> But perhaps we reached a near
> consensus on the following non-trivial points?
Well, since you're asking...
> 1. Provided that technological research continues, nanotechnology will
> eventually be developed.
Yes.
> 2. An immune system wouldn't work unless it was global.
No. In fact a global system is probably worse because it gives a single
point of failure.
> 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.
No; twentieth century human life might be endangered, but we wouldn't be
twentieth century humans any more. More importantly, I just don't believe
that there are anywhere near as many world-destroying fanatics out there
as you see. If 'Basement Nukes' is to be believed, any competent group
could produce enough biological weapons to wipe out a large fraction of
a city's population for tens of thousands of dollars; so why haven't
they? And why should we imagine that building a world-destroying goo will
be any simpler?
> 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.
Not neccesarily; it depends a lot on the exact circumstances.
Mark
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Mark Grant M.A., U.L.C. EMAIL: mark@unicorn.com |
|WWW: http://www.unicorn.com/ MAILBOT: bot@unicorn.com |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|