Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Human Health and Nanotechnology

Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 5:02:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Topic: The health implications of nanotechnology are the possible effects that the use of nanotechnological materials and devices will have on human health. As nanotechnology is an emerging field, there is great debate regarding to what extent nanotechnology will benefit or pose risks for human health. Nanotechnology's health implications can be split into two aspects: the potential for nanotechnological innovations to have medical applications to cure disease, and the potential health hazards posed by exposure to nanomaterials.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 5:05:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I wrote a thesis once on a technological singularity. Within that central theme I included the potential pitfalls of nanotechnology based on the Gray Goo theory.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2011 6:44:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/20/2011 5:05:00 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I wrote a thesis once on a technological singularity. Within that central theme I included the potential pitfalls of nanotechnology based on the Gray Goo theory.

Reply: Interesting. Can you elaborate?
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2011 7:02:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/22/2011 6:44:09 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/20/2011 5:05:00 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I wrote a thesis once on a technological singularity. Within that central theme I included the potential pitfalls of nanotechnology based on the Gray Goo theory.

Reply: Interesting. Can you elaborate?:

The thesis was on exploiting America's achilles heel (dependency on technology) and the disastrous consequence of being thrust back in to the 18th century overnight without having the skill set to effectively survive after 1.5 centuries of technological dependence.

One segment included nanobots, which are theorized to act as artificial antibodies. One theory postulates that nanobots could self-replicate beyond control, essentially eating all carbon. Because carbon is the base of all living matter, and because they're designed to self-replicate, it could pose a problem if there was an initial coding error.

Or, as a History Channel documentary put it,

"In a common practice, billions of nanobots are released to clean up an oil spill off the coast of Louisiana. However, due to a programming error, the nanobots devour all carbon based objects, instead of just the hydrocarbons of the oil. The nanobots destroy everything, all the while, replicating themselves. Within days, the planet is turned to dust."
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2011 7:17:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/22/2011 7:02:58 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
"In a common practice, billions of nanobots are released to clean up an oil spill off the coast of Louisiana. However, due to a programming error, the nanobots devour all carbon based objects, instead of just the hydrocarbons of the oil. The nanobots destroy everything, all the while, replicating themselves. Within days, the planet is turned to dust."

lol the history channel is so sensationalistic. in order to reduce the risks of that happening to nearly 0, all you'd need to do is program several failsafes... say one that caps the number of possible replications, one that causes the bots to shut down automatically when they metabolize organic molecules we don't want them to touch, one that causes them to shut down when exposed to some chemical we spray them with if they get out of control (or several of these to be safe)... maybe some kind of radio signal that causes them to self destruct if they
get a certain distance from the spill... etc. and that was just off the top of my head. i am sure the scientists who design such things could do much better.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2011 7:23:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
lol the history channel is so sensationalistic. in order to reduce the risks of that happening to nearly 0, all you'd need to do is program several failsafes... say one that caps the number of possible replications, one that causes the bots to shut down automatically when they metabolize organic molecules we don't want them to touch, one that causes them to shut down when exposed to some chemical we spray them with if they get out of control (or several of these to be safe)... maybe some kind of radio signal that causes them to self destruct if they
get a certain distance from the spill... etc. and that was just off the top of my head. i am sure the scientists who design such things could do much better.:

Most people in that field believe it is unfounded too, usually giving bacteria and viruses as the strongest corollary that self-replicating organisms don't eat the world.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2011 7:39:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/22/2011 7:17:10 PM, belle wrote:
At 7/22/2011 7:02:58 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
"In a common practice, billions of nanobots are released to clean up an oil spill off the coast of Louisiana. However, due to a programming error, the nanobots devour all carbon based objects, instead of just the hydrocarbons of the oil. The nanobots destroy everything, all the while, replicating themselves. Within days, the planet is turned to dust."

lol the history channel is so sensationalistic. in order to reduce the risks of that happening to nearly 0, all you'd need to do is program several failsafes... say one that caps the number of possible replications, one that causes the bots to shut down automatically when they metabolize organic molecules we don't want them to touch, one that causes them to shut down when exposed to some chemical we spray them with if they get out of control (or several of these to be safe)... maybe some kind of radio signal that causes them to self destruct if they
get a certain distance from the spill... etc. and that was just off the top of my head. i am sure the scientists who design such things could do much better.

