Why ultra-compact molecular assemblers are not desirable

From apm
Revision as of 05:03, 11 September 2023 by Apm (Talk | contribs) (added two images)

Jump to: navigation, search
OUTDATED CONCEPT several highly conceptual illustrations of diamondoid molecular assemblers. Common traits: Just one or two manipulators, a gastight hull enclosing everything, full selfreplicativity, very small size ~100nm, more or less optionally some sort of mobility some swimming others here unspecified
OUTDATED CONCEPT Artistic depiction of a mobile assembler unit capable of self replication (linked to a "crystal" of assemblers and thus not free floating). An outdated idea.

Up: Molecular assembler

Political danger from perception-of-danger and perception-of-perception-of-danger (heavily meta)

See: The negative effects that public overexcitement can have, history

The actual reasons for why molecular assemblers are outdated are the technical ones.
That they are too difficult to make and to inefficient to be attractive.
The political danger for the ones wanting to develop the technology just adds to the pile.

There are some people that convinced themselves that diamondoid molecular assemblers exist,
have already escapes, and that they now suffer from a disease caused from them.
They call it "morgellons".

There where first terror attacks where a university reveived a bomb in the mail.
With a subsequent declaration that it was due to the institutes work on certain kinds of nanotech that
the terrorist assocatied with molecular assemblers.

How much actual physical danger?

Now: safe

As of today (2023) there is still no danger whatsoever.
This will most likely get relevant only in several decades.

Future horror fantasy

Fantasy is the grey goo horror horror fable of molecular asseblers gettinng out of control
and converting the whole biosphere into copies in a few days or even just hours.

  • There are hard energy limitations
  • "digesting" any sort of matter is problem too difficult for ultra-compact self-replicators.
  • these things fundamentally can't evolve to adapt to new sorts of feedstock

So there are three sides of the Reproduction hexagon missing more or less effectively.

Future reality

Once gemstone based APM is a major technology
And nanofactories can be used to make stupid stuff like molecular assemblers (likely not so ultra-compact ones)
This is still needing a lot of design and programming, but AI progresses, so who knows …

Most at risk are:

  • areas providing an energy supply (usually light or chemical)
  • areas carrying completely homogeneous standard molecule usable as feedstock
  • areas that are well protected from radiation (atmosphere has UV)

According to these criteria specifically vulnerable:

  • the human bloodstream (especially not nice, chemical energy source sugar & oxygen)
  • surface water (there is energy form light but no damaging UV radiation)

These especially warrent some closer analysis.
Anyone with the skill fining the time to do so greatly appreciated.

Selfreplicative micro-(~1µ) and meso-(>50µ) and even milli-(>1mm) bots might be more dangerous as they pack much more capability.
But following this train of thought one eventually ends up at the topic of
gem-gum-tech based warfare. Which is obviously a super serious and highly concerning danger.

The technology is not to blame here. Just like with fire.
It can be used for good or for bad.

Related

For A better approach for the direct path see Early nanosystem pixel (direct path).

Retrieved from "http://apm.bplaced.net/w/index.php?title=Why_ultra-compact_molecular_assemblers_are_not_desirable&oldid=15568"