NationStates Jolt Archive

As the chief ambassador to the United Nations from The United Socialist States of Theoretics, I greet the members of this assembly with a most profound esteem and regard.

With the full authority of my home nation, and with recognition that my home's admission to the UN is a matter still under discussion, I submit for consideration by the assembly of nations the grave concern surrounding a new and developing technology.

We beg patience from the assembly regarding our abruptness in approaching the international community with this concern before being officially recognized.

Nanotechnology is a term that refers to machines and materials created through the manipulation of building blocks at the molecular and sub-molecular levels.

This new technology offers great hope to humanity with its promise to tear down the boundaries of medicine, chemistry, physics, biology, geology, manufacturing, entertainment, communications, and product innovations in meaningful ways each.

Unfortunately, this new technology also offers gravely serious scenarios of danger to individuals, nations, regions, humanity, and the physical world with equally unrestrained potential.

Nano-bots, as a more advanced form of nanotechnology are the chief concern. Such devices are self-replicating, and would be all but useless without this property. In the case where such self replicating microscopic machines are not carefully constructed and controlled, their unchecked replication could threaten the consumption of all matter on the planet (the "Grey goo" scenario).

Other dangers exist in that this profoundly powerful technology may also be used to build microscopic - thus undetectable nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons that may be constructed and distributed or deployed through undetectable means.

Furthermore, the abuse of this developing technology would allow for sabotage, espionage, and invasions of privacy (as made illegal by past resolutions, as we understand) to exist that can not be defended against.

Despite this technology's not yet being fully matured, we feel that this concern should be addressed before the methods for creating such threats come fully into realization.

We submit for the consideration of the United Nations as proof of these imminent dangers, some literature regarding the current state of development in this new field.

http://www.nanotech-now.com/basics.htm
http://www.nano.gov/
http://www.crnano.org/timeline.htm
http://www.foresight.org/EOC/
http://www.zyvex.com/

We humbly request that regardless the outcome of our request to join the assembly that current, more experienced, influencial nations assist in drafting a proposal to prevent the abuse of nanotechnology.

In addition, we would like to suggest the following measures to assist in protecting the world:

1) No self replication process may take place outside a sealed environment designed explicitly to contain the nano-bots.

2) No nano-bot nor collection of nano-bots may decompose all compounds as potential material sources for replication, to allow for the possible realization of suggestion 1.

3) No nano-bots may be transported across seas or borders internationally except by regulated and monitored routes.

4) No government may knowingly create any microscopic device designed explicitly as a weapon effective on any scale.

5) We recommend the assembly of an independant team of experts in the field of nanotechnology to inspect all new microscopic technologies prior to their first activation, and again prior to their transportation from the development site.

6) No microscopic technology may travel by air or sea, but must instead be transported from one location to the next by a recognized sapien. Travel by land must be fully configurable and restrainable by the user, and must be limitted in range by design.

7) Microscopic materials and technologies designed for implantation or injection into biological beings must be reviewed and approved by a seperate, independant nanotechnology medical review board to prevent ecological disaster and other dangers summarized herein.

You'd need 2 endorsements to submit it, although you could of course have it submitted by another nation on your behalf.

I'm assuming that the proposed proposal is the following:

1) No self replication process ... <SNIP> ... and other dangers summarized herein.

I would suggest adding some definitions and more information. For example:

DEFINING nanotechnology technology created through manipulating matter at the molecular and submolecular levels;

DEFINING nano-bots as [whatever they are, as I have no clue];

You should also say what "reproduction" as stated in clause one is. I think it should be tailored towards either global disarmament (banning nano-weapons) or safety (restricting transport of nanotechnology).

It should be noted that not all nanotechnology is dangerous. Some people at a university somewhere created a nanoguitar. Is it really necessary to limit all this?

Also, you won't be able to use links in your resolution I don't think, because RL (real-life) references are not allowed.

i hate to say it, but there are some nations in the UN that have gone way past nanotechnology, and there are others which wouldnt implament it for at least another 10,000 years

i hate to say it, but there are some nations in the UN that have gone way past nanotechnology, and there are others which wouldnt implament it for at least another 10,000 years
Yes...it would need to more general, which doesn't seem to work, since it's limiting a "new" frontier...

OK. You seem to have given this a lot of thought, so let me ask you a few questions:

1. Microscopic device/technology is extremely ambiguous. Can you write a proper definition? It seems that hive behaviour and distributed processing are more important than the actual component size.

2. Are you sure these are not encompassed by definitions of chemical/biological weapons? The interactions seem to resemble them.

3. Use in a contained space might defeat the purpose, and on the other hand might be fallible due to leakage. I would argue for an alternative approach to containment: That no nanotech system can be made self sufficient, so it has to be designed to die out without explicit and frequent sapient feeding/charging/whatever.

This sounds like sci-fi, but don't let it stop you. I enjoy it. :)

OK. You seem to have given this a lot of thought, so let me ask you a few questions:

1. Microscopic device/technology is extremely ambiguous. Can you write a proper definition? It seems that hive behaviour and distributed processing are more important than the actual component size.

2. Are you sure these are not encompassed by definitions of chemical/biological weapons? The interactions seem to resemble them.

3. Use in a contained space might defeat the purpose, and on the other hand might be fallible due to leakage. I would argue for an alternative approach to containment: That no nanotech system can be made self sufficient, so it has to be designed to die out without explicit and frequent sapient feeding/charging/whatever.

This sounds like sci-fi, but don't let it stop you. I enjoy it. :)

Fortunately and unfortunately, this is rapidly becoming science fact. (/ooc In the real world, and I am sure in game as well.. IRL, nano pumps, motors, vehicles, "walkers", and circuitry have already been developed)

1. In this case, no less ambiguous definition could be written, as the microscopic scale of this new technology is the property that makes it a unique threat. Hive behavior of macro scale (the scale of space on which we see the world) devices does not pose the same threats because such devices are easily detectable, and are subject to the physical limitations of the scale (of space) at which we all exist.

2. The specific uses of this technology to create, distribute, and implement NBC weaponry is indeed covered under current UN policy. The NBC threat in nanotech is mentioned to illustrate the unique threat posed by such devices considering that they are utterly undetectable. They are indeed so small that they could be carried in and deployed from the pores of a diplomat without his or her knowledge (as an example).

3. A finite lifespan by design might seem to be a less restrictive approach, but also it would be less practical and in some cases more restrictive. Some systems of nanites may require months or even years to assemble themselves. For example, consider nanites engineered to manufacture other technologies that are complex or large in size (for example, jumbo jets). Restricting lifespan would circumvent the benefit of highly inexpensive production, as the factory would have to be rebuilt from scratch after each life cycle.

To continue on point three, the primary purpose for self replicating devices, according to our current knowledge, would be in manufacturing. So long as the manufactured product could leave the containment area, the process would not be hindered.

In the case of applications to medicine, such as self replicating super immune systems and organ reconstruction systems, the biological host may act as containment.

The way to do this is to ensure that such devices may only self replicate using a specific type of material. In this way, nanites operating for a specific purpose would only be capable of decomposing material required for the fulfillment of their function.

In addition, by this method, if the worst were to occur, then the "grey goo" could not possibly consume the entire planet. Also, materials outside the range of the nanites' consumption could be used to control and stop their spread.

This could be greatly augmented if nanites were restricted to finite areas by design, but such a restriction falls outside the capabilities of the chemistry and physics used to develop the technologies, and thus could possibly hinder its development for an indefinite period of time.

you are new, so i will go lienant on you. first of all, NS isnt like real life. whilst this is a political sim, you are free to style your population and tech status your own way. there are nations this wouldnt apply to in that they are past-tech, and wouldnt get this far. also there is myth-tech, which while they might come across nanotech, it is kinda unlikely. future-tech nations would probably already employ nanotech, and have probably gone further than that. then you come to present-tech nations. this is probably the area this might cover. i can understand that you might be worried about this, but not all nations of the UN have technofear, and some might actually embrace it. also, we have a slight problem with the 'no transport by air or sea' section. being that we are an island nation, we would have real troubles complying with this, as the only transportation outside our nation is by air or sea

I know some things about nanotech, not much. I am aware of some current RL applications. I am not aware of self sufficient destructive bugs out there.

