×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Terrorist Target Mexican Nanotechnology Professors

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the enter-the-unobomber dept.

Crime 234

An anonymous reader writes "A Mexican terrorist organization sent an explosive device to an ITESM professor due to his research in nanotechnology. ITS or Individuals with Wild Tendencies in english, is a group that claims to be against the 'nanotechnology revolution' in fear of a nanomachine take over that will mean the end of civilization. The group has published on their website that they plan to target individuals in this research field to ensure the survival of mankind. Mexican authorities are investigating the case."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

234 comments

Shouldnt they be more concerned about robots? (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#37051620)

n/t

Re:Shouldnt they be more concerned about robots? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37051636)

No. They have Old Glory insurance.

North-West Front is that'a'ways /new/ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37051990)

Get this baw out of my R9k1 moment in Slashdot!

Re:Shouldnt they be more concerned about robots? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37051866)

For one minute there i thought they stole their NachoTechnology which is terrible news for foodies around the globe!

Mexican equivalent (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37051666)

The Unobomber.

Re:Mexican equivalent (2)

drobety (2429764) | more than 2 years ago | (#37051698)

The Nanobomber.

Re:Mexican equivalent (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37052208)

At the risk of sounding insensitive, I have to say, "Terrorists Target Mexican Nanotechnology Professors" IS a headline I never actually thought I'd ever read...

Re:Mexican equivalent (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052486)

I don't know who moded you down, but they obviously don't see the irony. Personally, I'm glad these folks were born AFTER Fire was invented.

Miles Dyson (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052374)

Hey, I thought they already killed that guy!

>The group has published on their website that they plan to target individuals in this research field to ensure the survival of mankind

WTF!?!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37051676)

OMGWTFBQQ, ROFLOL!

It could happen... (1)

ToiletBomber (2269914) | more than 2 years ago | (#37051694)

Anyone ever hear of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo [wikipedia.org]?

Re:It could happen... (4, Insightful)

EdZ (755139) | more than 2 years ago | (#37051722)

Grey Goo is both an incredible difficult thing to make, and a very pointless thing to make. You'd be much better off with a very efficient nanodevice for performing a specific task paired with a very efficient nanodevice for making those nanodevices (but not itself). Easier and simpler.

Re:It could happen... (0)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052024)

there is no basis for saying it will be difficult to make in the future, could turn out to be a trivial sequence of proteins that act as a uniformly destructive prion to any mammal. Mankind has already built doomsday machines, don't count on wisdom or caution. Pointless? Suppose a theocratic society wanted to help their prophecies along, or suppose some cult leader decides his deity will protect or transform the faithful. Don't underestimate human folly or greed or lust for power. We already have many of the type of person who would do massive wanton destruction if he could.

Re:It could happen... (2)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052240)

It's the equivalent of saying a nuclear bomb will ignite the whole atmosphere. Turns out that was wrong too.

Re:It could happen... (0)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052274)

consider what would happen if the entire nuclear arsenal, or even a third it were used to make ground bursts. besides the fallout contamination, photosynthesis would largely stop for months. that would put a real crimp on the biosphere.

Re:It could happen... (2)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052418)

I didn't make my point clear enough I guess. When they tested the first nuclear bombs people fear mongered about them igniting the whole atmosphere and how it was going to destroy the world. Same thing is going on with the grey goo scare.

Re:It could happen... (5, Insightful)

RsG (809189) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052244)

If a trivial sequence of proteins allowed for the kind of replication you're talking about, the world would already have ended. There's been living things fucking around with differing types of biochemistry for the past few billion years; if the self-replicating apocalypse could be achieved trivially, it would have. Some would say that's exactly what did happen.

What you and all the other "grey goo" crowd are overlooking is that it isn't enough to build a machine capable of self-replication. Living things do that already. The "grey goo" scenario already happened around three billion years ago when photosynthesis first arose and organisms began harvesting solar energy. You, the person reading this right now, are a form of naturally occurring self-replicating carbon based machinery. And you've had a few billenia of evolution to optimize the "self-replicating" part.

We could build self-replicating nanotechnology tomorrow, deliberately release it into the environment and it would do... nothing. If it were carbon based, it'd probably become something's dinner.

No, to end the world in a goopocalypse, we'd need to build self-replicating machines that are vastly more rapid and efficient than living organisms. Our goo would have to be better at being grey goo than the existing green goo. The competition has a three and a half billion year head start and are very good at making more of themselves.

