Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: viruses, computer & bio (plus a fix) Message-ID: Date: 26 Jul 89 03:04:42 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 67 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu In article ems%nanotech@princeton.edu writes: >But, I don't think this is quite the entire picture. One promise >of nanotechnology is the ability to make that nanovirus vastly >more *selective* in it's targets, hence a better weapon. One might >build an AI-based nanovirus that would only spare ardent capitalists, >for instance. I find the idea of a nanovirus that could read personalities very unlikely, due to the inherent complexity of mapping from neural activity in the brain to even abstract thoughts, much less political inclinations. Before we have the ability to design such a nanoagent, we will probably need the ability to design minds from scratch -- and *that* would have far greater implications (both promises and problems) than mere biowarfare. On the other hand, a much more tractible nanoweapon would be one which could scan a person's genetic code. The simplest variant might be something like Frank Herbert's White Plague -- a virus which searches for XX or XY chromosomes and is lethal to only one sex. A more sophisticated version might scan gene patterns for race-specific genotypes such as skin pigmentation and kill people of a certain color. The good news is that genocide is not really in the best interests of any major power. Even South Africa, arguably one of the most racist high-tech nations, would not benefit from having all of the blacks in their country die, since it would leave them without much of their manual labor force. On the other hand, the Holocast wasn't particularly useful for Nazi Germany in military terms, and if an anti-Jewish nanovirus was developed, Syria or the PLO might not hesitate to use it. >If someone told you that a blood-borne >disease, lethal to drug addicts and promiscuous persons, >but *unable* to use the mosquito vector, just arose naturally, >would you believe them? How about the reverse? What kinds of research could be done (and probably is being done -- possibly in the US, probably in the USSR) to turn HIV into a weapon? You would need rapid-onset and a highly contagious vector (contact/water/air). Perhaps a recombinant DNA splice between HIV and some type of flu virus? Is this or something similar possible? (If so, it's probably been done.) >This is part of the whole category of questions relating to the >unethical misuse of technology. Let me now suggest a "fix" that one >day, just *might* be possible thru nanotechnology. The leading force >might use their time advantage to design an artificial conscience, >and apply it to *everyone*, to modify behavior. The artificial >conscience would make it impossible for anyone to attempt to >injure others using technology, sort of like an enforceable >Hippocratic Oath. For the reasons I stated above, I find this extremely unlikely short of a complete solution to both psychology and AI. This would require knowledge of how extremely high-level concepts such as "other people" and "harm" are stored in extremely low-level neurological processes. Furthermore, it requires knowing how to modify neurological structures to acheive a very complex high-level behavior. If we can do this, I feel we will be able to design minds to our own specifications, and when this happens we will need to deal with much more complex issues. _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi University of Rochester yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu Computer Science Department _______________________________________________________________________________