Anyway, to the points:

1. You misunderstood my point. I was not arguing you should include macro scale hive behaviour. My point is that you should exclude microscopic devices without hive behaviour, distributed processing or reproductive capabilities. Those do not pose the threats you were mentioning. Further, if you make statements on size, you should have something more accurate than microscopic (which roughly translates to "invisible to the naked eye"). A precise definition may be hard, but I do not think it is infeasible.

3. The lack of self sufficiency property does not have to be achieved by a finite life-span. You might create the blasted thingies so that they require a certain exotic chemical, which does not float around in nature, in order to reproduce and survive. This way, they will survive as long as you feed them every day, but in case they get out of control you will have a "power switch."

I do think the "self contained" environment is a lot more dangerous. A lot of catastrophes in RL have happened because of the illusion that something was infallibly self-contained.

you are new, so i will go lienant on you.

Since you are much older than me, I will also go lienant on you.

First, I did not hear your "different techs" speech when people described chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, or whatever. I guess you are saving it for the newbs. The fact is, the dangers mentioned by Theoretics are not exclusive of one tech level, exactly as the dangers of nuclear weapons or environmental pollution. So your point is moot.

I don't know if I support it, since I haven't seen a proposal. But I definitely think that Theoretics deserves more than dismissive and patronising attitudes. You should have noticed that he put up some ideas for discussion, rather than smaking a submitted proposal on the table.

you are new, so i will go lienant on you...

My apologies, sir. I was under the impression that NS takes place strictly in a modern setting.

Also, your objection to the suggestion regarding transport by land or sea is well founded, but I really intended that to refer to the means by which the machines may transport themselves. I apologize for my lack of clarity on that, as I have no practice doing this so far. :)

I know some things about nanotech, not much. I am aware of some current RL applications. I am not aware of self sufficient destructive bugs out there.

Currently, (IRL), there are no self sufficient systems, however that is the ultimate goal. Also, nanotechnology has no current applications, but nanomaterials do have current applications. These two fields are similar, but wildly different in some aspects.

1. Aye, I misunderstood your point, and any (now hypothetical) measure would require a more clear definition. Since the greater danger posed by nanites outside of the "grey goo" scenario is the difficulty in detecting them, perhaps this would be more appropriate as applied to all devices not detectable by conventional means (to allow for invisible machines to be covered, in a fantasy tech case, or perhaps a future tech case).

3. I like your idea regarding the requirement of a regeant or fuel. This allows for finite running times without falsely finite lifespans.

Also, I see your point regarding containment. I took your previous post to mean that restriction of operating space would be a bad thing. Perhaps I was thinking too strictly along the lines of policy, and not well enough in engineering terms.

Thank you kindly for your assistance and interest thus far.

Since you are much older than me, I will also go lienant on you.

First, I did not hear your "different techs" speech when people described chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, or whatever. I guess you are saving it for the newbs. The fact is, the dangers mentioned by Theoretics are not exclusive of one tech level, exactly as the dangers of nuclear weapons or environmental pollution. So your point is moot.

I don't know if I support it, since I haven't seen a proposal. But I definitely think that Theoretics deserves more than dismissive and patronising attitudes. You should have noticed that he put up some ideas for discussion, rather than smaking a submitted proposal on the table.
yes, i did save it for newbs, because they are new to the game, and might jump in the deep end. i had explained some things, via TG to another nation on the recently failed proposal.

FT nations which have already mastered nanotechnology would, of course, have control/containment procedures that work. The danger from nanotech comes from MT nations that are still trying to find their way in this new field. Without mentioning specific NS tech levels, perhaps any future resolution could include a clause encouraging advanced nations to share their control/containment technology.

I believe, that if this proposal is to be submitted and passed, the Nanotechnology should be considered "weapon grade". In that way it would work like Uranium that has yet be enriched to the point that it could used as a weapon. Granted, there are other parts to that, but if that clause is added, it would allow peaceful uses of the Nanotechnology while promoting non-proliferation of them for destructive purposes.

Currently, (IRL), there are no self sufficient systems, however that is the ultimate goal.


If I understand you correctly, complete self-sufficiency is, I believe, forbidden by the First Law of Thermodynamics, as the machine cannot be 100% efficient, it is necessary to add energy to the system.

Perhaps, then, the goal is to change the laws of physics. ;)

Perhaps, then, the goal is to change the laws of physics. ;)
So we can't tell nations what to do internally, but we can override the God-created laws of physics? ;)

So we can't tell nations what to do internally, but we can override the God-created laws of physics? ;)

Of course not. As the great Montgomery Scott was fond of saying, "You cannot change the laws of physics!" :cool:

I have a cunning plan.

BELIEVING that the laws of physics prevent insurmountable obstacles to the pursuit of a number of globally beneficial technological projects,

NOTING that if we got rid of the laws of physics, we could build really cool huge tanks and ships and spacecraft and not get called wankers,

OBSERVING that the abolition of the laws of physics would lead to the development of ultra-efficient fuels, which would reduce completely dependence on fossil fuels,

CONVINCED that the laws of physics as they stand are the only reason why we can't create nanobots to cure all known diseases,

RECOGNISING that the laws of physics caused great problems to Gruenberg during his GCSEs,

REPEALS "The Laws of Physics"

I have a cunning plan.

Brilliant! :D

RECOGNISING that the laws of physics caused great problems to Gruenberg during his GCSEs,
Branding violation. :D

Great idea, though!

If I understand you correctly, complete self-sufficiency is, I believe, forbidden by the First Law of Thermodynamics, as the machine cannot be 100% efficient, it is necessary to add energy to the system.

(IRL)
Nanotechnology operates near Planck scale, thus energy is always provided for by the environment. Were your point valid, then nanites that have already been created would not exist. In effect, these machines run on heat in the environment, but may be activated by other means, as well. If you know of an environment on Earth with no heat (absolute zero on the Kelvin scale), then the scientific community would profoundly thank you for alerting the proper experts or officials to its location.

The following is a blurb from the December 2005 issue of Physics Today:


Walking Molecules
Ludwig Bartels and his colleagues at the University of Calinfornia at Riverside, guided by theorist Talat Rahman of Kansas State University have created a molecule - called 9,10-dithioanthracene (DTA) - with two thiol "legs" configured in such a way that only one "foot" at a time can rest on the substrate. activated by either heat or the nudge of a scanning tunneling microscope tip, DTA will pull up one foot, put down the other, and thus walk in a straight line across a flat surface. The planted foot not only supports the body of the molecule but also keeps it from veering off course. In tests on a standard copper surface, such as the kind used in manufacturing microchips, the molecule has taken 10,000 uni-directional steps without faltering. The researchers now plan to develop a DTA-based molecule that can convert thermal energy into directed motion like a molecular-sized ratchet. (K.-Y. Kwon et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 166101, 2005)

Physics Today, American Institute of Physics, December 2005, page 9, "Physics Update"

(/IRL)

Although I appreciate your careful consideration of percieved improbabilities, I am afraid that your assumptions are utterly incorrect. There is no need to repeal the laws of physics.

I do not question the ambassador's knowledge of science, in particular physics (in this instance), however it is highly probable that the ambassador has spoken outside of his or her area of expertise. Perhaps the ambassador is involved with a different field of physics, and has not recently paid attention to new developments outside of that field.

Our nation again humbly lays the full weight of consideration of this threat upon the more experienced diplomats of the assembly.

I encourage and even urge those diplomats of member states pondering further questions of the validity or realism of this concern to view the literature provided during my opening statement.

In effect, these machines run on heat in the environment...

Thereby adding heat to the system, thereby making them not self sufficient.

Complete self-sufficiency means that they would run even in an absolute zero environment.

If I understand you correctly, complete self-sufficiency is, I believe, forbidden by the First Law of Thermodynamics, as the machine cannot be 100% efficient, it is necessary to add energy to the system.