I'm going to bold this part for anyone skimming this (admittedly long) post: To end the world with nanotechnology requires self-replicating machines (which we don't have) that are better at reproducing themselves than existing organisms . I'm not going to say it's impossible, but I am going to say with absolute certainty that it won't happen in the twenty-first century. We'll be lucky to even have self-replicating machines in a hundred years. "Grey goo" today is about as likely as a renaissance inventor building a thermonuclear weapon.

Re:It could happen... (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052262)

biology doesn't try every possible solution, it often sticks with a poor choice because it's just good enough. we also don't know if a bad solution was generated and wiped out all life a few times in the early earth.

Re:It could happen... (2, Insightful)

RsG (809189) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052332)

You misunderstand; if a "bad solution" as you call it, did arise, it would become the new normal.

Life exists to procreate. A life form that manages to cover the entire planet in it's own self-replicating mass is an evolutionary success. It won't die out; if its replication created an unfavourable environment for its own survival, it may die back, but it will persist.

I'm not talking hypotheticals here either. What I've just described is exactly what happened around three billion years ago.

Photosynthesis arose. Living things used sunlight to split CO2, and spewed toxic oxygen into the biosphere, killing the competition. This "green goo" was so successful, that it diversified, evolved into new niches and took over the world. We call them "plants".

This isn't a unique incident - there are whole eras of living organisms wiped out by competition from something better adapting at making more of itself. And it isn't a coincidence that what I've just described sounds an awful lot like "grey goo"; the people who proposed a grey goo scenario were familiar with the evolution of plant life.

I don't disagree with you that grey goo is possible; where I disagree is that you seem to think it's easy. Show me a self-replicating machine, and I'll be seriously impressed. Show me a self-replicating nanomachine, I'll be even more impressed. Nobody has that technology yet, and I'd be amazed to see it in my lifetime.

What I won't live to see, and neither will you, is a self-replicating nanomachine that can out-compete living things. Sorry, but your grey goo fears are a couple hundred years too early, and I'm not sure they'll ever be realized.

Re:It could happen... (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052504)

No, to end the world in a goopocalypse, we'd need to build self-replicating machines that are vastly more rapid and efficient than living organisms. Our goo would have to be better at being grey goo than the existing green goo. The competition has a three and a half billion year head start and are very good at making more of themselves.

Green goo, as you call it, has specialized into various niches.
Not all of it is green and not all of it is goo, but it more or less tends to stay in its narrow ecological space.

We don't have to make a grey goo that is faster and more efficient than living organisms,
it just has to be less discriminating in where it lives and what it considers food.

Re:It could happen... (4, Interesting)

RsG (809189) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052522)

Generalists in nature have a harder time of things than specialists. Else no organism would become specialized in the first place.

There's a good reason all that green goo is specialized; because if you took an non-specialized plant and dropped it in the soil of a specialist, it's going to get choked out by the native. There are successful invasive plant species, but even then what you've often got is an invasive specialist out competing the native specialists for the kind of environment they both thrive in.

So your non-discriminating grey goo has all the drawbacks of the non-discriminating green goo. Only it has the much larger handicap of not actually existing yet.

Re:It could happen... (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052156)

I see someone has played Deus Ex :) (IIRC the nanites in that game were not generally self-replicating. Rather, they were created by the Universal Constructor.) That seems like a much more reasonable proposition.

For instance, the problem that never gets mentioned is where the nanites would get the energy. Very few elementary particles would be suitable to become nanites, and reordering them on that scale would take vast amounts of energy. Not to mention memory if they try to act intelligently (hell, on the nano-molecular scale even storing a self-blueprint would be difficult. Not impossible: see DNA).

Actually, I think Stargate's Replicators had it right. Macro scale blocks that together were able to self-replicate, and tiny-scale nanites had to be created out of specific material and were not (completely) self-replicating. I think to really have any efficiency at all, you need a certain threshold size for replication to take place. Bacteria sized, at least, probably larger for artificial machines. It would be possible, though, at least in theory. At least 100 years beyond us, in any case.

Re:It could happen... (1)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052214)

Grey goo already happened: Every part of earth that has access to an energy gradient is covered in self-replicating carbon-based nanites.

Re:It could happen... (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37051730)

You need a bunch of energy to make a bunch of grey goo. It's nontrivial. Actually making infinite grey goo would be difficult at best.

