# Nanorobots - Can it get out of control?



## matt-browne-sfw (Nov 23, 2007)

What will the future have in store for us? Perhaps some unusual surprises? I tried to come up with some predictions starting today and going all the way to the year 2100 (taking the past into account as well). What if?

Take a look here http://www.meet-matt-browne.com/whatif-fht.html

One particular subjects is the world of the very tiny stuff... molecular manufacturing... nanorobots... It's an interest subject for science fiction. Although widespread use of nanotechnology won't happen till 2020 according to some scientists, there's already an interesting debate about the benefits vs. the potential threats.

Wikipedia says: nanotechnology refers broadly to a field of applied science and technology whose unifying theme is the control of matter on the atomic and molecular scale, normally 1 to 100 nanometers, and the fabrication of devices within that size range. It is a highly multidisciplinary field, drawing from fields such as applied physics, materials science, interface and colloid science, device physics, supramolecular chemistry, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, and electrical engineering.

One of the potential threat could come from the so-called "grey goo", a hypothetical scenario involving molecular nanotechnology in which out-of-control self-replicating robots consume all living matter on Earth while building more of themselves. It remains unclear whether the molecular nanotechnology would be capable of creating grey goo at all. Among other common refutations, theorists suggest that the very size of nanoparticles inhibits them from moving very quickly.

The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology lists the following risks:

- Economic disruption from an abundance of cheap products
- Economic oppression from artificially inflated prices
- Personal risk from criminal or terrorist use
- Personal or social risk from abusive restrictions
- Social disruption from new products/lifestyles
- Unstable arms race
- Collective environmental damage from unregulated products
- Free-range self-replicators (grey goo)
- Black market in nanotech (increases other risks)
- Competing nanotech programs (increases other risks)
- Attempted relinquishment (increases other risks)

What are your thoughts about this?


----------



## Prefx (Nov 24, 2007)

Hmm, most of the bulletins listed in the article presume our economic system will remain capitalistic. This is only my opinion so bear with me, but automation seems likelier to occur before working nano-tech. This poses a challenge for the current system for multiple reasons, not the least of which being the means of production, in the futuristic tense, robots, are _almost entirely_ owned by the upper class. The worker bees would either be reduced to pushing buttons as seen in the Jetsons or wageless.

By reducing man's labor to only the tasks he enjoys, something resembling communism seems more beneficial than capitalism. The destruction of prices and markets would probably encourage the radical change.


----------



## chrispenycate (Nov 24, 2007)

The "grey goo" argument only holds for self replicating nanotechnology. I hold it is far more probable that the first generations of nanobots will come out of factories, and be replaced as they wear out, rather than being of the "hunt around for materials to build more of myself" philosophy. This is far more practical, both for the level of complexity of the device itself (imagine having to fit a "genetic" instruction with all the details required to recognise, purify and put together correctly  another of itself inside something that size, let alone the power supply – much easier to grow hundreds of millions of them on a substrate) and means the entire instruction set can be dedicated to the task they're intended to perform. What is more, every time they wear out you're forced to buy barrels of new ones, which keeps your corporations happy (well. perhaps the "factory" in which they are made could be small and cheap enough for individuals, but raw materials? Much more efficient to buy concentrated and purified than pass kilotonnes of seawater throuh to extract micrograms of platinum)
And while this doesn't eliminate the danger, it does make it directly comparable with chemical spill, and less than nuclear.


----------



## Ursa major (Nov 24, 2007)

Prefx said:


> Hmm, most of the bulletins listed in the article presume our economic system will remain capitalistic. This is only my opinion so bear with me, but automation seems likelier to occur before working nano-tech. This poses a challenge for the current system for multiple reasons, not the least of which being the means of production, in the futuristic tense, robots, are _almost entirely_ owned by the upper class. The worker bees would either be reduced to pushing buttons as seen in the Jetsons or wageless.


 
Your assumption seems to be that we (in the "West", wherever that is) live in industrial, rather than post-industrial societies. We don't. The largest sector of a modern economy is the service sector (both in money and employment terms). Whether this is good or not, most employment is not in factories where one could simply push buttons (apart from those on keyboards) to make the economy run.

We are also living in a societies where our life expectancies are increasing by 2.6 years a decade, but our healthy lives by only 0.6 years a decade. Now you may wish to be surrounded by robots (with Windows Android v6 running on them) to meet your needs when you can no longer look after yourself. I'd rather be helped by humans.


----------



## Pyan (Nov 24, 2007)

There's a novel by Michael Crichton about this...makes interesting reading.

Prey by Michael Crichton




			
				UM said:
			
		

> Now you may wish to be surrounded by robots (with Windows Android v6 running on them) to meet your needs when you can no longer look after yourself. I'd rather be helped by humans


But this can only be available to a certain population level - surely there would be a tip-over point when the number of people _supplying_ the care is overwhelmed by the number of those _needing_ it.


----------



## Ursa major (Nov 24, 2007)

pyan said:


> But this can only be available to a certain population level - surely there would be a tip-over point when the number of people _supplying_ the care is overwhelmed by the number of those _needing_ it.


 
If you've ever needed to find care for someone, Pyan, you'd know that we're there already. At least in the UK, we rely on silently suffering parents, spouses and children to give up their time and economic prospects to do most of this type of work. So instead of professional people who can at least distance themselves from their charges (and so reduce the emotional suffering of relatives to some extent), we put the free carers into a position where, because of love and duty, they care for someone but neglect themselves.

There is no easy solution. A lot of care workers in homes are from eastern Europe and further afield; which would be a solution if they weren't going to get old and infirm themselves. I feel sorry for the younger members of society; I'm hoping I'm just old enough to get something resembling today's level of care when I need it. (And even then, I've got my fingers crossed - hence the iffy typing.)