Errrr... mkay, self-sufficiency until the sun goes nova is not forbidden by any law. Do you really wanna be that picky? Don't you think human civilisation qualifies as "self-sufficient"? ;)

Errrr... mkay, self-sufficiency until the sun goes nova is not forbidden by any law. Do you really wanna be that picky? Don't you think human civilisation qualifies as "self-sufficient"? ;)
You're probably right. I was equating "self-sufficiency" with "not needing any resources", as in complete reliance on itself. But even so, in a discussion of physics, it could make a difference.

You're probably right. I was equating "self-sufficiency" with "not needing any resources", as in complete reliance on itself. But even so, in a discussion of physics, it could make a difference.

As you say, that sort of self sufficiency is impossible. But a milder concept of self sufficiency is more reasonable here: The ability to extract all needed resources from the environment. Naturally, this depends on the environment itself: a human might be self sufficient in a city, or even in a desert island, but not in the bottom of the ocean.

My previous point was that I consider a fundamental safeguard never to allow the blasted thingies become self sufficient, in this sense.

I have a cunning plan.

Hmmm, I hate piecemeal approaches. Moral issues are also preventing us from doing cool stuff. I say you repeal the laws of physics AND the laws of God at the same time. On the other hand, why not fire the chap altogether? He seems to have outlived his utility. <Place Nietzsche quote here to prove I am literate>

(Waiting for someone to freak out now...)

You're probably right. I was equating "self-sufficiency" with "not needing any resources", as in complete reliance on itself. But even so, in a discussion of physics, it could make a difference.

Perhaps a better terminology for us to employ would be "relative self sufficiency" or "relatively self sufficient". I am unfamilar with the balance between scientific pedantism and political pedantism in this assembly thus far.

Thus, I have assumed that the core of any such proposition must be built upon the essence of the threat itself and not necessarily specific scientific terminology or knowledge (which is subject to change without affecting the state of the threat's existance).

I also would like to agree with a previous poster, and to simultaneously ease the game master diplomat's fears (see previous page). Laws exist to protect the world from nuclear, chemical, and biological threats, although not all nations are capable of producing such weaponry. Some are beyond that point in development. Therefore, past resolutions make moot the points against the drafting of a proposal against the grave abuse of nanotech.

Nonetheless, I am a newbie diplomat, thus the reason that I address the assembly instead of drafting a proposition.

The danger in nanotech is similar to that of NBC in that weapons of mass destruction could realistically be produced (or may have been produced already) for which there is no effective defense against. This puts that particular type of nanotechnology in the same weapons category as NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical).

Just as NBC have peaceful uses, so do nanites.

Although enough development remains to be seen that it may be difficult to address specific applications of nanotech as weaponry, the spirit of the threat is still the same. It is the responsibility of member nations to uphold human rights, and it is assumed to be in the general interest of the United Nations to prevent global destruction.

We have reviewed the rules for proposals, and we have found nothing that prevents the persuance of protection for the world from this threat.

The strength of such a proposition is considered to be "Critical" by this nation, however this is an example of technicalities that could cause us to inadvertantly subject the world to danger by using what some may consider to be a misnomer in drafting such a proposal.

It has been considered by our nation's intelligence agencies that more permanent and effective wording of a proposition would direct it toward weapons of mass destruction as a general category of weaponry with understood implications, and with no specific technology defined therein. Drafting a proposal in this way would allow for the coverage of future threats that are thus far unforseen, and threats that may exist of which we have no current knowledge.

I think The Black New World would have something to say about that.

You should be careful about weapon technology. Due to the UN Security Act, you are not allowed to ban anything relevant for national defense.

You should be careful about weapon technology. Due to the UN Security Act, you are not allowed to ban anything relevant for national defense.

That is understood, so perhaps a more clear definition of WMD may be in order.

To solidify the definition used by The United Socialist States of Theoretics, we would like to submit to the assembly the words of J. Robert Oppenheimer, as prominent physicist during the age of the first developments in nuclear weaponry.

In this quote, Oppenheimer is addressing the president in regards to the development of the hydrogen bomb:


"The use of this weapon will bring about the destruction of innumerable human lives. It is not a weapon which can be used exclusively for the destruction of material installations or military or semi-military purposes. Its use therefore carries much further than the atomic bomb itself the policy of exterminating civilian populations... We believe a super bomb should never be produced."


The Observer, Volume XXXVII, Issue 3, Fall 2005, Page 1, "Physics, Ethics, Nuclear Weapons, and Engaging the Public"



Just as those in Oppenheimer's time were, so are we faced with the grave and profound notion of the development of weaponry whose use means the extermination of a populace, and whose use far over reaches the purposes of weaponry used for legitimate defensive capabilities.

The USST recognizes the importance of a sovereign state's capacity to defend itself against hostile powers, however we can not condone the use of weaponry whose development would occur specifically for the purpose of the extermination or "cultural cleansing" of an unfathomable number of civilians. Nor can we condone, in good conscience, the irresponsible development and use of weaponry that potentially could destroy the entire planet as we know it.

When we speak of weapons of mass destruction, this is the type of weaponry of which we speak.

BELIEVING that the laws of physics prevent insurmountable obstacles to the pursuit of a number of globally beneficial technological projects,

NOTING that if we got rid of the laws of physics, we could build really cool huge tanks and ships and spacecraft and not get called wankers,

OBSERVING that the abolition of the laws of physics would lead to the development of ultra-efficient fuels, which would reduce completely dependence on fossil fuels,

CONVINCED that the laws of physics as they stand are the only reason why we can't create nanobots to cure all known diseases,

RECOGNISING that the laws of physics caused great problems to Gruenberg during his GCSEs,

REPEALS "The Laws of Physics"

Repealing the laws fo physics would be too complicated, I have another cunning plan.

Simply repeal "Newton's Laws" and "The Law of Relativity" and you pull out the carpet from under the feet of the entire system.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

The USST recognizes the importance of a sovereign state's capacity to defend itself against hostile powers, however we can not condone the use of weaponry whose development would occur specifically for the purpose of the extermination or "cultural cleansing" of an unfathomable number of civilians. Nor can we condone, in good conscience, the irresponsible development and use of weaponry that potentially could destroy the entire planet as we know it.

When we speak of weapons of mass destruction, this is the type of weaponry of which we speak.

I put this into an earlier address but I'll bring it up again. I believe a clause of "Weapons-Grade" nanotechnology would satisfy those who want nannites for peaceful uses as well as preserving the wish to prevent it's use as a genocidal tool or WMD. If that clause, or something like it, were to be placed into the proposal, I would support it whole-heartedly.

I agree.

I put this into an earlier address but I'll bring it up again. I believe a clause of "Weapons-Grade" nanotechnology would satisfy those who want nannites for peaceful uses as well as preserving the wish to prevent it's use as a genocidal tool or WMD. If that clause, or something like it, were to be placed into the proposal, I would support it whole-heartedly.

We agree completely. I apologize whole heartedly for my belated response to your excellent observation and suggestion.

We just felt that the misconception that nano technology could not exist due to the laws of thermodynamics needed to be addressed if this concern is to be taken seriously by the assembly.

I have conferred with members of our foreign policy and national security departments, and with both our Congress and representatives from each local soviet commitee. There is unanimous support for your proposition.

The question now on the minds of my nation's leaders now is this: Now what? Should a draft proposition be written now, or after more consideration? Would it be wise for us to write this proposition, or should that task be left to more experienced diplomats?

We agree completely. I apologize whole heartedly for my belated response to your excellent observation and suggestion.

We just felt that the misconception that nano technology could not exist due to the laws of thermodynamics needed to be addressed if this concern is to be taken seriously by the assembly.

I have conferred with members of our foreign policy and national security departments, and with both our Congress and representatives from each local soviet commitee. There is unanimous support for your proposition.

The question now on the minds of my nation's leaders now is this: Now what? Should a draft proposition be written now, or after more consideration? Would it be wise for us to write this proposition, or should that task be left to more experienced diplomats?

Give my thanks to your region for considering my idea. I do believe that if the thermodynamics has been dealt with and any loopholes that have been discovered have been rectified, you should right up a draft. Good luck as well.

How the heck wouldn't an EMP blast (which can be created with present technology) knock out these nanobots?

Because unless you have a weapon that can fire off an EMP blast that would effect only the nannites, you'd either have to use

A) A nuclear weapon
B) An EMP blast that would fry everything electronic within the radius

Neither option would be very comforting if the nannites were near populated areas, let alone within the general populace.

