CurtAdams@aol.com writes:
> In a message dated 99-05-31 02:11:09 EDT, smassey@enteract.com (Steve Massey)
> writes:
>
> >> Is it imaginable that some form of nanorganism could be made
> >> to reside in our cells, perhaps devouring a small share of the
> >> ATP produced by the mitochondria, and providing in return,
> >> some... some what? Intuition? spike
>
> >Thats a tough thought though... has any work been done towards
> >designs for compound eukaryote-drexler nanotech entities?
> >Would it be possible to design 'stealth' nanites able to live
> >inside cells and suck up ATP for power?
It is likely easier than to have them swim around in the bloodstream or elsewhere - a well defined chemical environment (maybe a bit reactive) with no immune systems attacking them. The nanochondria could be powered by modified ATPases.
> A cyborg osteoblast could make your bones out of a different material
> which I assume could be quite handy if you could find the right replacement
> material.
The trick is the material; you don't want anything too brittle. You might also want to have osteoclasts that can break it down. Don't forget that the bones are important calcium reserves.
> A cyborg macrophage could mechanically dispose of nonreactive
> substances like asbestos. Chop it up, put it in small wrapped
> bundles, and put it in some secretion. This could be particularly
> handy for lungs.
Especially when debugging ufogs :-)
> Of course, drextech is currently designed on the assumption it operates
> in a vacuum free of ionizing radiation. I understand an aqueous
> environment full of reactive substances would be pretty hostile to drextech.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y