Re:It could happen... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37051812)

A bunch of energy to make it. And a bunch of energy to maintain it. It seems no-one ever mentions how these things are powered. If you are moving and manipulating then you need a source of energy. The best available energy is from the organism you are embedded in. Then the bots start to resemble bacteria so much you should really be talking of genetic engineering rather than strict nanotech. The bacteria got there billions of years before us, might as well use their tech. Bacterial 'grey-goo'? See blue green algae ... I don't see it taking over the world, well the real world.

Re:It could happen... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37051884)

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace,
Where hydrogen melts into helium at a temperature of millions of degrees.

Re:It could happen... (1)

cjonslashdot (904508) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052000)

Plants and micro-organisms are a type of "goo". What distinguishes "gray goo" is that it is new, was created in a short period of time, and therefore has no natural predators and is not in equilibrium with the environment. It is certainly thermodynamically possible, as micro-organisms demonstrate.

Re:It could happen... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052270)

First, you're abusing tenses. Second, it is thermodynamically possible for micro-organisms to thrive under limited sets of conditions per organism; in order to qualify for the name, gray goo has to take apart essentially everything, and preferably use it, too. That's a dramatically more difficult job than any life on this planet is capable of. That doesn't rule it out, but the energy requirements are enormous and once any such mass really gets going, solar power is incapable of producing enough energy to keep it running because of square-cube law. Or was it cube-square law? I'm a shitty mathematician.

Re:It could happen... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37051744)

Too late. It already happened. We are the goo.

But that is no reason to stop learning (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37051750)

Any new technology brings risk. However, it also brings empowerment. As a species, we simply need the knowledge in order to survive. If we don't, then the next meteor collision will just wipe us all out.

Besides, you can't halt research. You can kill a few scientists, but you simply can't kill them all. All you can do is ensure that someone else figures it out first.

Sometimes fear is an appropriate response, but cowardice is not.

Re:It could happen... (1)

dr2chase (653338) | more than 2 years ago | (#37051844)

Never much bought into the whole grey-goo thing. Isn't that the plan of every bacteria and mold out there? It seems that if it were within our abilities, it probably would have already occurred through bacterial evolution.

And what stops "grey goo" from acquiring its own bacterial/fungal parasite?

Re:It could happen... (1)

cjonslashdot (904508) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052026)

Biological organisms evolved slowly, and predators evolved along-side them. "Gray goo", having been introduced very suddenly and being very different from the rest of the biosphere, would not be in equilibrium with the environment and could easily get out of control.

stomachs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37052102)

Anyone who buys into this sci-fi bullshit view of nanotechnology doesn't understand the purpose of stomachs, cell membranes, or any other reaction chamber. As a rule, you need rather tight control to orchestrate such a detailed chemical reaction.

We're talking about carefully orchestrated chemical reactions, not atomic sized robots. You're grey goo will need reaction chambers in which to carry out it's reactions. Ergo, you're grey goo looks an awful like living cells.

There is vastly more risk from advanced bioweapons like designer viruses, i.e. weapons that exploit our cell's machinery to kill us. Is a racial targeted virus impossible? I donno, maybe, maybe not, but it's infinitely less stupid than the grey goo idea. And I'd think considerably more concerning to anyone of native central american ancestry, given the racist psychopaths elected by the Tea party in the U.S.

Re:It could happen... (1)

LongearedBat (1665481) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052462)

That's as sensible as claiming that economic growth can continue without end. Energy and resource constraints make unlimited speed of growth impossible, even if some grey-goo spills on the floor.

Though in terms of fiction, it's an interesting concept. :)

Should be taken seriously (-1, Troll)

cjonslashdot (904508) | more than 2 years ago | (#37051700)

I think that bombing people is horrible. But the public needs to become aware of the very real danger that nanotechnology, biotechnology, and AI pose. It is indeed very, very likely that humanity will not survive this century.

Re:Should be taken seriously (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37051738)

But the public needs to become aware of the very real danger that nanotechnology, biotechnology, and AI pose.

Bullshit. This is real life, not a movie. The tech will likely never be as capable or sophisticated as the magic masquerading as technology in Sci-Fi.

It is indeed very, very likely that humanity will not survive this century.

