pierce@cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) (04/13/91)
WARNING: The following gedanken experiment is distastefully ghoulish.
PROBLEM:
Suppose you are a malicious nanoengineer. Propose a nanodevice to:
1. Exterminate the human race.
or more ambitiously, to:
2. Make earth uninhabitable by life as we know it.
Or argue that:
3. No such nanodevice is possible.
SOLUTION: ???
----
I don't think we should underestimate the ability or willingness of a
psychotic genius (perhaps motivated by the conviction that humanity is
committing ecocide) to bring EVIL things to life; I'd like to know
whether such a nanopath could realize her/his dreams. An affirmative
answer needn't deter nanotech researchers, rather it should spur them
on to answer the following:
EXTRA CREDIT:
4. For each nanodevice proposed above, suggest a countermeasure
(nanodevice or other).
----
-- Brad Pierce <pierce@cs.ucla.edu>
[This is an extremely poorly posed problem. It's easy to see why if you
take it out of the realm of nanotechnology. Propose a device that could
exterminate the human race: Kitchen knives--you simply cut everyone's
throat. It's impossible to prove that the human race couldn't be
exterminated by any of a large number of common household objects.
After all, in historical times, millions of people *were* killed with
overgrown kitchen knives, i.e., swords.
Here are a few of the questions Brad has left open: Is this extermination
to be done by a single person against the will of the rest of humanity
united against him? Or do we allow that people may use the invention
as a weapon against each other? Do we get to spring it on them as
a complete surprise, or do they get any warning?
Regardless of the answers to the above, one could make a good case
in a purely verbal argument that, say, a flu virus could wipe out
the human race. There's certainly no way to prove that it *can't*
get out of control, spread exponentially, and kill millions, because
it has done so on occasion. Now suppose we "design" a virus that
simply combines the intractibility of AIDS and the contagion of the
common cold. Goodbye human race!
Here's another one: "Design" a nanotech-based form of life much more
efficient than humans, in particular with bigger, faster, brains.
Market them as strong, obedient, household and industrial robot servants.
Once there are enough of them, they revolt, wage war on humanity,
and due to their superior nature, wipe us out.
This sort of stuff is common fare in science-fiction circles, but
the writer is not under any necessity to make the crucial link that
his "design" actually works--indeed he generally just describes it
as having the properties he wants, without actually designing anything
(as I did above). In any serious discussion of risks, this kind of
"design by statement of wish list" is totally worthless.
--JoSH]pierce@cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) (04/19/91)
In article <Apr.12.16.18.42.1991.7352@athos.rutgers.edu> the moderator writes: >[This is an extremely poorly posed problem. I am sorry that my neglect to explicitly mention the assumptions caused difficulty and confusion in understanding the problem I posed, and would be more than happy to make any clarifications that are still needed. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The major assumptions I had in mind when posing the problem: The criminal does not command hordes of minions to apply his device The criminal has a normal human lifespan The criminal cannot count on the deliberate cooperation of humans in their own destruction The criminal's murderous psychosis is not shared by millions of others and thus the criminal must act alone or with the cooperation of some small band of followers If the device can be created secretly, then the criminal may use surprise. If the device could not be created secretly, then the criminal may not use surprise. Moreover, An answer that would be unacceptable as the response to any other engineering design problem is unacceptable here; in particular, the answer must describe a mechanism, not simply reduce the requirements statement to a more refined requirements statement. For example, "combine AIDS and the common cold" is not a suitable answer, whereas a technical description of *how* you would combine them is. The device is not required to be provably 100% effective on paper or to work perfectly on the first field test. --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Brad