Zero Powers wrote:
> Hmmm. So my "shield" would actually be a head-to-toe distributed network
of
> nanobots coursing through every square millimeter of my body on the
lookout
> for attackers?
Exactly.
> And when I'm attacked, billions of nanobots fight to the
> death in such fragile places as my neo-cortex? I admit that I may not
have
> a firm grasp on the magnitude of these things, but I don't think that
having
> my body serve as a huge battlefield for trillions of nano-soldiers calms
my
> fears much.
Yes, that is the big problem with personal defenses.
> >Defending inert matter, or even appropriately designed macro-scale
> >machinery, isn't a big deal. The hard problem is defending delicate,
> >hard-to-upgrade territory like a human body.
>
> And isn't that *the* problem? I'm not really concerned with
> protecting my car from a nanobot attack.
Well, it is and it isn't. Look at some of the possible outcomes:
1) If you couldn't defend any kind of hardware against a nanobot attack,
there would be no prospect of anyone ever surviving the invention of
nanotech (with the possible exception of complete borganisms).
2) If defending hardware is practical, but defending people is impossible,
then no one can survive exposure to even a tiny dose of hostile nanobots.
However, you might have survivors in isolated bunkers if they have enough
layers of nanobot protection.
3) If defending people is very difficult, but not impossible, then you can
survive being exposed to a miniscule dose of nanobots. That means people
you can survive using pressure suits, airtight habitats, and moderately
paranoid decontamination procedures.
4) If defending people is easy, anyone with money can buy a system that will
let them ignore the whole problem (as long as they don't fall into a vat of
gray goo, or something equally stupid). That means most modern countries
survive the invention of nanotech, but the third world and Earth's natural
biosphere could easily be destroyed.
5) If defending people is trivial, we immunize the whole world easily.
Now, my personal bet is on option 3. Area defenses inside a sealed habitat
should be capable of preventing significant nanobot infiltrations, and a
well-designed immune system should be able to kill off very small numbers of
intruders before they do any significant damage. Options 2 and 4 are
possible, but seem less likely at the moment. Options 1 and 5 both seem a
bit unrealistic.
Oh, and lets not forget, this discussion only applies to the early stages of
development. Once you get really advanced nanotech you can redesign the
human body, and the distinction between hardware and biological material
ceases to mean anything.
Billy Brown
bbrown@transcient.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:12 MDT