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.