Re: Goo prophylaxis:consensus
Wed, 3 Sep 1997 12:05:12 -0400 (EDT)

In a message dated 9/3/97 6:36:21 AM, (Nicholas
Bostrom) wrote:

>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

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.