# Engines of Creation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 31, 2000, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/engines-of-creation/17907 "2000-03-31T20:57:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Grim\_Beaker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Grim\_Beaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Beaker)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2000, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/engines-of-creation/17907/1 "2000-03-31T20:57:00Z")
One topic which many people seem to be unfamiliar with is that of the ongoing research and implications of nanotechnology. For those of you who haven’t had any contact with this developing field heres a link about what the future holds: [http://www.foresight.org/EOC/index.html](http://www.foresight.org/EOC/index.html) My purpose in starting this topic is in debating the changes nanotechnology will have in our society. Are they beneficial? Detrimental? What are the ramifications to world culture? Among other things nanotechnology could potentially promise: - Lifetimes extended to hundreds if not thousands of years - End products essentially manufactured for “free” (built on an atom by atom basis without needing to gather and refine raw materials). - The end of pollution - Cheaper then dirt energy - The end of disease as we know it Thoughts anyone? Grim Beaker ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2000, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/engines-of-creation/17907/2 "2000-03-31T21:02:00Z")
Sounds like the promises made by nuclear energy: “energy too cheap to meter.” As a technophile, I’m always fascinated and supportive of new technology. However, everything has its downside: - Nanoterrorism - Nanosurveillance supporting the police state - The nano-haves and -have-nots - Nanochernobyl * * * No matter where you go, there you are. ---
**Author:** ![Oblio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/c4cdca/32.png) [@Oblio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oblio)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2000, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/engines-of-creation/17907/3 "2000-03-31T23:44:00Z")
A somewhat long, but interesting article by Bill Joy (of Sun & vi fame) concerning future technologies. [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html](http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html) ---
**Author:** ![Beadalin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3be4f8/32.png) [@Beadalin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beadalin)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2000, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/engines-of-creation/17907/4 "2000-04-01T00:19:00Z")
Have any of you read “The Diamond Age,” by Neal Stephenson? It’s a kick-ass book, IMHO, and explores the possibilities of nantechnology, although a wee bit fantastically at times. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2000, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/engines-of-creation/17907/5 "2000-04-01T00:56:00Z")
Nanotechnology, otherwise known as Von Neumann machines are technically posssible. They may not be desirable. Self-replicating machines, multiplying exponentially would be subject to the same laws of mutation and evolution that we are. Doing whatever work we desire of them, is clearly not in the best interests of a self-replicating machine. The first mutation that enabled it to spend 100% of its time replicating would be much more successful than the machines which had to spend a portion of its time working for man. These mutated robots would be competing for the same resources as our worker-bots. They would overrun them. Also, the first mutation that allowed a robot to cannibalize it’s fellows for parts to replicate itself would also enjoy a higher degree of success. Basically, they would create their own ecosystem. Chances are that it would soon start to impinge on our own. This was proved quite conclusively with self-replicating computer code in the Tierra experiments. Making nanobots is one thing, controlling them is another, probably impossible thing. INVASION OF THE ROBOTS!!! If you think about it, a Von Neummann machine is the perfect intergalactic scout. Create one machine, let it replicate itself by the billions as it explores space. If just one civilization in our entire galaxy had created such a machine at any time over the past few million years, it would have had time to explore every planet in every system in our galaxy by now. The fact that no such machines have shown up is negative proof that such machines are impossible, since somebody surely would have built one by now! Then again, can anybody differentiate a bacterium from a nanorobot? Both use molecules as their basic building blocks. Perhaps we ARE the descendents of ancient mutated Von Neumann machines in the form of bacteria that made their journey across intergalactic space in just such a fashion (many bacteria can survive in space.) Designed or not, this is an interesting theory for the origin of life on earth called Panspermia. Nanotechnology (in the mechanical fashion) is probably not desirable simply for the fact that your job is a lot easier if somebody has done a lot of the work for you already. This is the case for us and nature. Why build a machine molecule by molecule from scratch when nature has already done it for us with bacteria? Why not just continue to modify them to do our bidding as we’ve been doing since man first made bread or liquor, not to mention gene therapy? ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2000, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/engines-of-creation/17907/6 "2000-04-01T01:25:00Z")
where exactly would you get that cheaper than dirt energy? it seems to me that self replicating machines would take quite alot of energy and nanorobots would still pollute. For the end of disease i think that will happen by mapping the human genetic code learning which genes control age will do more for age than anything else 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![billehunt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c37758/32.png) [@billehunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billehunt)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2000, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/engines-of-creation/17907/7 "2000-04-01T04:33:00Z")