If nanotech is your biggest fear then you are so far out of reality that it's laughable. An eventual nuclear war between any of India/Pakistan, Iran/Israel, North Korea/Somebody is far more likely to be the biggest threat this century, and unlike nanotech, actually behaves the way it appears on video.

Re:Should be taken seriously (1)

cjonslashdot (904508) | more than 2 years ago | (#37051942)

Nuclear war in some part of the world my occur, but that has nothing to do with the issue of nanotechnology. The fact is, nanotechnology is a tremendous risk. The inability to see this is only a lack of imagination.

Re:Should be taken seriously (3, Insightful)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052008)

And the belief that it is a very real threat is an incredibly overactive imagination. People are well aware of the POSSIBLE risks, even as small as they are. Stop reading a bunch of science fiction and start looking at science facts. You may as well bomb the LHC because it could collapse the universe or create time travel possibilities.

Re:Should be taken seriously (2)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052010)

Nanotechnology is no more a risk than any other technology. Seriously, look at some of the things that are classified as nanotech. If you make a powder fine enough it can be classified as nanotech.

There's two reasons people are so irrationally afraid. First, nanotech is, by definition, invisible to the human eye. Since they can't see how it works, they're afraid.

Second comes all the media, both news and entertainment, that uses nanotech the same way the 60s used radiation or the same way the 1800s used electricity. Quoth TVTropes: "Nanotechnology has become an all-purpose magic substitute for soft science fiction and sci-fi-flavored fantasy. Nano is the latest sci-fi name buzzword".

Anyone with a modicum of education in the matter can tell you that nanotechnology, as it now stands, is completely unable to destroy the world. That famous "grey goo" scenario? Yeah, that's not only extremely unlikely to ever happen (comparable to a virus taking over every machine on the Internet and turning it against us), but completely impossible with current engineering. We don't have nano-scale robots. That's probably further away than fusion power, honestly. The most advanced nanotech we have now is the processor in your computer - the actual transistors and wires and such are made at 100nm, possibly as small as 32nm. That qualifies it as nanotechnology. And it's as likely to destroy the world as the chair you're sitting in.

Re:Should be taken seriously (2)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052040)

The inability to see this is only a lack of imagination.

I wouldn't call it a lack of imagination. The fixation on doomsday scenarios, though, is simply a lack of sanity.

Re:Should be taken seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37052144)

The inability to see this is only a lack of imagination.

Quite the reverse. Seeing a risk where none exists, solely on the basis of what you've seen in fiction, is an overabundance of imagination on your part. It is not that we who dismiss "grey goo" are under-imaginative, so much as it is those who fear imaginary threats are out of touch with reality.

Re:Should be taken seriously (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052358)

Nanotech is going to do what to us? Grey goo us to death? Nuclear war is much more likely. Piles of warmongers have (or are trying very hard to have) nuclear weapons. We are one mistake on one escalation awar from nuclear war, and you think that someone will invent intelligent self-replicating machines that will devour the planet? Someone needs a lesson in risk analysis

Re:Should be taken seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37051996)

Of course. The biggest danger is a bomb from 1945. Not a bomb from 2045. Got you,

Re:Should be taken seriously (2)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#37051740)

They say that every century. And if that's how you conduct your "civilization", losing it really wouldn't be a very big loss to the universe.

Re:Should be taken seriously (0)

cjonslashdot (904508) | more than 2 years ago | (#37051982)

"And if that's how you conduct your "civilization", losing it really wouldn't be a very big loss to the universe."

You can repeat those words as your children are being eradicated by our creations.

Re:Should be taken seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37051778)

And when we do survive? How can we contact you to laugh in your face?

Re:Should be taken seriously (1)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 2 years ago | (#37051788)

I'm sorry, I couldn't understand you with Kurzweil's dick in your mouth.

Re:Should be taken seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37051928)

Why oh why don't I have mod points?

Re:Should be taken seriously (1)

cjonslashdot (904508) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052068)

Juvenile. Go spend your time on facebook and leave intellectual discussions to people who have manners and maturity.

Re:Should be taken seriously (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052378)

I think he just finished reading Michael Crichton's "Prey"

Re:Should be taken seriously (4, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37051804)

I think that bombing people is horrible. But the public needs to become aware of the very real danger that nanotechnology, biotechnology, and AI pose. It is indeed very, very likely that humanity will not survive this century.

Your statement is both pathetic and sad. It's pathetic in that such profound ignorance actually exists and promotes itself. It's sad in that there are probably many ignorant victims who will actually swallow its fearful and intrinsically defeatist message.

