San Francisco, 12:24 PM
Thu Dec 3
24 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
I've had the idea kicking around in my head for a while about a race of silicon-based aliens who evolved in a nanotec- based ecosystem created in the wake of a gray-goo apocalypse on a distant world. They are the result of the goo naturally evolving as time goes on and creating "multicellular" machine life.
As a result, they have to be careful to contain their own nanotech diseases, lest the wipe all life on other worlds during a first contact encounter. They go to great lengths to keep themselves quarantined because they are haunted by the fact that they were born out of the destruction of another civilization, one that has been completely erased from existence because the goo ate away everything on their planet above the planet's mantle. The destruction was so complete that they don't have any clue what the organic life was like that proceeded them, and that lack of knowledge about their origins haunts them.
They are an interesting idea for an alien race, but I just don't have a good story to use them in yet.
I've always been sceptical grey goo would actually be grey.
Any device able to remake itself from -anything- would surely end up varying colours, and (depending on scale) probably shiny/oil-like in appperance due to defraction effects.
Ah, but when did she become open source?
Anyway, I think it's fair to say that she was inspired by a lot of prior art, but doesn't contain much UNIX code.
Actually I'm planning more of a Baroque look. Lots of intricate curlicues and bas-reliefs of stylized acanthus, sporting dolphins, and gambolling fauns on everything. And lots of really big wigs, no people, just wigs and walking sticks.
"Your mom is open source?" Well, I don't think I've ever been so insulted since that burly fellow at the gentleman's club said that my mother wears army boots.
@Annalee Newitz: Good point :) But as long as she's self-owned it would be okay. There's something about the thought of strangers on the internet tweaking her code that makes me uncomfortable.
But my question would is, why would grey-goo do anything to make structural objects? if it's basic goal is to deconstruct existing matter in order to replicate itself, wouldn't it just lie around in puddles? spread like a viscous material? And if not, wouldn't it be more likely to be programed to arrange into some geometrically defined pattern? in which case we'd see more order. Just thinkin is all. Still, it's an apocalyptic scenario that i can buy into.
@Althestane: Some of the best depictions of how nano weapons would work are in David Marusek's novel "Counting Heads." Tiny weaponized nano particles float down over a city, and when they find something they can consume, they just eat it and start turning it into weapons that can deliver more of the nano over the immediate area. After the war is over, cities put giant canopies up to stop the remnants of the nano spores from raining down on them. Sort of an interesting twist on landmines that remain unexploded - floating nanoweapons.
Yes the headline was needlessly sensationalist. Yes nanotech is a nascent technology with a lot of obstacles to overcome... very, very obviously. But when the first person saw a daguerreotype photo I'm sure they couldn't even imagine photo realistic moving effects that can't be distinguished from reality. However early science fiction authors like Jules Vernes did see that future. Enter Lucas Films and Pixar. Who was right? Almost everyone who's ever tried to predict technology's evolution has woefully underestimated it, whereas science fiction authors (while often wrong) have just as often been eerily prescient.
As for nanotech's actual prospects: quoted from Wikipedia, because they've summed it up quite nicely, "in the latest report A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative put out by the National Academies Press in December 2006... "Although theoretical calculations can be made today, the eventually attainable range of chemical reaction cycles, error rates, speed of operation, and thermodynamic efficiencies of such bottom-up manufacturing systems cannot be reliably predicted at this time. Thus, the eventually attainable perfection and complexity of manufactured products, while they can be calculated in theory, cannot be predicted with confidence. Finally, the optimum research paths that might lead to systems which greatly exceed the thermodynamic efficiencies and other capabilities of biological systems cannot be reliably predicted at this time. Research funding that is based on the ability of investigators to produce experimental demonstrations that link to abstract models and guide long-term vision is most appropriate to achieve this goal."
@PercivalKnukka: It's a lot easier to list the science fictional predictions that *haven't* come true than the ones that have. I still think the headline is funny, and I still think it's a valid critique. At least, it's worth debating, as evidenced by the fact that a lot of people are debating it.
"Gray Goo Can't Do All The Things You Say It Can Do"
And *where* exactly is *any* argument made to support the above in the referenced article? All it says is that the tech has currently not reached the heights that fiction writers claim it can reach. No where does it even *attempt* to argue that it *cannot* reach them.
Is simply repeating *arbitrary* assertions for the sake of nonsensical but sensationalist posts now becoming the standard for io9 'articles'? The increasing frequency of such writings certainly makes it seem so.
@Mandrock: If you're asking, "Do we repost arguments that are interesting and thought-provoking, in order to create intelligent discussion?" Then the answer is, "Yes."
@Banned for pointing out blatant misrepresentation by io9: I wrote a follow up comment but it didn't appear for some reason. In any case, I reread your comment and saw that you were taking issue with the headline in particular. It's true that Christopher Bradley doesn't actually come out and say that nanotech will *never* be able to do the things people portray it as doing in books. But he does use words like "magical." And actually, you were banned for whining.
07/29/09
As a result, they have to be careful to contain their own nanotech diseases, lest the wipe all life on other worlds during a first contact encounter. They go to great lengths to keep themselves quarantined because they are haunted by the fact that they were born out of the destruction of another civilization, one that has been completely erased from existence because the goo ate away everything on their planet above the planet's mantle. The destruction was so complete that they don't have any clue what the organic life was like that proceeded them, and that lack of knowledge about their origins haunts them.
They are an interesting idea for an alien race, but I just don't have a good story to use them in yet.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
In all seriousness, this is a pretty neat piece of conceptual art with a sci-fi twist.
07/29/09
07/29/09
Any device able to remake itself from -anything- would surely end up varying colours, and (depending on scale) probably shiny/oil-like in appperance due to defraction effects.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
PS. Are you going to kill me for the use of emoticons? :8)
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
Anyway, I think it's fair to say that she was inspired by a lot of prior art, but doesn't contain much UNIX code.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
05/15/09
But my question would is, why would grey-goo do anything to make structural objects? if it's basic goal is to deconstruct existing matter in order to replicate itself, wouldn't it just lie around in puddles? spread like a viscous material? And if not, wouldn't it be more likely to be programed to arrange into some geometrically defined pattern? in which case we'd see more order. Just thinkin is all. Still, it's an apocalyptic scenario that i can buy into.
05/15/09
05/15/09
05/15/09
05/15/09
05/15/09
05/15/09
05/15/09
12/29/08
12/27/08
As for nanotech's actual prospects: quoted from Wikipedia, because they've summed it up quite nicely, "in the latest report A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative put out by the National Academies Press in December 2006... "Although theoretical calculations can be made today, the eventually attainable range of chemical reaction cycles, error rates, speed of operation, and thermodynamic efficiencies of such bottom-up manufacturing systems cannot be reliably predicted at this time. Thus, the eventually attainable perfection and complexity of manufactured products, while they can be calculated in theory, cannot be predicted with confidence. Finally, the optimum research paths that might lead to systems which greatly exceed the thermodynamic efficiencies and other capabilities of biological systems cannot be reliably predicted at this time. Research funding that is based on the ability of investigators to produce experimental demonstrations that link to abstract models and guide long-term vision is most appropriate to achieve this goal."
12/28/08
12/26/08
And *where* exactly is *any* argument made to support the above in the referenced article? All it says is that the tech has currently not reached the heights that fiction writers claim it can reach. No where does it even *attempt* to argue that it *cannot* reach them.
Is simply repeating *arbitrary* assertions for the sake of nonsensical but sensationalist posts now becoming the standard for io9 'articles'? The increasing frequency of such writings certainly makes it seem so.
12/26/08
12/26/08