Because unless you have a weapon that can fire off an EMP blast that would effect only the nannites, you'd either have to use

A) A nuclear weapon
B) An EMP blast that would fry everything electronic within the radius

Neither option would be very comforting if the nannites were near populated areas, let alone within the general populace.

I think B would be a fair option - especially since it would then make the company trying to develope the technology a bit more responsible for their work as they'd have to repay what damage was done cleaning up their own mess.

Not to mention that if they did it fast enough (ie: before the nanites can leave the room/building), then they can make it a much smaller blast. I have a hard time believing that a microscopic nanite can get very far very quickly.

I think B would be a fair option - especially since it would then make the company trying to develope the technology a bit more responsible for their work as they'd have to repay what damage was done cleaning up their own mess.

Not to mention that if they did it fast enough (ie: before the nanites can leave the room/building), then they can make it a much smaller blast. I have a hard time believing that a microscopic nanite can get very far very quickly.

An EMP would work if it was a small outbreak, but a large scale, possibly nationwide outbreak would be almost unstoppable. That's what this proposal is trying to limit, a break out of any kind of relatively self-sufficient nannite, especially those that were created as a means of war.

An EMP would work if it was a small outbreak, but a large scale, possibly nationwide outbreak would be almost unstoppable. That's what this proposal is trying to limit, a break out of any kind of relatively self-sufficient nannite, especially those that were created as a means of war.

A nation wide outbreak would be even dumber than a bio-weapons attack - even if we considered it to be realistic (The number of nannites neaded for such chaos, the speed of their replication, their means of delivery, and the ability to control them while waiting for the launch.......absolutely insane. Add on that you are making the attacked location uninhabitable, destroying all the infrastructure there, and risking having something capable of infesting neighboring nations - you'd have to have someone more insane that the NK leader and dumber than Bush).

A nation wide outbreak would be even dumber than a bio-weapons attack - even if we considered it to be realistic (The number of nannites neaded for such chaos, the speed of their replication, their means of delivery, and the ability to control them while waiting for the launch.......absolutely insane. Add on that you are making the attacked location uninhabitable, destroying all the infrastructure there, and risking having something capable of infesting neighboring nations - you'd have to have someone more insane that the NK leader and dumber than Bush).

I think my two seperate thoughts might've merged into one during my last post. The EMP would be a viable option for an outbreak in, say, a lab or building. But there is no option available that would be able to stop a worldwide outbreak. On that note, the proposal is trying to eliminate the type of nannites that would be the ones destroying the world, grey goo scenario. It alows for nannites that help people survive as well as those that would be used to create things, in other words, peaceful uses, while the military applications would be banned.

I think my two seperate thoughts might've merged into one during my last post. The EMP would be a viable option for an outbreak in, say, a lab or building. But there is no option available that would be able to stop a worldwide outbreak. On that note, the proposal is trying to eliminate the type of nannites that would be the ones destroying the world, grey goo scenario. It alows for nannites that help people survive as well as those that would be used to create things, in other words, peaceful uses, while the military applications would be banned.

Military application: field repairs - armor and non-armor (ie: medical treatment)
Military application: self-healing armor
Military application: temporary constructs (eg: bridges, walls), maintenance, etc
Military application: checking status of invaded locations (eg: wreckage of chemical plants)

The list goes on and on.

Grey goo is a ludicrous scenario. The amount of nannites needed to get to such a scenario is absolutely astronomical. For the planet to be plagued by such a thing means that both sides would have to have been run by absolute morons - one side not recognizing the threat and dealing with it, and the other being stupid enough to use it in the first place.

Those would be loopholes that would need to be addressed in one way or another. But I do not want to take the chances of such people getting their hands on them and at least attempting to perform such and action.

Edit: According to the thoughts listed in the version on the first page, those kind of applications would be legal as they are not being used as a weapon that is being used to attack someone else.

I see this proposal to be nothing more than a fear-mongering attempt to ban research and progress into the field of nanotechnology. The grey goo scenario that keeps getting stated time and time again by the author is of a significant greater threat to the person trying to create such a weapon - being unable to control it while in storage before actually using it - than the person who has been attacked, who (if the weapon was able to reach his nation) would be able to compensate with an EMP blast in a fairly localized area - or perhaps even on the weapon itself as it approaches. Considering the replication rate and movement rates needed for the nannites to be of a significant risk to warrant such consideration, the concept that such a weapon being dangerous as a grey goo scenario is ludicrous.

If we want to talk about realistic scenarios, I would suggest starting with something like a new-age biological weapon - which, IIRC, was addressed by Reformatia's biological weapons act. The replication rate would feasable to produce such a weapon, and deployment is equally believable.

Sir, I suggest you get your head out of the Sci-Fi nightmare scenarios and back to Earth where reality is the prevailing logic we follow.

Sir, I suggest you get your head out of the Sci-Fi nightmare scenarios and back to Earth where reality is the prevailing logic we follow.


I'm hoping that wasn't directed at me because I would like to avoid a flame war whenever possible, but I have seen this argument used many times which is "This is NS, not Earth". But again, people are more inclined to let things be when they see no threat, but are up in arms when a situation that they could've prevented comes true. There is no assault on the peaceful applications of these nannites, that has been stated since the beginning. What is being banned in this proposal is the "Weapons-grade" nannite, the one that can destroy anything in it's path. Even with the best containment protocols in place, mistakes will still happen. IRL, look at AIDS, a very small percentage of people contracted the disease yet it is now the most destructive virus to ever hit Mankind. NS, I would not want my nation in peril because a nation improperly stored their weaponized nannites and they escaped. And they can multiply at an exponential rate with even just one nannite splitting into two, two into four, four into sixteen, and so on.

And they can multiply at an exponential rate with even just one nannite splitting into two, two into four, four into sixteen, and so on.
Excuse my refusal to slog through the links at the beginning of this thread, but could someone please explain how a mechanical device, without biological components, can make another copy of itself without additional materials?

Sir, I suggest you get your head out of the Sci-Fi nightmare scenarios and back to Earth where reality is the prevailing logic we follow.

Unfortunately, sir, your statement is filled with inaccuracies, assumptions, and a relative lack of information regarding the subject matter. This matter is no more science fiction than the keyboard that you are typing on right now. Again, I urge any diplomat who questions the realism of this matter to reference the literature provided for you in my opening statement.

(OOC) Failing that, I've even quoted a real world physics journal for you on page two to show that this is not fiction (/OOC)

Having said that again, I give you the first draft of the proposal:


CATEGORY: Global Disarmament

STRENGTH: Critical

Description: Having been presented with evidence of dangers of genocide and apocalypse presented by the misuse of nanotechnology, with emphasis on self-sufficient replicating undetectably microscopic machinery, the United Nations hereby bans the development, manufacturing, and sale of undetectably microscopic genocidal and/or apocalyptic weapons grade technology.

The United Nations,

DEFINING nanotechnology as undetectably microscopic machinery, and

UNDERSTANDING that some nations are unfamilar with nanotechnology, and may be in need of assistance complying with this resolution now and in the future, and

RECOGNIZING past failures in attempts to contain experimental technologies, and

AKNOWLEDGING the threat posed by genocidal and apocalyptic weaponry to all peoples worldwide, and

PRESERVING the rights of independent nations to develop and manufacture non-genocidal and/or apocalyptic weaponry for purposes of defense, and

AKNOWLEDGING that technologically advanced member states possessing the banned weaponry as of the date of this resolution will require patience and cooperation in destroying said weaponry, and

AKNOWLEDGING the vast potential for benefit in the development of non-genocidal, non-apocalyptic nanotechnology, but

UNDERSTANDING the dangers presented by the proliferation of apocalyptic or genocidal weaponry, and additionally

RECOMMENDING the engineering of limits restricting or controlling the self-sufficiency and self-replicating properties of said technology, while

DEFINING genocidal nanotechnology as that which brings about the destruction of innumerable human lives and which could not possibly be used to destroy legitimate military, semi-military, or material installations without this effect, and which can not possibly be defended effectively against, and

DEFINING apocalyptic nanotechnology as that which, once deployed, destroys all life on the planet,

BANS the development, manufacturing, and sale of undetectably microscopic genocidal and/or apocalyptic weaponry, with strong emphasis against self-sufficient, self-replicating systems.

