Path: utzoo!yunexus!ists!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Nanotech thoughts Message-ID: Date: 17 Nov 89 22:50:30 GMT Article-I.D.: athos.Nov.17.17.50.29.1989.16678 Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U. Lines: 42 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu In article peb@tma1.eng.sun.com (Paul Baclaski) writes: >The question then becomes: what is the actual cost of building an >assembler lab? You need a programmable assembler, raw materials, >design support equipment and very specialized knowledge. This is >very similar to building a nuclear weapons lab. ... >... Perhaps the cost is on >the order of $10,000,000 minimum, when all things are considered ... This is a good point that I hadn't thought of yet. Can anyone comment on how realistic these estimates are? Assuming that Drexler's description of nanomachine (lack of) mutation is on track, it looks like accidental grey goo is pretty unlikely. So then the question is, how likely is purposeful grey goo? I'd been assuming that whoever tried to build it would start from scratch. I hadn't really thought of stealing already-built assemblers and using them to build more illegal ones. The question is: How hard would it be to reprogram a stolen assembler and provide it with a good working environment? Could we make it harder to do one or the other of these, in order to provide more of a safeguard? And then of course there's the question of how to deal with governments, which actually have the resources to do it. Not to start a political flame war or anything, but I would *not* want to see the CIA get control of an assembler. And we're the good guys! As I recall, EoC just said we had to get nanotech first to keep bad guys from getting it... but how are we going to keep track of our own government, when they have nanotech and most people don't? Seems like we need a much better verification system than we have currently. [JoSH, should this thread go to another newsgroup?] -- Chris Phoenix | A harp is a nude piano. cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU | "More input! More input!" First we got the Bomb, and that was good, cause we love peace and motherhood. Disclaimer: I want a kinder, gentler net with a thousand pints of lite. [For political discussions, please do go to other groups (comp.society.futures seems fairly low-volume about now). However, see my message about assembler-building costs. The best defense against official malfeasance, as well as individual berserkerism, appears to be an early and widespread adoption of the technology. --JoSH]