>Our discussion about the strategic situation after and during the
>development of nanotechnology has gone on for a while, and there is
>still disagreement on several issus. But perhaps we reached a near
>consensus on the following non-trivial points?
>
>1. Provided that technological research continues, nanotechnology will
>eventually be developed.
Molecular based self-replicators better than current bioforms will be
developed: agreed.
These forms will be machine phase: Not agreed (unproven, open question)
>2. An immune system wouldn't work unless it was global.
Disagreed. Mine works quite nicely. Any immune system will be defeated at
some point; if it's global then it's all over. Successful nanodefense will
rely on multiple local systems or it will fail.
>3. In the absence of a global immune system, if everybody could make
>their own nanotech machines then all life on earth would soon become
>extinct.
Current life: agreed. Life as modified in the age of nanotech: disagreed.
>4. In the absence of ethical motives, the benefits would outweigh the
>costs for a nanotech power that chose to eliminate the competition or
>prevent it from arising, provided it had the ability to do so.
Two powers: agreed. Multiple powers: disagreed.