Excuse my refusal to slog through the links at the beginning of this thread, but could someone please explain how a mechanical device, without biological components, can make another copy of itself without additional materials?

It can't. Therein lies the danger. The machinery decomposes (deconstructs at the molecular scale) matter in its environment to replicate. This could be matter fitting a narrow range of substances in good cases, or absolutely any matter it encounters in dangerous scenarios.

(OOC) For easy reference, and to continue to show that this is indeed -not- science fiction, here is a quote from a real world physics journal brought up from page 2:



Walking Molecules
Ludwig Bartels and his colleagues at the University of Calinfornia at Riverside, guided by theorist Talat Rahman of Kansas State University have created a molecule - called 9,10-dithioanthracene (DTA) - with two thiol "legs" configured in such a way that only one "foot" at a time can rest on the substrate. activated by either heat or the nudge of a scanning tunneling microscope tip, DTA will pull up one foot, put down the other, and thus walk in a straight line across a flat surface. The planted foot not only supports the body of the molecule but also keeps it from veering off course. In tests on a standard copper surface, such as the kind used in manufacturing microchips, the molecule has taken 10,000 uni-directional steps without faltering. The researchers now plan to develop a DTA-based molecule that can convert thermal energy into directed motion like a molecular-sized ratchet. (K.-Y. Kwon et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 166101, 2005)

Physics Today, American Institute of Physics, December 2005, page 9, "Physics Update"

In the real world, we have not advanced to the point of self-replicating molecule sized machines, but there are many who are working toward that goal at this very moment, and we are much closer than you would think.
(/OOC)

I'm hoping that wasn't directed at me because I would like to avoid a flame war whenever possible, but I have seen this argument used many times which is "This is NS, not Earth". But again, people are more inclined to let things be when they see no threat, but are up in arms when a situation that they could've prevented comes true. There is no assault on the peaceful applications of these nannites, that has been stated since the beginning. What is being banned in this proposal is the "Weapons-grade" nannite, the one that can destroy anything in it's path. Even with the best containment protocols in place, mistakes will still happen. IRL, look at AIDS, a very small percentage of people contracted the disease yet it is now the most destructive virus to ever hit Mankind. NS, I would not want my nation in peril because a nation improperly stored their weaponized nannites and they escaped. And they can multiply at an exponential rate with even just one nannite splitting into two, two into four, four into sixteen, and so on.

I'm sorry - but the threat is greater in NS - and even in NS it's not a logical conclusion. But let's do some logic here. A nannite, needing to be microscopic, would have to be smaller than 100 micro-meters. This is an upper limit. Now, assuming we don't put a massive engine into it, for it to go as fast as a car (2m with some of the fastest able to go a top speed of ~83 m/s), it would, at best, be able to do 4 mm/s. Let's go even further and suggest it can go 5 times as fast - 2 cm/s. An extraordinary overestimate. Per hour, 72 meters. Per day, 1.7 km. These are all using extraordinary large numbers.

Now, let's say that you started off with 50 cubic meters of these things (basically, a full, very large, warhead). Even if we were to argue that you can control it in your own silo (I'll get to that in a minute). That's 5*10^13 nannites. Seems like a big number? Well, let's spread them around so that they are an illogical single layer. 707X707 square meters. Let's say they double every......millisecond. Wait a second.....that would be impossible. At best, that 707 square meters can turn into 4kmX4km by our earlier calculations before the day is over. Unless you are saying they don't all need access to matter to replicate themselves.....Not going to be an issue.

So the issue of their duplication being exponential is ludicrous. The bigger issue is just getting an EMP ready to take out a 20km radius within 5 days and, boom, problem solved.

Of course, all these numbers are extraordinarily high. Most nannites would be much smaller and thus unable to travel those insane distances.

So yeah, where was I....

Oh right, just plain stupid

Alright - if these nannites can use materials to replicate themselves, what better than the readily available material that is....well...the rocket they're stored in. Take the entire rocket apart and then infest the lab that they're in. If they're a danger to most material after deployment, they are a danger to that same material pre-deployment. Thus, they could tear down their own rocket, propel themselves across the room at their 2cm/s speed, and infest the laboratory.

Oh wait, safety precaution - any nation that's got half-a-brain would have a EMP-self destruct in case such a scenario happened. Or, they would just launch their own EMP at that silo within 5 days so that there isn't an issue of a mass infestation.

So, that's where I was

Fear mongering.

Unfortunately, sir, your statement is filled with inaccuracies, assumptions, and a relative lack of information regarding the subject matter. This matter is no more science fiction than the keyboard that you are typing on right now. Again, I urge any diplomat who questions the realism of this matter to reference the literature provided for you in my opening statement.

I'm well aware such technology exists - seeing as my own University is about to become one of the leaders in nanotechnology. However, just because a nannite is able to replicate itself does not mean it presents a considerable risk. See my last post where one must actually consider the dimensions we're talking about here.

That said, I'm not entirely convince that nannites used as a new-age biological weapon isn't already covered. If it isn't, this proposal is OK. However, the grey goo discussion is the most ludicrous discussion I have ever heard or happened to walk into since my entrance into the UN.

I'm sorry - but the threat is greater in NS - and even in NS it's not a logical conclusion. But let's do some logic here. A nannite, needing to be microscopic, would have to be smaller than 100 micro-meters. This is an upper limit. Now, assuming we don't put a massive engine into it, for it to go as fast as a car (2m with some of the fastest able to go a top speed of ~83 m/s), it would, at best, be able to do 4 mm/s. Let's go even further and suggest it can go 5 times as fast - 2 cm/s. An extraordinary overestimate. Per hour, 72 meters. Per day, 1.7 km. These are all using extraordinary large numbers.

I accept your argument, but these things can be compared, for all practical purposes, to a viral epidemic. They can spread by being airborne or by infecting (attaching themselves to) living beings. So, coming back to one of my initial points, all the restrictions you can defend on bio weapons should be similarly imposed on nannites.

I suppose it really can't hurt to ban them...

"Critical" is not a proposal strength.

I accept your argument, but these things can be compared, for all practical purposes, to a viral epidemic. They can spread by being airborne or by infecting (attaching themselves to) living beings. So, coming back to one of my initial points, all the restrictions you can defend on bio weapons should be similarly imposed on nannites.

Agreed - though I'm not convinced they aren't already. I remember a discussion about them during the drafing of the Bio-weapons ban so I can't remember what the conclusion was from that.

Oh - we're dealing with a weapons ban, thus you must have the line "blah blah blah are not necessary for defense" to bypass resolution 110 (UNSA) and not be contradicting it.

2. Are you sure these are not encompassed by definitions of chemical/biological weapons? The interactions seem to resemble them.

OK, quoting myself is bad form, but I wanted to show FL how much I agree...

OK, quoting myself is bad form, but I wanted to show FL how much I agree...

Never bad form to remind others of what you've already said.

I'm going to revise the proposal, and repost it with those changes in just a moment. Thank you kindly for the guidance there.

I'm glad to hear that your university is rushing to lead in nanotech. Many good things will come about thanks to these little machines once our kids are playing NationStates 17 :)

I don't think that nanotech should be compared to biological weaponry though, or even chemical weaponry (although it could be used to augment those types of weapons). The primary difference is that nanites are machines. You're familar with them. Imagine tiny tanks and bombers.

Also, I disagree about the potential movement speed of them. Technically, they could move just as fast as they are designed to accelerate themselves. This could be extraordinarily fast, given their tiny mass, and the relatively strong forces at their disposal for propulsion.

Even in the absence of self-acceleration, they could move at the least as fast as any medium that carries them. Thus, they could move as fast as the wind, a jetliner, convex heat currents, etc.

Time to correct the draft.


edit: Also consider that these machines operate near Planck scale. EMT bursts could just as easily provide them with energy, thus repidly accelerating their reproduction as it could destroy them. This question, like many others regarding nanites, really depends on the specific system of nanites in question. No two machines are exactly the same, and we can't really compare automobiles to lead cased calculators.