Re:Should be taken seriously (0)

cjonslashdot (904508) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052044)

Quite a content-less reply, containing only insults and absolutely no substance related to the issue at hand. And before you reply, know that I am not ignorant of these topics.

Re:Should be taken seriously (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052088)

before you reply, know that I am not ignorant of these topics.

Please elaborate.
Neither your content-free original trolling post nor your numerous content-free irate responses to the critics of said trolling post contain any suggestion of your being other than ignorant on the topic of nanotechnology.

Re:Should be taken seriously (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37052104)

Quite a content-less reply, containing only insults and absolutely no substance related to the issue at hand. And before you reply, know that I am not ignorant of these topics.

You're ignorant of the topics. To be honest, I don't know much about nanotechnology and biotechnology, but you included AI in the mix, and I am in the field (kinda hard to say that I'm an AI researcher, because the field is so darn broad). Honestly, stop thinking skynet. Unless you're afraid of computers that can play chess and go, or computers like IBM's Jeopardy player, Watson, that can understand natural language, perform a database search and reply to your question (with absolutely zero understanding of the actual question or what it is answering by the way...in fact, no machine is self-aware to the point that it would realize it is answering your question), or machines that can recognize objects and individual human faces...you have no reason to fear AI.

AI is not like in the movies. There is ZERO work being done on trying to make self-aware machines, because nobody understands how that process works, even in humans. Any research you see in this topic today is basically being done by the AI equivalent of the physics perpetual motion machine guys. In the past, back in the 70's and early 80's, there was actual serious research in the area, because we were all really optimistic about neural networks and expert systems. Neural networks and expert systems did pan out, but not in the way researchers back then thought they would. You don't get HAL, you get an efficient spam filter.

Re:Should be taken seriously (1)

suomynonAyletamitlU (1618513) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052132)

Agreed, GP is overmodded for a post that says nothing. For comparison:

Nano- and Bio-tech are very real dangers, I can swallow that. I might even buy the idea that mankind can create a disaster it cannot itself recover from. However, I'm going to say (largely in ignorance) that it's likely that any disaster we create will be behind our knowledge-curve, not ahead of it--because in general, engineering lags behind science by a fair bit. (See also: Every article on /. about new battery tech, solar cells, etc, for the last ten years or more.) So while we can truly and horribly screw ourselves, it's fairly likely to be something we can overcome. Whatever disaster we create with nanotechnology or biotechnology, or AI, at that point we will have made advances in that field and will have tools to defend ourselves that we do not currently have. For example, if we create some sort of virulent, viral grey goop with nanotech that wants to eat up all carbon-based substances on earth and extrude diamond, killing anything alive in the process, hey! We've discovered virulent, viral nanotechnology that can create large amounts of a desirable substance. Maybe we could use that to create a spaceship or colonize another planet. Earth, screwed; humankind, however regrettably, survives.

GGP seems to suggest, in contrast, that it's hugely likely we will create something we have no chance of fighting against. About the only likely candidate for that is a particularly well-made virus; nanotechnology, AI, and the rest of bioengineering don't seem likely to be terribly fatal to the species as a whole. Note that the virus would probably have to be specifically made for the purposes of killing off all human-kind, because nature has been trying since before humans were humans, without much success. Even AI at the most sci-fi action movie worst has a lot of weaknesses, for example power. Unless we develop a limitless power source (Hey! We developed a limitless power source. Let's go to mars. Earth, screwed, mankind survives), you can bust up power grids until affected machines are dead.

Re:Should be taken seriously (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052394)

A stand-alone computer becomes self-aware. Where is the risk? What is the probability that someone will invent a self replicating and self-fueling nanobot and program it to destroy the planet? And what "biotech" do you object to? GMOs? The FDA weaponizing anthrax for the military for our bio-weapons programs for plausible denyability for the treaties that violates?

Re:Should be taken seriously (1)

JBMcB (73720) | more than 2 years ago | (#37051832)

This may come as a shock, but the people working on this stuff also don't want to destroy the earth, and they are pretty careful about making sure that it doesn't happen.

They aren't perfect, of course, but their imperfection also makes it less likely that they would create the perfect agent to destroy the earth, even on accident.