Reply: Could they theoretically be used as weapons of mass destruction? I mean, if people can use them for positive purposes, then they could use them for negative purposes as well, yes? Would this not be a terrible problem if nanotechnology become technology that could be easily used and created by terrorists?
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2011 7:42:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/22/2011 7:17:10 PM, belle wrote:
At 7/22/2011 7:02:58 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
"In a common practice, billions of nanobots are released to clean up an oil spill off the coast of Louisiana. However, due to a programming error, the nanobots devour all carbon based objects, instead of just the hydrocarbons of the oil. The nanobots destroy everything, all the while, replicating themselves. Within days, the planet is turned to dust."

lol the history channel is so sensationalistic. in order to reduce the risks of that happening to nearly 0, all you'd need to do is program several failsafes... say one that caps the number of possible replications, one that causes the bots to shut down automatically when they metabolize organic molecules we don't want them to touch, one that causes them to shut down when exposed to some chemical we spray them with if they get out of control (or several of these to be safe)... maybe some kind of radio signal that causes them to self destruct if they
get a certain distance from the spill... etc. and that was just off the top of my head. i am sure the scientists who design such things could do much better.

Not if they run them off of Windows Vista.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2011 7:44:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/22/2011 7:39:22 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/22/2011 7:17:10 PM, belle wrote:
At 7/22/2011 7:02:58 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
"In a common practice, billions of nanobots are released to clean up an oil spill off the coast of Louisiana. However, due to a programming error, the nanobots devour all carbon based objects, instead of just the hydrocarbons of the oil. The nanobots destroy everything, all the while, replicating themselves. Within days, the planet is turned to dust."

lol the history channel is so sensationalistic. in order to reduce the risks of that happening to nearly 0, all you'd need to do is program several failsafes... say one that caps the number of possible replications, one that causes the bots to shut down automatically when they metabolize organic molecules we don't want them to touch, one that causes them to shut down when exposed to some chemical we spray them with if they get out of control (or several of these to be safe)... maybe some kind of radio signal that causes them to self destruct if they
get a certain distance from the spill... etc. and that was just off the top of my head. i am sure the scientists who design such things could do much better.

Reply: Could they theoretically be used as weapons of mass destruction? I mean, if people can use them for positive purposes, then they could use them for negative purposes as well, yes? Would this not be a terrible problem if nanotechnology become technology that could be easily used and created by terrorists?

i suppose, but if the terrorists created such a thing they would need some way of controlling it, otherwise they would destroy themselves along with everything else. (themselves as in their entire societies, not just a few suicide bombers). as long as its controllable by some means we can attempt to control it.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2011 4:21:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/22/2011 7:44:58 PM, belle wrote:
At 7/22/2011 7:39:22 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 7/22/2011 7:17:10 PM, belle wrote:
At 7/22/2011 7:02:58 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
"In a common practice, billions of nanobots are released to clean up an oil spill off the coast of Louisiana. However, due to a programming error, the nanobots devour all carbon based objects, instead of just the hydrocarbons of the oil. The nanobots destroy everything, all the while, replicating themselves. Within days, the planet is turned to dust."

lol the history channel is so sensationalistic. in order to reduce the risks of that happening to nearly 0, all you'd need to do is program several failsafes... say one that caps the number of possible replications, one that causes the bots to shut down automatically when they metabolize organic molecules we don't want them to touch, one that causes them to shut down when exposed to some chemical we spray them with if they get out of control (or several of these to be safe)... maybe some kind of radio signal that causes them to self destruct if they
get a certain distance from the spill... etc. and that was just off the top of my head. i am sure the scientists who design such things could do much better.

Reply: Could they theoretically be used as weapons of mass destruction? I mean, if people can use them for positive purposes, then they could use them for negative purposes as well, yes? Would this not be a terrible problem if nanotechnology become technology that could be easily used and created by terrorists?

i suppose, but if the terrorists created such a thing they would need some way of controlling it, otherwise they would destroy themselves along with everything else. (themselves as in their entire societies, not just a few suicide bombers). as long as its controllable by some means we can attempt to control it.

Reply: Do you not think it probable that pride could make a group think that they could control such a thing, when maybe they could not?
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."