CATEGORY: Global Disarmament

STRENGTH: Strong

Description: Having been presented with evidence of dangers of genocide and apocalypse presented by the misuse of nanotechnology, with emphasis on self-sufficient replicating undetectably microscopic machinery, the United Nations hereby bans the development, manufacturing, and sale of undetectably microscopic genocidal and/or apocalyptic weapons grade technology.

The United Nations,

DEFINING nanotechnology as undetectably microscopic machinery, and

RECOGNIZING that genocidal and/or apocalyptic weapons are not necessary for defense, and

UNDERSTANDING that some nations are unfamilar with nanotechnology, and may be in need of assistance complying with this resolution now and in the future, and

RECOGNIZING past failures in attempts to contain experimental technologies, and

AKNOWLEDGING the threat posed by genocidal and apocalyptic weaponry to all peoples worldwide, and

PRESERVING the rights of independent nations to develop and manufacture non-genocidal and/or apocalyptic weaponry for purposes of defense, and

AKNOWLEDGING that technologically advanced member states possessing the banned weaponry as of the date of this resolution will require patience and cooperation in destroying said weaponry, and

AKNOWLEDGING the vast potential for benefit in the development of non-genocidal, non-apocalyptic nanotechnology, but

UNDERSTANDING the dangers presented by the proliferation of apocalyptic or genocidal weaponry, and additionally

RECOMMENDING the engineering of limits restricting or controlling the self-sufficiency and self-replicating properties of said technology, while

DEFINING genocidal nanotechnology as that which brings about the destruction of innumerable human lives and which could not possibly be used to destroy legitimate military, semi-military, or material installations without this effect, and which can not possibly be defended effectively against, and

DEFINING apocalyptic nanotechnology as that which, once deployed, destroys all life on the planet,

BANS the development, manufacturing, and sale of undetectably microscopic genocidal and/or apocalyptic weaponry, with strong emphasis against self-sufficient, self-replicating systems.

This is a step in the right direction, but it still needs work.

First of all, you define anything small enough and man-made to be nanotech. This is fine, but it is not what you want to ban. Do you really consider, dunno, computer components to be a danger to humanity?

You later mention limiting "the self-sufficiency and self-replicating properties of said technology," while your definition does not include only machinery with replicating properties. Seems too restrictive: I do not see the need of limiting the "self-sufficiency" of something which does not reproduce. This is about as useful as making all guns self destruct after 3 months.

I find genocidal and apocalyptic clearly over the top, I would prefer more sober language in legislation. In addition, do try to define them before using.

In terms of style, a lot of your preamble seems awfully operative. You should write it as such, for clarity. Some clauses seem to add little value, but I will pick on those at a later stage of drafting.

I personally do not feel convinced by a statement, without argument, that killer nannites cannot be used for defense.

This is a step in the right direction, but it still needs work.

First of all, you define anything small enough and man-made to be nanotech. This is fine, but it is not what you want to ban. Do you really consider, dunno, computer components to be a danger to humanity?

You later mention limiting "the self-sufficiency and self-replicating properties of said technology," while your definition does not include only machinery with replicating properties. Seems too restrictive: I do not see the need of limiting the "self-sufficiency" of something which does not reproduce. This is about as useful as making all guns self destruct after 3 months.

I find genocidal and apocalyptic clearly over the top, I would prefer more sober language in legislation. In addition, do try to define them before using.

In terms of style, a lot of your preamble seems awfully operative. You should write it as such, for clarity. Some clauses seem to add little value, but I will pick on those at a later stage of drafting.

I personally do not feel convinced by a statement, without argument, that killer nannites cannot be used for defense.



Well, the goal is not to ban nanotech outright. Also, it's not even to ban nano-weaponry. The goal is specifically to prevent genocide and apocalypse.

Nano-tech is defined for those unfamilar with it, but the definition of what is being banned is more specific than nanotech itself.

It's late, and I'm not as sharp as I'll be after I get some rest. I'll write up a new revision tomorrow, although I don't fully understand some of your suggestions. That is, some of them would seem to circumvent the legislation's purpose, which is specifically to ban genocidal and apocalyptic nanotech while allowing non-genocidal and non-apocalyptic nano-tech to exist.

Perhaps it woud help if it were simplified it a bit. I can state these things more clearly in posts, but I feel the need to be more eloquent for the actual proposal.

It's hard to stay perfectly in character throughout this. Kudos to those who pull it off. I should be better able to do so when I post the more official proposal thread.

Would this proposal be more effective and better worded if it called for the ban of genocidal and apocalyptic weaponry in general? It seems that would be more comprehensive for future technological developments, would be more to the point, and would remove much of the difficulties surrounding nanotech as a specific type of technology.

After all, if the ban on nuclear weapons were worded that way, then there would be no need for this proposal, and even the ban and then repeal of chemical weaponry would have been unnecessary.

After all, if the ban on nuclear weapons were worded that way, then there would be no need for this proposal, and even the ban and then repeal of chemical weaponry would have been unnecessary.
Actually, there is no ban on nukes. There is a resolution guaranteeing nations' right to have nukes, which I am in full support of any efforts to repeal.

Actually, there is no ban on nukes. There is a resolution guaranteeing nations' right to have nukes, which I am in full support of any efforts to repeal.

Wow. I've only browsed briefly through the past resolutions, but I can see that I really need to sit down and study them to get the full picture.

It seems like there's much work to do. Banning genocidal and apocalyptic weaponry in general wouldn't fly with nukes being protected.

Perhaps banning the use of weapons for the purpose of genocide, and any attempts at bringing about apocalypse through any means would be more easily approached?

It would seem that if nuclear weaponry is protected, then the world must believe in the possibility to use such weaponry without committing genocide or destroying the world, and the above wouldn't interfere with that.

I would be truly shocked to discover that the United Nations does not oppose genocide or apocalypse, as I am sure all citizens of USST would be. That would appear to be a fundamental failure of the United Nations' most important purpose.

You still need the clause "X is not necessary for defense."

Also - we are not trying to equate them to bio-weapons or chemical weapons, but rather we're stating that the bio-weapons ban may have already addressed nanotechnology.

Also - we are not trying to equate them to bio-weapons or chemical weapons, but rather we're stating that the bio-weapons ban may have already addressed nanotechnology.

It's very easy to miss proposals as they are available in their current format.

Following the embarassing proposal to ban genocide, we are browsing through past resolutions and conventions once more. Allow me to take the moment to point out that a search function would greatly augment the UN's library.

edit: After reviewing once more the ban on biological weapons, the only portion that might extend the ban to nanotech is in the definition of biological weapons, as it contains the word "microbes," however a fundamental loophole still exists in that nanites are by no means biological.

Nanites are machines, and a microbe is defined as "A minute form of life." Nanites are by no means covered by the ban on biological weapons.

Theoretics: try this page. It's much easier.

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline

Theoretics: try this page. It's much easier.

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline


Thank you very, very much. The server liked to time out on me in the library on this site, and the text is all jammed together, and often titled differently than one would expect. That link is a great help.

Also, the edit from above is brought down here, to address the diplomat's concerns, and to prevent confusion in light of the linear nature of threads -- just to be safe.

edit: After reviewing once more the ban on biological weapons, the only portion that might extend the ban to nanotech is in the definition of biological weapons, as it contains the word "microbes," however a fundamental loophole still exists in that nanites are by no means biological.

Nanites are machines, and a microbe is defined as "A minute form of life." Nanites are by no means covered by the ban on biological weapons.

Nanites are machines, and a microbe is defined as "A minute form of life." Nanites are by no means covered by the ban on biological weapons.

Dunno, life is not defined. If a machine is self-sufficient and able to reproduce, it satisfies one reasonable definition of life.

With the life part, you're right, as definition of life is arbitrary (I remember the debate between DLE and Reformentia on that one regarding viruses).

Touche, but nonetheless, machines are not biological.

Given the means by which some nanotech is created, I would say that it is closer to chemical in composition, but still distant from chemical weaponry in terms of functionality.

Perhaps therein lies the rub. Nanites embody the dangers of the most advanced biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons that could possibly be made, and some of these dangers exist at a global scale.

