[extropy-chat] To: Hal Finney Re: Nano-assembler feasibility

[Robert J. Bradbury]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Chris Phoenix wrote:

>  > Now, there are two parts to this question.  The first is, how can an
>  > assembler self-replicate; how can it build its own parts.
>
> Agreed, this is a question we don't have a full answer to.  Further
> studies are needed.

This is an an area where I disagree strongly and willing to go toe-to-toe
with the proponents to figure it out.

First and most important "self-replication is not an essential component
of nanotech" (Robert Freitas may disagree with my opinion on this.)  It
is helpful in getting the scales required for useful nanoscale production
up to those levels required by humans -- but it is *NOT* essential.
For example humans derive great benefits from manufacturing
at the nanoscale level of 130-70nm chips that are produced by the millions.
These chips are *NOT* self-replicating.  Humans also derive great benefit
from the production of beer and wine that are based on self-replicating
nanoscale machines that we have been using for thousands of years.
So the only thing one can argue here is costs of production
efficiencies and I don't notice anyone doing that.

Bottom Line: self-replication is helpful but not essential to realize
what nanotech may offer.

Second, building ones own parts is completely irrelevant as well.  Most
viruses get *other* machinery to build their parts.

I agree with Chris that we do not (in any significant way) understand
what the limits are on the phase space of parts construction or parts
assembly.  We are therefore driving blind.  We only have some simple
hints as to what might be possible from known biology.  Whether or not
these could be considered dangerous I am somewhat doubtful.  But there
is ample room for me to be surprised.

I would like however to see CRN produce a hardcore estimate of precisely
how gray goo might be developed and the damage it might cause.  And
more importantly how it might be defended against.  (Gray goo is *not*
indefeatable -- but one does need however to be prepared for it.)

Robert