Slashdot Mirror


Lifeboat Foundation Nanoshield

Maria Williams writes "KurzweilAI.net says: Tomorrow's biggest danger may be nanoweapons (grey goo and other) created with molecular manufacturing. The Lifeboat Foundation proposes development of detection methods, such as infrared satellite surveillance for nanobot signatures, along with a three-layer defense system, with devices such as an orbiting mirror to focus concentrated sunlight on an ecophagic outbreak."

19 of 73 comments (clear)

  1. Get your sunglasses out, by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 4, Funny

    'Cos it looks like we will all be blinded soon since we could be considered a ecophagic outbreak.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  2. Nanoweapons scare me by xianfa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have been long considering a society of very long lived people through the use of nano technology. I have envisioned nano bots injected into a person to be used for "maintenance" of organs that fail over time. I always thought these bots could be programmed to roam our body and kill off viruses, bad bacteria, and cancer cells as well as repairing failing organs and using our fat cells as an energy source, thereby keeping us thin.

    My wife has always said a weapon would be developed long before any life enrichment uses. We have seen a steady flow of nano technology in the last decade or so, I just hope global nano terrorism is not just around the corner.

    --
    The greatest good of man is daily to converse about virtue - Socrates
    1. Re:Nanoweapons scare me by lawpoop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I always thought these bots could be programmed to roam our body and kill off viruses, bad bacteria, and cancer cells... "

      Do you think they could out-perform white blood cells?

      "as well as repairing failing organs..."Given that modern day robots millions of times larger have problems with simple tasks like picking up a glass, I think organ repair in the near future will be solved with genetic engineering over robots.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    2. Re:Nanoweapons scare me by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yea, the real key to self-regenerating bodies is to figure out the chemical signals we need to send/block to tell the body to regenerate itself. Little machines could never do that good a job.

      Got to remember that, evolutionarily speaking, death is an advantage. If we never died, we'd never evolve. Every generation would be far more similar to past generations through back-breeding, and there would be much stronger forces maintaining the genetic status quo. Just a mess.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    3. Re:Nanoweapons scare me by Jerf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you think they could out-perform white blood cells?

      Artificial nanobots don't need to "out-perform" white blood cells, because we'll still have white blood cells.

      What they can do is fill in holes in the immune system, which is far from perfect. Any cancer that kills a person was clearly not caught by the immune system. A nanobot might be specifically tasked with killing that cancer, and it will do a better job that the human immune system.

      However, I doubt "a robot" of any kind will be the nanotech solution to that problem. I expect an artificially-constructed wrapper will be keyed to some unique aspect of the cancer cells, causing the wrapper to unwrap only when near (or, if we're really good, in) the cancer cells, releasing perfectly normal poisons into or near the cancer cells, killing only the cancer cells with minimal collateral damage. In fact, I expect our children or grandchildren to consider the era where we pumped the body full of drugs and just sort of hope that some of the drugs affect, say, the liver without causing too many side effects elsewhere to be the dark ages of pharmacology, in much the same way we view the times before anti-biotics.

      The more I think about it, the more I disagree that we're all going to have a lot of little robots running around in our body, as I have yet to come up with a task where a general purpose robot is the best solution. And the robots are significantly more complex than special-purpose wrappers delivering custom-order drugs and chemicals; by the time we can build those robots, I'm going to want those robots to be my body, not fixing up my meat-bag. (Sorry, body.)

    4. Re:Nanoweapons scare me by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Informative

      A percentage of the population is already immune to the HIV virus because of a mutation that changes the structure of T-cells. I would bet that gene therapy will allow us to create resistant T-cells in the bodies of HIV+ persons long before we get any kind of nano-bot, much less one that can do anything worthwhile in a human body.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    5. Re:Nanoweapons scare me by daeley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If we never died, we'd never evolve.

      While this might be true, it is also much more likely that we'd never evolve if we never reproduced. ;)

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
  3. The nanotechnologists I've spoken with... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The nanotechnologist types I've spoken with (as a component of a university seminar course) who are all quite dismissive of "grey goo" and such. In summary: It's not easy for those little guys to get energy to, say, systematically munch their way through concrete or solid steel or something - it will take more energy than it would consume. When you get down to it, we have little to fear from nano-sized robots that we don't have to fear from, say, bacteria - who already have billions of years' worth of experience in the just-above-the-nano-scale operations. Furthermore, even if we did have some miraculous way of getting those things the amounts of energy they would need, you're probably looking at them blowing apart from the amounts of heat involved. (Mind you, that's blowing apart on the molecluar scale, not blowing up like a bomb, so don't get ideas there either.)