Since genocide is already covered, and NBC have their own conventions, we have the potential to move in circles with this unless nanites can be shown to be unique.

My answer for that uniqueness is in the wide array of potential uses for nanotech. Seeing as how they are by definition tiny machines, their range of functionality is as varied as any other type of machinery. Indeed, since they exist near the less restrictive, physically alien Planck scale, many of the restrictions attributed to machinery are attributed to nanites.

That makes them something very close to a technology with virtually unrestricted potential and limits. Therein lies the need for a convention, and therein lies the lack of convention thus far.

Any restriction on science or technology would lead to a number of optischers extreme vitriol. We would abhor restriction on essential technologies and would submit a repeal if it passed. We are advancing nations, and we see this as an attack on our commercial sector. Not to mention the whole scientific community.

Any restriction on science or technology would lead to a number of optischers extreme vitriol. We would abhor restriction on essential technologies and would submit a repeal if it passed. We are advancing nations, and we see this as an attack on our commercial sector. Not to mention the whole scientific community.

To say that preventing genocide and apocalypse is an attack against science is insulting to science.

To say that preventing genocide and apocalypse hurts free trade is just silly.

Having said that, we are still considering the points herein, and the best means to reflect some of the concerns of the ambassadors who have spoken.

For now, Optischer, your nation is free to destroy the whole of the planet using the highly specific variety of nanotech that this proposition deals with.

To say that preventing genocide and apocalypse is an attack against science is insulting to science.

To say that preventing genocide and apocalypse hurts free trade is just silly.

Having said that, we are still considering the points herein, and the best means to reflect some of the concerns of the ambassadors who have spoken.

For now, Optischer, your nation is free to destroy the whole of the planet using the highly specific variety of nanotech that this proposition deals with.
but to say that preventing nanotech prevents genocide or apocalypse is absurd. there are many more efficient ways of enacting genocide (already forbidden in UN) and apocalypse already. not to mention, the old argument of "this doesnt affect non-UN nations, so they can still use it". also, as Fonzoland (i think) pointed out, nanomachines take more time to move distances that normal people can. i am wondering how much of this is legit, and how much is just technofear

also, as Fonzoland (i think) pointed out, nanomachines take more time to move distances that normal people can. i am wondering how much of this is legit, and how much is just technofear

That was not pointed out by Fonzoland. It was some other land, but I have forgotten their name. Fonzoland replied pointing out the similarities between the methods available to nanomachines and to viral epidemics.

I'm going to go out of character for a little bit here. Has anyone read Michael Chricton's book Prey? It deals with a swarm of self-replicating nannites that escaped and although they were very small, by combining together, they were able to move and act almost like a sail. There's more to it and is all quite accurate in the information that it deals with. But BIC, I do believe that if the nannites are to be used as an offensive weapon, they should be banned. And just because there is a more efficient way of killing, it doesn't neccesarily mean that nannites would be ruled out as an option. I have no opposition towards peaceful or defensive uses for nannites (I remember a point being brought up over self-repairing armor) and would hope that this proposal will make a very strong distinction between the two groups so as nobody can bring up a point on that as a reason to not vote for it.

I'm going to go out of character for a little bit here. Has anyone read Michael Chricton's book Prey? It deals with a swarm of self-replicating nannites that escaped and although they were very small, by combining together, they were able to move and act almost like a sail. There's more to it and is all quite accurate in the information that it deals with. But BIC, I do believe that if the nannites are to be used as an offensive weapon, they should be banned. And just because there is a more efficient way of killing, it doesn't neccesarily mean that nannites would be ruled out as an option. I have no opposition towards peaceful or defensive uses for nannites (I remember a point being brought up over self-repairing armor) and would hope that this proposal will make a very strong distinction between the two groups so as nobody can bring up a point on that as a reason to not vote for it.

I read it. Entertaining, but mostly a load of bull. I don't think we should expect such a situation, any more than we expect War of the Worlds to come true.

I read it. Entertaining, but mostly a load of bull. I don't think we should expect such a situation, any more than we expect War of the Worlds to come true.
i would agree here. it just seems too much like technofear, not to mention it could actually set some FT nations back. also, sorry Fonzoland, it was Forgottenlands that i was thinking of. this is the second time i have confused two nations

I'm going to go out of character for a little bit here. Has anyone read Michael Chricton's book Prey? It deals with a swarm of self-replicating nannites that escaped and although they were very small, by combining together, they were able to move and act almost like a sail. There's more to it and is all quite accurate in the information that it deals with. But BIC, I do believe that if the nannites are to be used as an offensive weapon, they should be banned. And just because there is a more efficient way of killing, it doesn't neccesarily mean that nannites would be ruled out as an option. I have no opposition towards peaceful or defensive uses for nannites (I remember a point being brought up over self-repairing armor) and would hope that this proposal will make a very strong distinction between the two groups so as nobody can bring up a point on that as a reason to not vote for it.

Ok, I have on major problem with your statement:

There's more to it and is all quite accurate in the information that it deals with.

It is FICTION. Yes it has a lot of properties that are based upon scientific facts, but the end result is that it remains inherently FICTION. Michael Chricton is known to skew facts slightly so he can produce a fully functional STORY. Referencing Michael Chricton is far from good form.

Like I said before - get your head out of the Sci-Fi horror stories. Let's put this together:
-Sci-Fi - Fiction with basis in the scientific realm
-horror - stories that are skewed in such a way to cause greater fear than is really accurate for the situation
- story - Fiction

Result:
You just referenced a Sci-Fi horror story that I told you to get your head out of. I like his books, but that doesn't mean I take what he says at face value. I've got a bit more of a scientific grounding than that. Yes you can learn just a shitload from Chricton, but you should write down the facts he says and research them BEFORE you start spewing them as truths to others.

Considering what you suggested, I question what sort of density there is in that "sail", what material those nannites are made out of, and how well it works as a single unit in the air. I can imagine that a few nannites carried by the air's current could do quite well at travelling, but a whole, viewable sail is suspect at best. Add on that what you are suggesting is nannites that work on a hive-mind, which, given our current AI capabilities, seems a bit far-fetched. I'm sure someone like DLE could've pulled it off, but considering that you seem to be looking at PMT (as in, near future), I think you're spending too much time sucking down the horror and not enough time doing reality checks on it.

Ok, I have on major problem with your statement:
*snip long, rational argument*

Mkay, that was way better than my two liner. Still, "load of bull" captures most of the argument, wouldn't you say? :p

Mkay, that was way better than my two liner. Still, "load of bull" captures most of the argument, wouldn't you say? :p

I prefer the stick and shed method

Edit: I suppose I also never say no to substituting the horse for the shed

Add on that what you are suggesting is nannites that work on a hive-mind, which, given our current AI capabilities, seems a bit far-fetched.

That's true. For one thing, they'd need a means of communicating with each other when not actually in physical contact and I don't see what that could be: Radio would require an aerial with a length at least equal to the wavelength of the radio waves used, which would seem to be too large to fit, and I think that the same is true for microwaves...

DEFINING nanotechnology as undetectably microscopic machinery,

So if any particular nation does have the necessary technology for detecting weapons-grade nanites it would still be allowed to use them?

That's true. For one thing, they'd need a means of communicating with each other when not actually in physical contact and I don't see what that could be: Radio would require an aerial with a length at least equal to the wavelength of the radio waves used, which would seem to be too large to fit, and I think that the same is true for microwaves...

There are some things that can be learnt from Prey.
A simple example of hive behaviour is displayed by numerous birds and fish. The only communication going on is that each individual considers the distance to its nearest neighbours when moving. That alone allows them to move as a single entity.

OOC: Thanks to the first couple of pages of this (extremely entertaining) thread, I now have Startrekkin' on loop in my head. You bastards.

"It's worse than that: it's physics, Jim!"

Ahem. As you were...

There are some things that can be learnt from Prey.
A simple example of hive behaviour is displayed by numerous birds and fish. The only communication going on is that each individual considers the distance to its nearest neighbours when moving. That alone allows them to move as a single entity.

So, what sort of sensory organs (other than a simple sense of touch) would be possible in devices that were constructed on such a small scale?

