Scientific (ONLY) view of technology expansion

[mugaliens]

Preface: Please limit your responses in accordance with board rules to the topic's title.

Question: As scientists, engineers, and those who work in the sciences, what's your view on the use of probably benign, but potentially dangerous technologies?

I support technology expansion, provided patent rights are respected, and fair use laws are honored. I believe any country willing to put forth the effort to better themselves, whether by the making of chemicals or energy production, has an inherent right to do so, provided they use the technology for peaceful means. I think it's safe to say that if there's an issue, simple inspections should suffice to settle the arguements.

On the non-political side, is there anything, scientifically speaking, that you can think of, that would/could/should prevent other countries from using potentially dangerous technology, provided they're aboardboard about it and limit it to peaceful use?

Before launching into anything which may be in the news today, consider one of the most deadly chemicals, chlorine gas, is used for water sanitation around the world. Nitrogen and it's compounds is another readily available chemical that's easily transformed into some seriously dangerous stuff.

But just because something can be transformed into "seriously dangerous stuff," even in relatively short order like chlorine and nitrogen compounds, should that technology be banned altogether?

I would ask that we refrain from being creative with how any particular things could be used, and that we instead concentrate on whether or not it's in our best interests in the scientific community to limit expansion. Perhaps we could address some of the other scientific advances that may be highly beneficial to keep secret without being a detriment to mankind by doing so.

Moderators, I hope the inclusions mentioned about will keep this out of the political arena - I have no intent for it to go there. I think there are plenty non-political issues here to be discussed that often fall out of the mix because other discussions (threads?) didn't have these ground rules.

Well, fingers crossed, it's time to put our thinking caps on, stay within the rules, and do some good thinking in and out of the box!

[antoniseb]

How dangerous? Are you thinking about grey ooze?

[tofu]

How dangerous? Are you thinking about grey ooze?

You know, I've always thought that concept was pretty unrealistic. I mean, think about it this way, a nano-machine is made out of parts, and the parts are made of atoms. To duplicate the machine, you need atoms in the right ratio. For example, imagine a machine that makes use of three AU atoms. If I lose one on my desk, it can't possibly turn my desk into grey goo, because I have exactly zero AU atoms in my desk.

[Moose]

Not so much the correct ratio as a sufficient supply in order to turn your desk into "somewhat grey goo" or "mostly grey goo". ;)

[tofu]

Not so much the correct ratio as a sufficient supply

well ok sure. If the nanites find the gold-plated headphone jack in the desk drawer, then they might have enough gold for a few million copies, and that might mean turning an area of my desk the size of a quarter into grey goo. The area that is turned into grey goo is a ratio of the amount of gold they need for a single nanite. If 1/10th of a nanite is gold, then they could gooify an area equal to ten times the amount of gold they find.

And actually, as a practical matter, they would most likely take the other atoms that they need from all over - not from one small area. So, I wouldn't notice a "grey goo spot" on my desk. I'd need an electron microscope to see the atoms they took from my desk. The only thing I'd notice would be the missing gold.

You know, trees are sort of like nano machines. The individual living cells are microscopic. It's interesting to note that trees are actually made out of air - well, out of carbon, but they get their carbon from the air. Otherwise, in order to make a great big tree, you'd end up leaving a great big hole in the ground as the tree scooped up stuff to make itself out of. That's probably a much more realistic blueprint for nanomachines. Rather than turning things into grey goo as they copy themselves, they would be much much more efficient if they could get the parts they need from air, or maybe seawater.

I wonder which scifi writer has already thought of this. There's always somebody out there who toseeks my good ideas.

[Demigrog]

Even primative tools can be used dangerously; I'd find the warning on my new hammer (a little picture of a hammer hitting the side of a guy's head with a red X over it) amusing if it hadn't likely been put there because of a real court case.