**Scylla** wrote > [@](#): > > [Well, you see it up there, the big crazy post? Look for yourself!] Man, where to begin? Let’s start with the first sentance, > [@](#): > > Nanotechnology, otherwise known as Von Neumann machines are technically posssible. There is only a sliver of commonality between Von Neumann machines and Nanotechnology. To get a quick overview of either, try using a search engine for these terms: “Nanotechnology” or “Von Neumann machines”. Wait, I’ve done it for you on Google: Quick definition of “sliver of commonality”: [“Nanotechnology”](http://www.google.com/search?hl=de&q=nanotechnology) 13,800 hits [“Von Neumann machine”](http://www.google.com/search?hl=de&q=%22Von+Neumann+machine%22) 458 hits [“Von Neumann machine” and “Nanotechnology”](http://www.google.com/search?hl=de&q=%22Von+Neumann+machine%22+nanotechnology) 19 hits So of all the sources on Nanotechnology, 1/10th of one percent mention “Von Neumann machines” [Here](http://nanozine.com/WHATNANO.HTM) is a good description of what Nanotechnology is. > [@](#): > > Doing whatever work we desire of them, is clearly not in the best interests of a self-replicating machine. Sure, in the same sense that using an iron or a pencil or a skateboard isn’t in it’s best interest. What’s that have to do with the price of tea in China? Humans design and build machines to serve humans. Machine survival (i.e. reliability, longetivity) is important but a distant second priority. > [@](#): > > Making nanobots is one thing, controlling them is another, probably impossible thing. Sure, you could build a machine that defies control by it’s master, but it’s hardly difficult, let alone impossible. Again, look at the Microwave oven. It could’ve been built without a door or buttons, but why? > [@](#): > > If just one civilization in our entire galaxy had created such a machine at any time over the past few million years, it would have had time to explore every planet in every system in our galaxy by now. > > The fact that no such machines have shown up is negative proof that such machines are impossible, since somebody surely would have built one by now! There’s actually a germ of an interesting idea here (potential civilization millions of years older than ours, and why they haven’t found us yet), but that’s for another thread. But as to your specific point here a) the proof is nonsense. Life of every sort on our planet is a “self-replicating machine”, so there is proof positive that such a machine is possible. b) self-replicating machines are not what this thread is about. > [@](#): > > Then again, can anybody differentiate a bacterium from a nanorobot? Both use molecules as their basic building blocks. Perhaps we ARE the descendents of ancient mutated Von Neumann machines in the form of bacteria that made their journey across intergalactic space in just such a fashion (many bacteria can survive in space.) Perhaps it’ll rain beer tonight. I’ve got my fingers crossed. > [@](#): > > Why build a machine molecule by molecule from scratch when nature has already done it for us with bacteria? Why build a car, when we already have legs? > [@](#): > > Nanotechnology (in the mechanical fashion) is probably not desirable simply for the fact that your job is a lot easier if somebody has done a lot of the work for you already. This is the case for us and nature. […] Why not just continue to modify them to do our bidding as we’ve been doing since man first made bread or liquor, not to mention gene therapy? Like I say, go research Nanotechnology. A good starter is the link I gave at the top. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2000, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/engines-of-creation/17907/8 "2000-04-01T05:38:00Z")
Billehunt: You are correct in that there is a difference between Von Neumann machines, and nanotechnology (this is about the only place that you are correct though.) A Von Neumann machine is one that is self-replicating. Nanotechnology implies a microscopic, or smaller machines. As necessity, most nanotechnological devices must also be Von Neumann machines, unless you intend to assemble a couple of million nanobots (which is what you’ll need to accomplish just about any reasonable task,)yourself. DO you propose doing this with tweezers and a microscope on an individual basis? “Thread atom A into molecule B. Repeat 10 million times.” Have fun. Exponential reproduction is the key to getting meaningful quantities of nanodevices to accomplish a task, and one that is included in most any primer on the discussion. Had you done some research, you would know this. “Sure, in the same sense that using an iron or a pencil or a skateboard isn’t in it’s best interest.” Skateboards and pencils do not self-replicate. Nanomachines by necessity would, and it’s logical to assume that their reproductive succes or lack thereof (read “best interests”) would follow the same rules of evolution all other reproducing "organisms " follow. Ecologically, longevity does not define their success as you seem to think. Reproduction does. “Again, look at the Microwave oven. It could’ve been built without a door or buttons, but why?” Microwave ovens do not reproduce. In terms of evolution their defects are not germaine. “the proof is nonsense. Life of every sort on our planet is a “self-replicating machine”, so there is proof positive that such a machine is possible.” I said pretty much the same thing at the end of my post. I’ll repeat it for you: "hen again, can anybody differentiate a bacterium from a nanorobot? Both use molecules as their basic building blocks. Perhaps we ARE the descendents of ancient mutated Von Neumann machines in the form of bacteria that made their journey across intergalactic space in just such a fashion (many bacteria can survive in space.) ``` Designed or not, this is an interesting theory for the origin of life on earth called Panspermia." ``` Perhaps you did not read the post? Perhaps you did not understand it? Perhaps you are suffering from a form of short-term memory