    Most nanotechnology concerns at present are materials science affairs, and this is likely to remain the case for a while. Nanoscale robots just aren't very feasible under the currently known laws of physics, especially not the infamous "grey goo" variety.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    1. Re:The nanotechnologists I've spoken with... by RingDev · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So true, I'm significantly more concerned about skin irritation, blood stream poisoning and respratory problems due to nano-particles than some unrealistic nano-bot.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    2. Re:The nanotechnologists I've spoken with... by vertinox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      hen you get down to it, we have little to fear from nano-sized robots that we don't have to fear from, say, bacteria - who already have billions of years' worth of experience in the just-above-the-nano-scale operations.

      If you ever happened to read Ray Kurzweil's, The Singularity is Near, he argues that the evidence that nanotechnology is possible is the human body, viruses, and bacteria. Chances are that the first nanotechnologies will resemble our own cells if not just modified versions of them. When we talk about grey goo and the like most people envision little tiny robot spiders manufacturing everything into themselves.

      However, we would more likely see a super virus or bacteria that kills off 50% of the population before we would see that. However, I'd like to point out gray goo is possible, but concrete and non-organic material would be resistance for a while. All the nanoids would have to do is process air, water, and sunlight much like plants.

      Think of it like a super plankton consuming the ocean and all life as long as it has sunlight and the ability to break down water into oxygen and hydrogen.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    3. Re:The nanotechnologists I've spoken with... by Lurker187 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Gee, if power storage is a problem, I'm surprised they haven't considered solar power!

      Hey, wait, the magnifying glass...

      Lifeboat Foundation! I have foiled your evil plan at last!

      --
      [command INSERTWITTYQUIP failed: insufficient wit]
  4. Signatures by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 3, Funny
    The Lifeboat Foundation proposes development of detection methods, such as infrared satellite surveillance for nanobot signatures
    We hardly need satellites to find them if the stupid bots are going to be writing their names on things! Dumbass punk robots and their gang tags...
  5. An orbiting MIRROR? Who comes up with this stuff? by The_REAL_DZA · · Score: 2, Funny

    I mean, have they assembled a team of 10-year-old boys as "consultants"? Maybe next they'll recommend a really big magnifying glass (especially for use against the ant-shaped nanites) or maybe a really really (REALLY) big satellite shaped like a shoe...
    Either way, somebody hasn't been keeping up with their classic sci-fi studies!

    --


    This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
  6. More things than nanoparticles can do that. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While your points are valid, why concern yourself with nano particles so much, when there are lots of things that could turn your lungs to a pink pulp or fill them full of phelgm and drown you, without looking to nanotechnology?

    I think we're overly complacent about the killer weapons (biologicals, particularly) that are already scattered around the planet in significant quantities; before we go and spend a lot of effort worrying about the possible effects of technologies that don't exist yet, we could spend some of the same resources cleaning up problems that exist right now.

    Dying from antibiotic-resistant TB may not be as sexy as being consumed by nanobots-run-amok, but at least in the foreseeable future, it's a lot more likely.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  7. Grey goo? by Sterling+Christensen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you're imagining a grey blob, don't. Remember conservation of mass - it won't get bigger/heavier than what it eats. Instead image grey mold growing on all the plants outside. Spreading more like a disease than a blob.

    Even if it could convert biomatter to nanobots with the fantastically unlikely efficiency needed to build up an actual sea or even just a blob of them, I sure wouldn't be so stupid as to program them to clump together into an easy target if it were me.

    A sea/blob won't happen by accident either, or else some strain of mold or bacteria would have done it by now.

    Unless you mean to sterilize an entire area as a last resort, a mirror would be useless. It won't be a big localized thing you can just shoot at.

  8. Get some perspective here by TheLink · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Unless I see concrete reasoning/evidence otherwise, this worry about goo stuff is way overblown.

    Where will the grey goo get _energy_ from to be such a big threat? Solar energy isn't that great a source of energy.

