Nanotechnology

[Hamelin]

Every technology just about ever had the potential for warfare. The wheel and domesicated horse was used to transport troops, the refining of metals led to better weapons, advances in medicine gave way to better methods of making poisons. The splitting of the atom created a massive bomb.

Why would this be any different?

[Krylo]

Ahh, I don't think anyone thinks that it would be any different... but if you'll look at the 'grey goo' scenario provided in that one of my links, you'll see why nano-technology has the potential to be far more dangerous than anything we've seen to date. So dangerous that there are plenty of people that are a bit iffy on touching it, as a matter of fact.

Nanomachines operate in the same way cells do (for a basic analogy) and anyone that has taken a basic biology course knows that groups of cells form tissues which form organs, etc. etc. Nanomachines work together in "swarms" to accomplish the basic goal of assembly. Nano machines are assemblers, piecing together millions of atoms to form a desired structure. There are 3 steps involved, which first includes the ability to manipulate individual atoms, then assemblers must be created that can be programmed to manipulate an atom, and finally, replicators will need to be created to make more assemblers, considering trillions of assemblers will be needed to accomplish anything significant. But that's how it can repair tissues, destroy viruses and bacteria, and even repair/regenerate tissues. That's how it can be used for manufacturing. As long as we can program the bots to manipulate individual atoms, we can basically make anything. We can construct natural resources, repair the ozone, rebuild tissues, destroy viruses and bacteria within the human body by reconstructing the molecular structures of the cells, make smaller computer components, get rid of contaminants in water sources.

This can all be done, it just depends on developing the technology to progam the nanomachines, which isn't as far off as some might think. It's already been proven that technology exists that can manipulate the individual atoms. The next step could be two years or twenty years away but all that matters is that its possible. The biggest obstacle after the actual development of the technology is getting it approved and regulated.

[Drooling Iguana]

Originally Posted by krylo

To DI: You're even more out of the loop than I am. Nano-weapons could be dispensed easily through the air,

Where they would dissipate extremely rapidly, resulting in an incredibly small portion of these expensive machines to actually reach their targets, unless deployed from a very close range, in which case there's a whole lot of already existing weapons that would do the job better.

they're so light weight that they would move more easily than most viruses, and could exit the body/contaminate others in the same way...

So now you're implying that these machines would carry enough fuel to work on multiple targets, as well as having enough fuel to travel from one target to another? While still remaining in the nanometre range? What kind of super-fuel do you propose they use?

as well as being more deadly,

Back that up.[/quote]and existing on dead bodies.[/quote]As dead nanomachines.

Of course they can also be designed to infect any carbon based anything... pulling carbon atoms out... which would destroy any living creature thing that touched them.

Overcoming the electromagnetic bond between a carbon atom and the rest of the molecule would require a non-trivial amount of energy for something that size. Again, what sort of super-fuel did you have in mind for these machines?

It would take a lot of them to kill someone, but considering they're made out of just a few atoms... they could rather easily make more of themselves out of living tissue,

Ah, self-replicating nanobots. Ordinarily, when someone brings up this issue I ask where they would get the raw materials for this, but you seem to be saying that these machines would be built out of the same materials found in the human body. In that case, this is looking to be more like biotech than nanotech.

thus destroying any living thing as well as replicating themselves. That's the whole premise behind nano-weaponry which has some EXPERTS pondering whether they are worth the risks.

This site addresses some of thoese risks:
http://www.cla.sc.edu/cpecs/nirt/nirt200112/nirt3.html

Actually, it doesn't. Actually, I'm amazed that they managed to produce such a large amount of text without actually saying anything. Then again, I might be reading it wrong. Since you seem to think that this article supports your position, perhaps you could provide a summary and some relevant quotes that deal with the issue at hand.

As for the building new materials/repairing human cells... well they would move atoms around and BUILD the cells, they wouldn't carry them around.

There's a hell of a lot of atoms in a cell (sorry, but it's proving difficult to find a more precise number for the number of atoms in a typical cell.) It would take a very long time for a single nanomachine to construct one, and if you're using large numbers of nanomachines to do the job then you run into the coordination problems I described earlier.

here: http://www.zyvex.com/nano/
http://www.nano.org.uk/nano.htm

I've already waded though one long and pointless article that didn't end up containing any relevant information. I'm not going to do it for two more. If these articles support your argument, then explain how and quote the relevant passages. Don't make me do your research for you.