dysfunction? Or… are you stupid? “Perhaps we ARE the descendents of ancient mutated Von Neumann machines in the form of bacteria that made their journey across intergalactic space in just such a fashion (many bacteria can survive in space.) Perhaps it’ll rain beer tonight. I’ve got my fingers crossed.” Perhaps you’ve already had a few. Panspermia is a well known hypothesis for the abiogenesis event on earth (abiogenesis means “how life began”) It’s likelihood is unknown, but the possiblity is taken seriously and being researched. Some bacteria can survive for at least several years in space. Bacteria recovered from a lunar surveyor after several years on the moon is proof of this. “self-replicating machines are not what this thread is about.” How do you propose meaningful nanotechnology without them? Oh I forgot, you are going to use tweezers, and a microscope and put them together one by one by one. “Why build a car, when we already have legs?” To travel faster, with less work, and to carry more cargo. The metaphor doesn’t apply . A more apt one would be “Why build a model T if nature has already provided you with a Porsche?” “Like I say, go research Nanotechnology. A good starter is the link I gave at the top” Just for fun, I did. From the introductory page of your link: “The shotgun marriage of chemistry and engineering called “Nanotechnology” is ushering in the era of self replicating machinery and self assembling consumer goods made from cheap raw atoms.” "The goal of early nanotechnology is to produce the first nano-sized robot arm capable of manipulating atoms and molecules into a useful product or copies of itself. One nano assembler working atom by atom would be rather slow because most desirable products (baseballs, cars, and the like) are made of trillions and trillions of atoms. However, such an assembler robot arm could makes copies of itself and those copies make copies. Soon you have trillions of assemblers controlled by nano super computers working in parallel assembling objects quickly. " I’m sorry did you say that nanotechnology isn’t about self-replicating machines? Did you even bother to read your link? DO you have the foggiest idea what your talking about? You really are quite dim, aren’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2000, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/engines-of-creation/17907/9 "2000-04-01T05:47:00Z")
Billehunt, I think some of the points raised by Scylla were good ones. If I understand your response correctly, you seem to feel that most nanomachines would not be self-reproducing (ie von Neumann machines). But all of the literature I’ve read (admittedly I’m not claiming to be an expert) seems to assume that the only efficient way to manufacture nanomachines at the amount they would be needed is to make them self-reproducing. And once you’ve created a system of nanomachines being built by nanomachines, Scylla’s arguments become valid. Nanomachines, because of their scale, are much more susceptible to “mutation” than nails or microwave ovens. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2000, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/engines-of-creation/17907/10 "2000-04-01T06:09:00Z")
Thanks Nemo. The problem of evolving, self-replicating machines is also described as “The Gray Goo Problem” in _Engines of Creation_ which is specifically referred to, and linked to in the OP. I have been unable to find a site on nanotechnology that fails to mention that these machines would necessarily be self-replicating. Most speak of the “Gray Goo” problem in one form or another. I fail to see any justification behind Billehunt’s rude attack on my post other than sheer contrary ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Bored2001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47774/32.png) [@Bored2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bored2001)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2000, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/engines-of-creation/17907/11 "2000-04-01T06:12:00Z")
Just a teeny tiny nitpick “(abiogenesis means “how life began”)” a bio genesis A = Not Bio = Life Genesis = start basically it means start of life from NON living things. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2000, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/engines-of-creation/17907/12 "2000-04-01T17:49:00Z")
Getting back to the OP, I’ve heard it argued that nanotechnology has the potential to so completely revolutionize human society that it’s more meaningful to discuss the few things it won’t change rather than the overwhelming majority of things it will. That said, here’s my guesses as to what a post-nanotechnolgy era will base its economy on (ie what will still be desirable and scarce in a nanotechnological world): 1 - Creativity - No one’s claiming that nanotechnology will be able to create original art (although it may be used in new artforms). So authors, painters, composers, sculptors, etc will still be able to sell their creations. 2 - Service - Unless there’s the development of artificial intelligence (which in my opinion is unrelated to nanotechnology) then humans will not be replaced by androids in the foreseeable future. While many jobs now being performed by people could be automated, people will still want other people to perform some services for them. So professions like policeman, professor, pedicurist and prostitute will prosper. 3 - Land - Ironically, one of the oldest commodities will still retain it’s value. Nanotechnology might enable us to produce some new real estate but it won’t be on a revolutionary scale. So people will still want to buy a place to call their own. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2000, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/engines-of-creation/17907/13 "2000-04-02T06:00:00Z")