Re:Should be taken seriously (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052080)

you're saying we don't have engineers and scientists that wouldn't cheerfully work on something that could kill a billion people or more? a done deal, I can name two countries that have spent over five trillion (5 x 10^12) dollars each to build and deploy systems for just that. They also spent billions of dollars on alternative systems with a different type of tech with the same goal. I can assure you in this world we have the money, the will, the whackjobs.

Re:Should be taken seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37052192)

i think i speak for everyone in this thread, when i ask;
what the fuck are you on about?

Re:Should be taken seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37052232)

"But the public needs to become aware of the very real danger that nanotechnology, biotechnology, and AI pose."

Help us understand. Tell us the real dangers of nanotechnology that you are aware of and it will destroy humans.

For biotech, as we use the results of biotech everyday, please be specific on what you are referring to and how that will help in destroying humans.

For AI, we are getting more sci-fi'y, but please tell use why the presumed self aware robots would care to stay on this tiny planet. There is no particular need for an M-class planet, solar power is enough, and many planets are likely to have raw materials to make robots? If they stay here for curiosity for animals and humans here, why would they want to destroy us..

We are not at the final stop of evolution! (3, Insightful)

mykos (1627575) | more than 2 years ago | (#37051702)

I reject the notion that "anything man does is unnatural".

Even if nanotechnology led to a significant change in our species and others, it's just as natural as anything else that happens in the universe. I wish these Luddites would realize that we don't need to stop where we are.

Re:We are not at the final stop of evolution! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37051746)

We are the incarnation of the Universe trying to figure itself out.

Re:We are not at the final stop of evolution! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37051786)

Indeed, all life is is a faster / different method of process in the universe. If there is a specific niche for life, it would be small evolution. Making canals instead of carving out valleys with rivers or planetary impacts. No other purpose aside from being and trying to stay around. Anything we do should have a purpose of improving ourselves, even at the cost of our downfall (next evolution, wiped out by a superbug, etc.) as long as things keep moving. I'd say the only things I would say shouldn't be done would be purposefully killing off humans so that other species may live or discovering some way to distort time so that it stops permanently.

If something such as Grey-goo did happen, there is no reason to not fight back. I'd wager that we'd create something that consumes Grey-goo by falsifying its ID and then consuming it. Sort of a Grey-goo Grey-goo.

Re:We are not at the final stop of evolution! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37052020)

There was an old lady that swallowed a fly...

Indeed (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37051790)

There is only one thing man sometimes does that is unnatural:

celibacy.

Re:Indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37051902)

this, and trying to be 'emo'

Re:We are not at the final stop of evolution! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37051794)

We may not although that doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about the impacts of nano-technology or any other technology for that matter. I'm not against nano-technology as we have yet to see the impacts or even touch the surface on research, safety, and environment. I think if this group has information which suggests its potential danger they need to educate the public about it. I don't know if they included education information for the press. It could have been ignored. Sadly bombings are going to have zero positive impact. The drive to better the world through violent targeted attacks could be better used elsewhere if better planned, better thought out, and explained. Violent revolutions are not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes change does need to be forced. Of course non-violent revolution would be ideal. That isn't always realistic though.

Re:We are not at the final stop of evolution! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37051842)

I agree, but that also includes animal testing and transgenic food, the greens can go fsck themselves.
(also, I'm pro-choice, anti-abortion)

Re:We are not at the final stop of evolution! (0)

cjonslashdot (904508) | more than 2 years ago | (#37051962)

Yes, it would be natural in a sense, but what is natural is not the issue. The issue is that nanotechnology might wipe us out. I don't want that to happen, even if it is "natural".

Re:We are not at the final stop of evolution! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37052030)

Yes, it would be natural in a sense, but what is natural is not the issue. The issue is that nanotechnology might wipe us out. I don't want that to happen, even if it is "natural".

Why not?

Seriously, most humans have this ridiculous drive to try to protect the status quo. A drive to protect your own life? Absolutely, that makes sense. Trying to protect those close to you? Sure, we're a social species, that's how we got here in the first place. Protect people three generations from now? WHO GIVES A FUCK? You won't be there. Nobody you know will be there. They don't matter.

Re:We are not at the final stop of evolution! (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052094)

WHO GIVES A FUCK?

Certain people who, for some reason, care about the future. They're not necessarily wrong to care, either. Just like you're not necessarily wrong to not care.

Re:We are not at the final stop of evolution! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37052220)

The issue is that nanotechnology might wipe us out. I don't want that to happen, even if it is "natural".