----------



## Pyan (Nov 24, 2007)

> If you've ever needed to find care for someone, Pyan, you'd know that we're there already


Oh, I know....
But extrapolating forward, it conjures up a picture of an old elite, kept alive by an underclass of maintainers...
Or a revolt _a la_ Logans Run


----------



## Ursa major (Nov 24, 2007)

We'll all simply have to write best-sellers, then, won't we?


----------



## Prefx (Nov 25, 2007)

Ursa major said:


> Your assumption seems to be that we (in the "West", wherever that is) live in industrial, rather than post-industrial societies. We don't. The largest sector of a modern economy is the service sector (both in money and employment terms). Whether this is good or not, most employment is not in factories where one could simply push buttons (apart from those on keyboards) to make the economy run.
> 
> We are also living in a societies where our life expectancies are increasing by 2.6 years a decade, but our healthy lives by only 0.6 years a decade. Now you may wish to be surrounded by robots (with Windows Android v6 running on them) to meet your needs when you can no longer look after yourself. I'd rather be helped by humans.



I don't dispute the argument we enjoy the fruits of wealth due to having others perform the menial jobs for us. However, unless we're to believe these workers enjoy perpetual living conditions, East Europeans and Asians will eventually demand that they move past the ilk of industrial living. Unless Africa and the Middle East are stabilized regions at that time, which I'll leave others to speculate, corporations will have to react by radically improving on the automation process, not only to match the factory jobs but also the service industry, which arguably doesn't _create_ wealth. When robots become more profitable than human labor, I'd be watching out for demands to deconstruct the price system. Marx could have been correct after all. 

I only wish for people to do the labor they enjoy. Nothing more, friend.


----------



## Dave (Nov 26, 2007)

To return to the "grey goo" - a term I haven't come across before (any references?) I like the idea of a nano-forge or _Star Trek_-style Replicator, in which any complex molecule could be assembled from a stock of its basic constituent atoms, and I think it has to come soon. But, there lies the problem - without a sufficient topping up of stock of the basic constituent atoms the machine would eventually run out of say, Silicon or Carbon, and come to an abrupt halt. 

Now, I guess we are talking about more complex structures, the kind of things just mentioned from Michael Crichton's _Prey_ or Wesley Crusher's nanobot school science project in _Star Trek_. They are self-replicating, so they have one of the criteria for being classed as a living thing, but they would still be limited by their environmental conditions. They would still consume all the raw materials around them, and then stop, probably to be poisoned on their own waste products, much as bacteria do. I think they would be more "grey scum" than "grey goo". But, to actively seek out new raw materials, wouldn't that also require some intelligence, not just an ability to work together? The _Prey_ bots did achieve this, but the 'how' was not explained.

I think we are much too familiar with those apocalyptic sci-fi story lines - Michael Crichton's _Prey_, _Star Trek_ Nanites , Ice-9 from Kurt Vonnegut's _Cat's Cradle_ or the engineered bacteria in Neal Stephenson's _Zodiac_ - the kind of story where the new invention inevitably runs out of control - it's a classic concept - it goes back to Frankenstein's creation.

In reality, I would think any leak would only cause a local problem. Something like the early non-biodegradable detergents that caused quite a problem with froth and foam in waterways in the late sixties.


----------



## Pyan (Nov 26, 2007)

Dave said:


> To return to the "grey goo" - a term I haven't come across before (any references?)



K. Eric Westler, Dave....

K._Eric_Drexler bio...


----------



## Dave (Nov 26, 2007)

Thanks for the link, Pyan.

And interesting part about the Drexler-Smalley debate.


----------



## Pyan (Nov 26, 2007)

The rest of the links I found googling "grey goo" seem to indicate that it's an exploded theory, and it's only the love of things apocalyptic that keeps it going.


----------



## matt-browne-sfw (Nov 28, 2007)

pyan said:


> The rest of the links I found googling "grey goo" seem to indicate that it's an exploded theory, and it's only the love of things apocalyptic that keeps it going.



Thanks for all your comments. But the fact that a "Center for Responsible Nanotechnology" was setup indicates that we need some kind of debate about the long-term consequences. Whether it's "grey goo" or something else...


----------



## chrispenycate (Nov 28, 2007)

Oh, nanotech, if they can get it working, will change things. Possibly as much as large scale integration bringing down computing prices (what can you think of that hasn't been modified by computing or related technology)
But it will probably take as long to catch on, too, giving society enough time to get used to it. 
Take mining, an obvious use. While it could reduce energy expenditure by a large factor (not eliminate it, however, and power supplies and reserves are one of the weak points in the developement. Nanotech is not really one field, it's a collection of different attacks with one ultimate aim, and until they are all  successful it's a bit like the Russian digital watch running off a car battery) but it's unlikely to replace traditional techniques for iron ore for decades; not enough economic pressure. Platinum, or paladium, much sooner. The much written-about medical advantages, twenty-five or thirty years further down the line (and specific, non-replicating one-problem versions at that; and probably powered by external microwave radiation so stopping them is just a question of turning the power off, too).
I think biotechnology is far more likely to give immediate problems, because that is already under weigh, and more difficult to controll all the conditions of, anyway.
Which doesn't mean it's not a good idea to plan in advance the problems that are going to arrive (and there will be problems, certainly; but I'd make a bet that the ones predicted won't be the ones that actually turn up, if it weren't for the fact I won't live to collect) Just don't load the comittee with too many luddites, unwilling for any change. Accept that there's a lot of good that can be achieved that way that would be extremely difficult otherwise, but nothing comes for free.


----------