I'm not saying that nanotech doesn't have it's uses, but it's far from the magic technology that some are making it out to be.

[Krylo]

Well, actually, considering your main beef seems to come from the power/fuel thing only one of those even begins to touch upon that and it would be the last quote... which just mentions something in passing about bacteria with nano-bots in them powered by battery acid or something to clean up stains. I really have no idea what kind of fuel they would use to get all that energy, and I didn't see anything on it as I was browsing websites knowing that I wasn't THAT wrong. I think we'll have to ask videodrone about that. She's going to school for it and all... and I couldn't find anything in like 20 minutes of searching. And trust me, 20 minutes for me is well above and beyond.

Edit: As for the really confusing article, it was basically talking about how self-replicating disassemblers could get out of hand and disassemble lots and lots of living things. And LOTS of technobabble. It wasn't so much adding more information as it was just reiterating what I had said, only from someone (three someones) who knows what they're talking about. If you want something good try to find "Why the future doesn't need us" I would have given some excerpts from that last night, but I couldn't remember the name then. As for the other two articles, they're more plain speak and just talk about how you'd have to make the nano-machines self-replicate and then they'd be moving atoms around, etc. Again, no mention of fuels, which seems to be your biggest gripe, and I have no idea on that.

[Devon Lake]

Considering that they're reeling in nuclear weapons... I don't know why anyone would even want to think of making weapons with nanotechnology. It goes far beyond any power we could ever need... and could easily be uncontrollable. But, of course, people are power mongering and they will most likely order nano-weapons made.

That's the problem with saber rattlers though. You can never be too powerful. The US defense coffer is already somewhere around the combined figure for the rest of the world, and you've still got Bush talking about that missile defense sheild, and suggestions of weapons in orbit. Not to mention that new nuclear weapons are now being manufactured. There's studies into low yield nukes that could be actually practical in conventional war and other things like that. Then what about that neutron... thingy. In any case, the US is already more powerful than it ever needs to be and it's still building up it's might, so depending on how long this terrorist xenophobia lasts or when the next boogie man comes out, the eventually we'll have these weapons.

I heard someone suggest once that nannobots may become sentient and take over the world and just become an all encompassing grey ooze in a really weird Terminator like scenario. Actually, I think that was an essay by Prince Charles... I'll admit I don't know much about them, but as long as it's a productive technology, it should be continued.

Some people see anyone smart as a threat. For a while everyone involved with nuclear physics was accused of making nukes. Now with biological and chemical weapons no sceintists are safe. Knowlege just happens to be power, and power just happens to be deadly.

[Dante]

All I can say is, defending against airborne nanomechanicals becomes a lot easier when you can irradiate the region with microwaves. Given that nanomachines are smaller and thus have a higher surface area-to-mass ratio, they should die as easily as virii, if not more so.

It may ahve been said before, but nanomechanicals are only good for small-sclae precision work. If I wanted to sue nanotech to make a ruler, i could just stampt he thing and BAM! instant ruler, whereas I'd have to wait almost forver to build the ruler molecule by molecule. Control is another problem - how will you give them orders? Radiation is a hazard, as I've mentioned before, and chemical messengers might not be quick or specific enough to do exactly what you want.

That said, I still support the research of nanotech, and eagerly await the day when they discover how to fold a tertiary protein molecule.

[FunnyLooking]

As far as fuel goes, couldn't they just coat a nano in water or any liquid? Maybe I don't understand the exact size of these things, but it seems that if they were small enough they could be powered directly off of the energy found in surrounding particles.

See, this is why we need more research.

Fuel source=light. Light gives off energy, hence solar power.

There is also research being done on introducing very small amounts of semi-conductors like silicon into nanobots in order to attract electric fields, there are studies that are attempting to utilize enzymes cruicial to photosynthesis, and using transport proteins that power cell movement. So "fuel" isn't really a problem considering the extremely small scale of nanotech.

[Dynamite Kid]

Whatever gets the monsters away from fucking with my food, I'm all for. It's not an ethical or environmental concern, it's just that bio food is like eating a rubber ball, only without the flavour.