3 ms·
The question, I think, is not whether we should or should not. That is irrelevant. Someone eventually will whether that someone is us or not and the end result
by idiotsecant 5y ago
The question, I think, is not whether we should or should not. That is irrelevant. Someone eventually will whether that someone is us or not and the end result is still a possible release of grey goo. The question is how we prepare for someone having it who will do things with it we might find irresponsible or dangerous. It seems like historically the answer to that question is 'we should make it first'.
- kiba 5y agoGiven "green goo", there's no guarantee that grey goo will be more troublesome to control than green goo. Indeed, green goo is already completely out of control, with viruses for pretty much every life form on earth, and yet almost all viruses are not harmful to us, ditto for biological lifeforms.
- ByersReason 5y agoIf that were true, we would have no problems with lack of immunity to things, or invasive species and organisms displacing things in ecosystems.
- TeMPOraL 5y agoBut that's just it. We are all made from green goo. Viruses, bacteria, plant cells, human cells - they're all just a variation of this. Fluctuations that exist because the green goo isn't too stable over time. Now, if you introduce a completely different type of goo, that happens to outcompete the green goo, the effect might just be total replacement of the green with grey. And who knows, maybe in a million years, that grey goo will evolve into a rich ecology, eventually giving rise to a sentient species. But from where I sit, I don't like the part where green is eaten by grey.
- idiotsecant 5y ago'green goo' has a biological imperative to be only as destructive to the environment as required to maximize spread of it's genetic material. Grey goo need have no such limitations.