Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob From: bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Newsgroups: sci.misc Subject: Re: Grey Goo that's too smart for its own good Message-ID: <810@its63b.ed.ac.uk> Date: 4 Dec 87 13:10:07 GMT References: <799@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <2698@drivax.UUCP> <1063@sugar.UUCP> <2411@watcgl.waterloo.edu> <1445@m-net.UUCP> <1526@mmm.UUCP> <2783@drivax.UUCP> Reply-To: bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF08 Bob Gray) Organization: I.T. School, Univ. of Edinburgh, U.K. Lines: 23 Keywords: nanotechnology foresight drexler In article <2783@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: >In article <1526@mmm.UUCP> cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes: >>In article <1445@m-net.UUCP> russ@m-net.UUCP (Russ Cage) writes: >>>In <2411@watcgl.waterloo.edu> kdmoen@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Doug Moen) writes: >>>>[...] If it *does* turn out to be possible to build Grey Goo, >>>>then by the time fabrication technology catches up, perhaps we can have >>>>a wide spectrum of Goo killing techniques already available. > >Goo seems almost inevitable. It should not be a big problem, of itself; >the definition of Goo (for those not familiar with the problem) is that >of a nanomachine that will use any available energy and raw material to >reproduce itself periodically. If it reproduces at 2x per year you have >one problem, relatively minor; if it reproduces at 512x per minute, you have >quite another. I can hear the squeals from the anti-nuclear type lobby already Can you PROVE it is safe? Campaign against the Grey Goo! prevent Nano-technology! and not a :-> in sight. Bob.