OOC: Thanks to the first couple of pages of this (extremely entertaining) thread, I now have Startrekkin' on loop in my head. You bastards.

"It's worse than that: it's physics, Jim!"

Ahem. As you were...

OOC: Theeeere's Klingons on the starboard bow, starboard bow, starboard bow. There's Klingons on the starboard bow. Scrape 'em off, Jim!

So, what sort of sensory organs (other than a simple sense of touch) would be possible in devices that were constructed on such a small scale?

I assume it is physically possible to integrate simple sonar and/or light detecting devices into each nannite. But I am not even close to an expert on this.

This is an idiotic and restrictive piece of legislation - you can't stop technology in its tracks, especially not a technology of such vast, far-reaching, and varied potential as nanotech. And stopping it in its tracks is exactly what this resolution would do, to the great detriment of my nation at least, which is engaged in heavy near-term R&D and prototype testing/production in the realm of nanotech, as well as similarly supposedly 'dangerous' or 'contentious' scientific/technological issues such as cloning, bioengineering, and neuroengineering.

If nanomachine replication can only take place in contained, sanctioned isolation areas, it completely cuts off most of the technology's applications. Biomedical treatment, large-scale nanofabrication, genetic engineering, neuromachine interfaces, deconstructive toxin cleanup, etc. etc. can't take place in some sort of ultra-quarantine-esque 'containment zone'.

Do you have any idea of what this technology will be able to do? The fundamental economic model of human civilization in based upon scarcity - nanotechnology would eventually destroy that entire concept, at least as far as matter goes, though energy and information will eventually be a completely different story. Perfect cleanup of oil spills, 'faxing' of 3D objects, (though Bose-Einstein condensates will eventually be capable of doing that better) creation of amazing new materials, molecule-scale supercomputers, etc. etc. are all applications that this resolution would retard by decades, at least, and which will completely change the human state.

Stories of 'gray goo' and other nanotech breakouts like Michael Crichton's Prey are nothing but sensationalism and fear-mongering. Believe it or not, scientists are neither stupid nor incompetently reckless - reasonable containment protocols for new nanoscale apps whose safety and correct formulation has yet to be demonstrated are obviously going to be taken. Horrific breakouts that eat the world unimpeded are one big 'plot hole', as it were.

To summarize: You can't stop, or even significantly slow, technological development without draconian measures. Have you ever seen a discovery v. time graph? We're accelerating along an exponential graph that's about to hit the near-vertical point, and reactionary, overcautious attempts to stop it are doomed to failure and pointlessness.

This is an idiotic and restrictive piece of legislation - you can't stop technology in its tracks, especially not a technology of such vast, far-reaching, and varied potential as nanotech.

*SNIP*

If you read the arguments, I believe this only applies to nanotechnology used as weaponry, so your argument doesn't really apply.

So if any particular nation does have the necessary technology for detecting weapons-grade nanites it would still be allowed to use them?

The undetactable clause is intended to infer an impossibility of defending against them. Personally, if a nation were to attack another with nanotech and that other were to have a means of detecting and detering the attack, then I would see no problem with it.

Gamma particles may be detected with geiger counter, so I suppose that it stands to reason that nanites could be dectected, but it the technology for detecting them would need to be sensitive to all means of delivering such a weapon.

Thus, it would have to watch the air at ground level, the sky, the ground itself, the earth to its core, outer space, human beings, and water. This raises the required technology for detecting it well beyond that required to produce the nanites, given the volume of space and various mediums in which it would have to be capable of sensing molecule sized objects.

Most of my concerns are over genocide and apocalypse, which are already covered by previous conventions (this was not known to me when this topic was raised).

I should assure some of you that the intention was never to stop the development of nanotech. The intention has always been to prevent its abuse toward genocide or apocalypse while allowing all other applications to continue to develop.


(OOC)
Self replicating systems. (http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/selfRepJBIS.html)

The grey goo scenario is one that some experts in real world developing nanotech worry about, but there is no consensus among them regarding whether the scenario is actually possible. This technology is not even in its infancy. It's more like a neonate, thus we really won't know for sure (with objective scientific proof) for years to come whether that scenario is actually possible.

On broadcasting (sending/recieving)

Broadcasting instructions

Finally, we require some form of broadcast transmission that an individual assembler can receive. Many approaches are feasible, but a simple mechanical proposal, that interfaces easily to the mechanical computational system and also works well in a liquid environment is to transmit information accoustically. Each assembler would be equipped with a pressure sensor, and would note the rise and fall of the local pressure. Transmission rates in the megahertz range should be relatively easy to achieve and would be sufficient for the purposes considered here[5].

Broadcasting instructions to the assemblers also means that the memory on board the assembler can be greatly reduced. Each assembler need only remember the small portion of the broadcast which pertains to its particular actions, and can ignore the rest. If the broadcast instructions are repeated periodically then each assembler need remember only enough instructions to keep it busy until the next broadcast is received. In the limit, each assembler could simply execute instructions intended for it as they were broadcast, and do nothing when instructions for other assemblers were being broadcast. Such an architecture is similar to the SIMD architecture of the Connection Machine[31], which decodes and broadcasts instructions from a central source to a large number of extremely simple processors with limited memory and limited capabilities. This approach minimizes the memory that each assembler requires.

If the assembler were not able to receive broadcast instructions, then it would be necessary for each assembler to have sufficient on-board memory to remember (a) how to build a second assembler and (b) how to build some useful product. In this scenario, a single appropriately programmed "seed" assembler would then have to replicate itself, manufacturing a large number of similarly programmed copies of itself. Only after this large number of assemblers had been built would it then be possible to start manufacturing the product. Manufacturing a new and different product would be slow and awkward, for it would involve initializing a new assembler with a new set of blue-prints, then allowing that assembler to replicate into a large number of similarly programmed assemblers, and finally having all the assemblers start building the new product. While feasible, this approach is clearly less economically desirable.

With the use of broadcast instructions, we can build a large number of assemblers before we know what product we want to build. When we finally specify the product to be built, it is a relatively simple matter to broadcast appropriate instructions to the large number of (already manufactured) assemblers, thus directing each one of them to perform the correct task.

Quoted from the link above.
(/OOC)

If you read the arguments, I believe this only applies to nanotechnology used as weaponry, so your argument doesn't really apply.

If you're talking about the effects of the resolution, the tenets in this thread's first post do not limit restrictions to weaponry, and in fact separate weaponry concerns to their own, separate, tenet.

The undetactable clause is intended to infer an impossibility of defending against them.

If it only infers this without stating it clearly then that leaves a loophole which some nations might choose to exploit: Simply saying "undetectable" without adding something like "once they've been released into the environment" means that if they can be detected by their makers under laboratory conditions then they're not covered by the literal wording of this ban, and it's only the literal wording of UN Resolutions that's actually binding.

Most of my concerns are over genocide and apocalypse, which are already covered by previous conventions (this was not known to me when this topic was raised).

Then perhaps you should have read the existing resolutions before proposing a new one?

The information about transmitting instructions was interesting, but it looked to me (on the basis of an admittedly incomplete education in Physics, which I basically dropped -- apart from reading occasional articles in 'New Scientist' -- after O-level) as though that method might only work in enclosed settings: Wouldn't natural fluctuations in the atmosphere have a chance of distorting those signals over anything more than relatively short distances out of doors?

The information about transmitting instructions was interesting, but it looked to me (on the basis of an admittedly incomplete education in Physics, which I basically dropped -- apart from reading occasional articles in 'New Scientist' -- after O-level) as though that method might only work in enclosed settings: Wouldn't natural fluctuations in the atmosphere have a chance of distorting those signals over anything more than relatively short distances out of doors?

It depends upon the nature of the signal. Different wavelengths of EM radiation will have varying levels of distortion at different ranges, and the strength, focus, and compression of the beam have an effect as well. As far as this applies to nanotech, the distance without intermediaries between any two nanomachines isn't going to be nearly enough to cause meaningful distortion. Routed tight-beamed EM signals over distances of micrometers and lower aren't really going to have transmission as a significant problem, and instructional broadcasts from an external controller/director would probably be easy to pick up.