A virus tends to be better designed for this scenario. An even more likely scenario is if we use the 10,000 nuclear warheads to fight over the remnants of fossil fuels instead of using them to generate energy locally.

What is dangerous is oil wars and insane energy prices because people don't understand basic physics.

But I Love the PINK PALENTA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37051710)

Damn, these greasy mexicans, I say good job for the terrorists in trying to kill them all.

these hrjwkw,m4;l3p9sa8, uewpolw.;';'; (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 2 years ago | (#37051816)

ass hjion.kjms'[/ 'o'p0';p,98soloy* yhiunwayft hun,w4l; /'[p[[p ass -=_+_+_++_- 9itknm theass y9PHUINM the ass t9,k3alu;/m/.l/.l OODSPODP the ass ass ass ass grit0roienwkjlny7P(*#W)( SSSS ASS the the the the ass!

2nd attempt stopped (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37051914)

http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=415319&CategoryId=14091

Typical fucking wetback spic nigger fags (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37051936)

n/t

Me Thinks... (1)

abednegoyulo (1797602) | more than 2 years ago | (#37051956)

that these terrorists have watched too much G.I Joe: The Rise of Cobra.

They have used a bomb that is considered cutting edge technology centuries, if not millenia, ago. So indeed they were using a man-made device which beats their purpose. Maybe after some time, nano-tech will be as common as your i which probably human kind will be researching on a field that we do not know at this time.

If someone is willing to fight for something, they might as well live the life on what is being fight for. If your anti-tech, then live without tech. Don't use plastic, cellular phone, tv, and specially gun powder or any explosive substances.

More Mindless "Wisdom" from Slashdotters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37051988)

Hey geniuses - I mock your mocking of the threat of NanoTech. Just yesterday I read a post talking about how someone (perhaps the nanotech industry) wants to use "tiny micro filters" **in the water** to catch those pharmaceuticals that are gaining steam as a waste product. **Tiny filters** **in the water** ?? I rest my case

Replicators (1)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052038)

Replicators already exist. They are robust, they use materials in the environment, they reproduce. They're called "bacteria" and the reason they can't overtake the planet is that it's a very hostile place. Organisms have evolved for a very long time, and generally they get more efficient at making more of them. Yet here we are. I, for one, am not worried about grey goo.

Green goo may be more limited than grey goo (1)

roystgnr (4015) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052198)

The main reason our particular species of green goo hasn't overtaken the planet, for example, is that we find lots of other species cute and so we've made a conscious decision not to exterminate them. And even then we lost (and are still losing) quite a few other interesting and useful parts of the biosphere, as we pass through the dangerous "apes with tools" phase on the way in between "apes" and "apes with tools and self-restraint".

What if "bacteria with tools" turn out to be just as big a step above bacteria? Evolution has surely found a pretty good local optimum for bacteria, but intelligent invention may still be able to find a non-local improvement. Apes evolved to be successful omnivores for a very long time, but that didn't mean it wasn't a huge change when some of them started equipping themselves with spears, bows and arrows, guns...

Illegal immigration will end soon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37052060)

If Mexico has enough prosperity for head cases like these to think up crazy shit to bomb people over it will very soon surpass the US and the flow of illegal immigrants will reverse.

Missed opportunity (1)

DesertFly (1362547) | more than 2 years ago | (#37052134)

This title could have been so much more awesome (with 60% more alliteration): "Terrorists Target Tijuana Tech Teacher"

Nanotechnology mind-reading implants exist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37052338)

Terrorist acts like these must be dealt with severely, but they are a reaction to a threat that really does exist. Mind-invasive technology exists in the form of implants that can digitize the brainwave patterns corresponding to verbal thoughts, and the digital signal then transmitted wirelessly to a remote system. Basically iPhone type of technology 20-30 years advanced, but it's being put in people's brains today without their knowledge or consent. Modern technology makes (synthetic) telepathy a reality.

Check out the podcast links at http://www.areyoutargeted.com/ [areyoutargeted.com] for more information. Be warned, though, it isn't pleasant.

"Terrorist Target"?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37052372)

Really, samzenpus? Why not do your job and turn that into actual English?

this didn't happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37052488)

on a nano level

I for one welcome our nanotech overlords (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37052506)

I for one welcome our nanotech overlords... clearly having nanotech rule our lives is better than having another human do it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...