "Dangerous replicators could easily be too tough, small, and rapidly spreading to stop - at least if we made no preparation." (emphasis mine, see Engines of Creation Chapter 11). It has been known for more than a decade that there are easy solutions to the problem of designing "safe" replicators that do not grow exponentially using strategies such as the "broadcast architecture" (in computer science terms -- you never give a replicator a copy of its own source code). [See Merkle, R. C., "Self Replicating Systems and Molecular Manufacturing", JBIS 45:407-413 (1992)].
Nor is the idea that assembly lines produce better manufacturing systems than self-replicating systems new. [See Hall, J. S., "Architectural considerations for self-replicating manufacturing systems", Nanotechnology 10(3):323-330 (September, 1999).] It is obvious that the ability to self-replicate is extra overhead when compared with assembly systems optimized for specific assembly tasks.
Finally, it was shown several years ago that we have the technology to detect out-of-control self-replicating systems (nanorobots generate heat which can be detected by existing satellite systems). [For a discussion of various scenarios read: Freitas, R. A., "Some Limits to Global Ecophagy by Biovorous Nanoreplicators with Public Policy Recommendations" (May, 2000).]
Drexler alludes to the fact that we are already in the midst of a "green goo" ("We have trouble enough controlling viruses and fruit flies.") Most people are unaware of the fact that they have more copies of foreign genomes (in the form of self-replicating bacteria) on or in their body than they have copies of their own genome. Some of these bacteria actually produce vitamins that humans use. So "goo" scenarios should not be viewed as completely negative. It is worth noting that the same methods that can be used to stop the "green goo" (e.g. heat or radiation) can be used to stop the "gray goo" if we are prepared to detect and eliminate it. One sees examples of this today as government agents circulate through the crowd waiting to view President Regan's body in Washington with biological and chemical weapons detectors. It simply comes down to understanding the hazards and being prepared to deal with them.
It is also worth noting that the design of fully self-replicating nanorobots is *not* a simple or inexpensive task. (Look at how long it took Nature to get it started...) So it is highly improbable that such abilities could be developed by rogue groups before civilized nations developed robust detection and elimination methods.
For people who want to read more details, the IOP press release is here and points to the actual paper (registration probably required).
Also, I would respectfully request before you post any responses to this note that you "go do your homework" (that will put you one up on the reporters reporting on this and allow for an informed discussion).