> [@](#): > > where exactly would you get that cheaper than dirt energy? it seems to me that self replicating machines would take quite alot of energy and nanorobots would still pollute. For the end of disease i think that will happen by mapping the human genetic code. learning which genes control age will do more for age than anything else Sorry I missed your post before but I got sidetracked. Nanobots do use energy, but due to their small size they use very little. After all it’s atoms and molecules they’re pushing around. So nanobots will be able to function in the same way that bacteria is able to. And one of the main virtues of nanotechnology is its efficiency; you literally do only the exact amount of work necessary to do a job and no more. As for the potentials of genetic research; knowing what the problems are is only half the battle. You then need to be able to solve the problems. Scientists now have identified some genes that they know cause certain diseases but they aren’t able to do anything about it. Nanotechnology will be able to actually work at the DNA level and fix the problems that genetic research discovers. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Beaker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Grim\_Beaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Beaker)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2000, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/engines-of-creation/17907/14 "2000-04-04T05:14:00Z")
Regarding the medical issues and nanotechnology: Age is essentially a degenerative disease. To break it down to it’s main symptoms and causes it’s the bodies inability to replenish lost cells and to repair those cells which are malfunctioning. The cells in the human body typically divide a limited number of times before they are incapable of dividing anymore. To apply nanotechnology to the problem, nanomachines could continuously repair damaged cells thus greatly slowing the aging process while at the same time providing good health and eternal youth. A nanomachine wouldn’t even necessarily have to know all of the diseases which can afflict a particular cell (genetic or otherwise). Nanomachines in theory would just have to be able to reference what a perfect model of the cell should be like and then modify the cell to match it accordingly regardless of what state it’s currently in. Therefore not only very long life but also youth during that time. Grim Beaker ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2000, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/engines-of-creation/17907/15 "2000-04-03T18:10:00Z")
Maintaining control of self-replicating machines is not an insurmountable technical challenge, at least not in theory. The key is to make the race of machines **mortal** ; the “nanobots” could only reproduce themselves for a finite number of generations. Given that feature, maintaining control means reducing the probability of an uncontrollable mutation below a finitely computable limit. However, given the technology, it is entirely possible that a person might create an immortal race of bots out of perversity or malice. Such a race would indeed threaten us with disaster or extinction. As we gain knowlege, we gain more power, not only over the external world but over our own survival. We will either improve our ethics or we will perish as a race. * * * Free the Indianapolis 500! ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2000, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/engines-of-creation/17907/16 "2000-04-03T18:17:00Z")
Singledad: Good point. Wouldn’t that failsafe be subject to mutation as well? ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2000, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/engines-of-creation/17907/17 "2000-04-04T16:16:00Z")
Well, we can quantify a mutation rate in probabilistic terms: we can know that a the probability of a single mutation is X% per unit of time. If we set the number of simultaneous mutations necessary to cause a disaster at n then the probability of a single bot having the required number of simultaneous mutations is X^n%. The formula for the overall probability of a disaster D in a population over a period of time is D = X^n/pq, where p is the number of bots and q is the average life span of a bot. You can see that since n is an exponent, it’s fairly easy even in practice to linearly increase the value of n to make D arbitrarily small. ---
**Author:** ![billehunt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c37758/32.png) [@billehunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billehunt)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2000, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/engines-of-creation/17907/18 "2000-04-04T21:56:00Z")
**Scylla** , I concede that self-replication is a key part of nanotechnology and I apologize for the bad attitude in my response to your post. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2000, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/engines-of-creation/17907/19 "2000-04-04T22:27:00Z")
billehunt: Thanks. Please disregard the tone of my previous reply as well. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2000, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/engines-of-creation/17907/20 "2000-04-04T23:22:00Z")
Singledad: Yes, if you put in the need for multiple simultaneous mutations then the odds decrease dramatically. But that’s what they thought at Jurassic park too, and LOOK WHAT HAPPENED THERE!!! Seriousl, they say that nature finds a way. If you create self replicating machines, natural selection will have it’s way with them. One way around your failsafe might be what happened in the Tierra experiment, where self-replicating computer code found it more efficient through mutation to simply cannibalize it’s neighbor for parts rather than go through the trouble of reproduction. In such a fashion, a mutation might get around your reproduction limit safeguard. I can think of five or ten other ways as well. That’s not the problem. The problem is the one we don’t think of. Than there’s the whole thing with hackers. Computer viruses may be a problem now, but wait till some disgruntled grad student designs a nanobug that attacks you instead of your computer! So, we will have to make them failsafe and hackproof, you say? Right, just like this message board. In spite of all that, I find nanotechnology fascinating. In the end it probably makes more sense to work with existing bacteria and such, then modify them to our own ends. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/engines-of-creation/17907.md?page=2)