I'd say engineers and scientists are a lot more aware of this issue now than even a couple of decades ago. Certainly it was covered in Engineering Fundamentals when I was in college, from a purely academic perspective. In practice, when we create something that is dangerous, there is usually a regulatory framework already in place for managing risks. The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for example, which every chemical container must have. Some chemical sales are tracked and regulated. Many categories of electronics are export controlled (a continual nightmare for my job).

More recently engineers have become more aware of end-of-life disposal issues. Even seemingly innocuous computer parts now have disposal regulations, forcing us to design out a lot of non-conforming parts.

Some fields do present unique challenges, especially with unintended consequences. Introducing allergens into GM foods, for example, is pretty scary; I trust the FDA’s complex regulations to help against that, though.

Genetics is kindof bothersome in general. For example, I know my mother has a particular gene mutation that increases blood clotting. If I inherited it, I might be susceptible to stroke (she had a severe one at 40) or heart problems. However, if I actually have the test and find out for sure, certain insurance policies consider it a pre-existing condition and deny me coverage. I take a risk either way. In the end, I decided to not get the test and be very careful on long plane trips and surgery. Sometimes I wish the researcher who found this mutation (a meager 1 in 10000 increase in chances of stroke by age 50) had just kept it to themselves and saved me some worrying.

Anyway, I’ve spent more than $0.02 today, better do something productive…

[firstcontact]

Of course it shouldn't be banned altogether. IMHO nothing should be banned unless the use of said objects or technology is shown to have no use OTHER than its potensial for danger-but even then these things should not be banned they should be contained until such time where said object or technology is found to have a use other then danger

[mugaliens]

You folks bring up some good points here with respect to nanites, including programming limitations to keep them from running amuck.

Ok - hopefully I don't break any political seals or boundaries here (not trying to!): What of technologies that are both beneficial to the borrowing/developing country and potentially harmful to the developing country/other countries? Consider microbiology, chemistry, and nuclear in your replies.

Again, this isn't a political response - merely looking at this from a scientific point of view so with respect to what's actually happening and any scientific problems/entanglements we may face.

I like the one so far about the goo/semi-goo response. I think that any nanite would never consume more raw resources than is required to do it's proscribed mission, as it's very wasteful. Uneless it's proscribed mission is to waste your desk, then your hardwood becomes goowood!

That would be an interesting thing for a nanite to do - draw in aerial ingredients in such a way as to turn a desk into cellulitic goo.

Ok, what othere thoughts out there?

[mugaliens]

Oh - are trees really made of air? I know they get some of the raw materials from air, like O, N, and C. However, their is something else missing: H. I believe they get that from water. :eh:

[Lord Jubjub]

Part of the problem with banning nanites is. . .we don't have the technology to make nanites. By the time we will have developed the ability to make and program nanites, we should have also produced AI to a degree that we can define and control intelligence.

In fact, I would say the android technology that is developing in Japan is starting to push the limits. Their AI is limited to simple reactions and the hardware is large and external to the robot; but there are a LOT of potential hazards to such technology should they push for commercial usage as they develop on the fly. Androids will cause us problems before nanites will.

Bio-nanites (engineered microbes) has the potential to cause epidemics of various sorts if the technology is pushed too far too fast. At present, I think most biologists have read enough sci-fi to understand the downsides.

[Lord Jubjub]

Trees only get carbon from the air. Oxygen and Hydrogen comes from water pulled from the ground. Nitrogen, they get in the form of bacterial wastes or lightning residues.

The water, of course, comes mostly from the sky. Bacteria fixes atmospheric nitrogen and lightning causes oxides of nitrogen that the trees can use.

[sarongsong]

...I would say the android technology that is developing in Japan is starting to push the limits...But she's so cute:
Korea Unveils World's Second Android (http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200605/200605040016.html)

[TheBlackCat]

But she's so cute:
Korea Unveils World's Second Android (http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200605/200605040016.html)
Looks like a Fuccon (http://www.thefuccons.com/). No I do not watch the show.