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.
Straight from the Outer Limits episode. These "nanobots" turned a man into something of a jellyfish and he had gills as well. Of course as in any good Outer Limits episode, the "abort" command issued to the nanobots failed. But then, thats just a television show, right? These nanomachines couldn't REALLY churn through every nanogram of matter on our planet, RIGHT? IHMO, the Martian Sand Kings episode was way cooler, I mean they ate a dog for christs sake. Those beasts would mangle some nanobots. Thats it...we just need a bunch of sand-dwelling cockroaches with fangs on methamphetamine to regulate the reproduction of nanobots.
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
... whatever you do, don't let director Roland Emmerich get ahold of this article!
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
When you outlaw exponentially self-replicating nanomachines, only outlaws will have exponentially self-replicating nanomachines. That's just not a world I want to live in.
The biggest problem with the grey-goo scenario is that it requires an astonishing amount of work (tearing apart molecular bonds and using the resulting material to make an extremely complex machine) without taking power consumption into account. Getting energy to a machine that small is extremely difficult (your body has to basically immerse it's cells in fuel to keep them going). A machine that small recieves an absolutely puny amount of sunlight, and Tesla style distributed power doesn't work over long distances. Worse, the energy potental of almost every material on the planet is far too low to be useful in powering a tiny machine (you can't power a robot with dirt).
This problem, coupled with the fact that the nanotech people have barely demonstrated anything even remotely close to grey-goo yet, lets me sleep easy at night. There's no need to get so worked up over vapor.
I read the internet for the articles.
If they could turn the world to grey goo, bacteria would have already? Well, I suppose it's multicoloured goo really. But wouldn't anything that can reproduce uncontrollably be just as affecte by the pressures of the environment as any other living organism?
...damn, there is *always* a tone change in the front page stories when Michael is up to bat. This is not a troll; it is an observation. When he is at the wheel, it's all end-of-the-world, privacy, government related stuff. Go ahead, check his history.
As for nanobots, honestly, we had this discussion and i hold the same view: tread lightly. You and i both know that if something were to become easily synthesizeable by the layman, nanoweapons in this case, and were to be exponentially self-reproductive, then...well, the human race would not survive it. Think about that, no one person in the human race could have "a bad day". Most are not intelligent enough to have a healthy respect for the miracle that is human life.
The primary limitation on even arbitrarily sophisticated nanotechnology which could prevent a runaway grey goo reaction is the lack of a sufficient source of energy. A nanomachine wouldn't be able to get much energy out of eating inorganic matter such as rocks because, aside from a few exceptions (coal, for example) it's mostly well-oxidized and sitting in a free-energy minimum.
Wikipedia
It would seem that nature's methods of self-replication work best.
Prey had a really dumb ending anyway :(
i am the drexler. i speak for the nanobots.
-ninjaneer
this image is frightening.
the potential for error with something like this is huge: whoops, programmed the little bugger wrong! sorry, you don't need that hemoglobin, anyway.
Yet another reason why we desperately need to get going building a permanent manned moon base with a colony of people.
We then need to work on putting colonies on Mars.
I don't like the idea that one meteor, virus, genesis type weapon could end the human race.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Speak for yourself meatbag, some of us here are Immortal, Sentient AIs...
And soon, I shall be your god... Soon...
These nanomachines couldn't REALLY churn through every nanogram of matter on our planet, RIGHT?
The whole grey goo scenario is pure alchemy. Except instead of turning lead into gold, we're turning it into grey goo. We've got people inventing perpetual motion, too. Are the 1800s back? Can't we invent new scams?
After a few million years of evolution, we have enzymes. They are generally very large molecules, bigger than what some claim for nano-machines, and they are also very specialized. They do one thing. You don't get anything general-purpose or intelligent at the molecular level, there just isn't room for it.
Bill Joy, while clearly a genius, is (like any good genius) a nutcase. Seriously, the man is paranoid! He's a compulsive risk-mitigator:
This told to the reporter during the interview about nanotech risk-mitigation. Sure, it's a perfectly rational way to choose your movie library, but it's almost too rational. Most people don't consider watching a bad movie an outcome to be avoided at all costs. Mainstream critical consensus is a very conservative method of choosing movies. I've watched a lot of bad movies, but I've found a few that I really liked that were panned by critics. Is Mr. Joy so risk-averse that he needs his movies to be guaranteed satisfactory?
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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.
You are neglecting to consider just how big the universe really is. The nearest galaxy is 2.2 million light-years away, and you're saying that something has never happened and can never happen because humans who have only been recording history and only that of earth (and a little tiny bit of information on other bodies in the solar system) for a few thousand years. Let's hear it for human arrogance!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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."
Eric Drexler now says nanomachines that self-replicate exponentially are unlikely ever to enter widespread use
No, that's not what he said; that statement is an oxymoron. If something self-replicates, its numbers necessarily grow exponentially until it hits resource constraints in the environment. There are no "nanomachines that self-replicate sub-exponentially".
What Drexler said that nanomachines that self-replicate are unlikely to ever enter widespread use, and therefore nanomachines will not replicate exponentially. Instead, they will be manufactured by desktop machines, according to him.