Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!drivax.uucp!macleod
From: macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: viability of blue goo
Message-ID: <8906130724.AA21688@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 12 Jun 89 21:34:56 GMT
References: <8906120201.AA12584@athos.rutgers.edu>
Sender: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu
Organization: Digital Research, Monterey, CA
Lines: 26
Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu


In article <8906120201.AA12584@athos.rutgers.edu> kk@SUN.COM (Kirk Kelley) writes:

>I can imagine that one reason there is no evidence of any extra
>terrestrial intelligence is because it always ends up as grey goo.

>The most viable solution I've heard is the idea of nano-robo-cops or
>blue goo.  (Who do I credit?)  But how is it possible that blue goo
>can be made more viable than grey goo?

It's all grey, really.  "Blue goo" is the most dangerous grey goo, because it
thinks it's Blue (i.e.. a "Good Guy") and attempts to carry out its mandate
to Do Good.  Considering the havoc wrought by human societies trying to Do Good, 
I don't expect much better from the Goo. Jack Williamson's "The Humanoids"
was probably the first exploration of this theme in detail. 

Michael Sloan MacLeod   (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

["Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"... This problem has a long philosophical
 history behind it, and, IMHO, *no known solution*.
 I think Williamson may have been writing in reaction to Asimov's 
 oft-touted 3 Laws of Robotics, which have a fatal flaw (latterly
 well understood by Asimov himself and made into the crux of some
 recent writings):  a robot running under the Laws protects you
 from what is harmful *in the opinion of the robot*...
 --JoSH]