    Bacteria have been around for billions of years, there are all sorts of bacteria "eating" all sorts of stuff. If it was so easy to turn the entire environment to goo, the bacteria would have done it already - it's practically what all of them try to do all the time (just look up fermentation).

    It takes a pretty sophisticated grey goo to do what bacteria do, and if the grey goo is made of stuff which bacteria or fungi can use, then I think it's the grey goo that has to watch out...

    Viruses, bacteria etc can be a problem to us, because they can get energy and resources by parasiting _us_ and other creatures we depend on, in often harmful or deadly ways. They are made from the same stuff as us and thus they can build themselves from us (or subvert our machinery to build themselves).

    So if you have a "naive" organic-based goo, good luck stopping fungus and bacteria etc from eating it the moment it gets wet :). I call a goo with no such defenses "naive" - because it was just born yesterday - unlike bacteria etc which have been battling each other for billions of years.

    In theory if you have a normal naive (no defense against other micro/nano organisms) organic-based goo our immune system (phages) would probably be able to eat it too. Now if you design a goo that subverts our immune and other systems, then we could have a problem, however I suspect it will be easier to modify an existing virus than to build a "goo" one from scratch.

    Alternatively if you have a metal based goo, these would only be a problem if you could create a grey goo that can somehow float around, land and burn/catalyze oil and air and use the energy to shape metal in a way so it can reproduce and repeat the process... The big issue is the burn/catalyze part. Catalysts used by common living creatures (enzymes) are mainly made of commonly available materials - only very trace amounts of other elements are required (if at all). If you prefer to burn instead, then you need to store a fair bit more energy, be able to release it at a high enough power and at the right time to start the burning process.

    I recall there was a fungus in South America that was eating CDs - polycarbonate and metal.

    So IMO, the most likely great danger to humans from micro/nano stuff would be biological viruses whether modified/bred/engineered or "natural".

    I'm not a biotech person but I believe one can feasibly breed viruses to be more dangerous - just get tons of cultures of human cells, then expose the viruses to them, and repeat the process with viruses that produce the effect closest to what you want. No need for much engineering - could probably be very automated. Or do it in conjunction with a carrier organism and human cells - basically breed the virus to survive and spread sublethally in the target carrier organism - rat/roach/flies etc, but be really bad to human cells. The danger is some person/organization actually doing this for USD100k or something.

    For macro dangers it'll be one of those meteorites/comets, or humans (we are probably one of the best things at killing ourselves).

    --
    1. Re:Get some perspective here by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Funny

      Where will the grey goo get _energy_ from to be such a big threat? Solar energy isn't that great a source of energy.

      Supposing someone put up a big satellite with a magnifying glass to amplify the available solar energy?
      I guess then they would have enough to take over the world faster ;)

      It seems like a big flaw in their plan.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
  9. forget the bots, just the particles.. by zogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...are a possible big threat. The fact of nanoparticles becoming a very common substance in our day to day environment could turn out to be a huge problem later on. I'm not saying it will, but I am not convinced on their "safe" claims either. These tiny particles are easily inhaled in some situations and so far they are shown to be easily absorbed, even into the brain. Look at the past track record of industry and small particles in general, all that stuff that was "perfectly" safe then later on they (industry academic shills with various letters next to their names "they") get to say "whoops, maybe we were wrong". Asbestos, silica, coal dust, fabric dust in mills, etc, a decent list.

    Basically I am a default skeptic, and I don't take as a given their tinfoil hat pronouncements of stuff being "safe" just because they say so. Fool me once and etc. One thing we have learned with industry over the years, if there's a buck to be made, and especially billions of bucks, anything and everything they do is "safe" from their POV and they have shown they have zero problems getting "learned" folks to back them up anytime they choose. I like tech, think it's great, but am no longer the young naieve guy who used to trust them implicitly.

  10. Gray Goo is NOT the only threat! by DoninIN · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, what I mean is that nano-bots that can almost magically eat everything from concrete, steel and dirt and reproduce may be impossible, or at least a really tall order. What about nanomachines that eat plants and use the material to reproduce? As we sit on the pristine concrete in two feet of plant eating nanogoo (Green Goo?) I'm sure we will all feel so much better knowing the concrete is safe.