On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com> wrote:

From: Richard Aiken

>On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com> wrote:
>> Actually, it's usually called bacteria. And, well, aside from deliberate weaponization, unlikely to be any
>> more dangerous than the stuff that's already out there.
>
> The sort of biological nanorobots which could be responsible for a "grey goo incident" would pretty much
> *have* to be weaponized, wouldn't they?

Biological nanorobots can't achieve a grey goo incident at all, a grey goo incident implies deconstructing
inanimate objects, including ones that are completely inedible to biologicals. You may be using some other
concept of grey goo.

This was referenced up-thread. Someone posted that nanobots targeted at minerals would ignore biological creatures because the amount of minerals within them was negligible. So I postulated nanobots designed to attack targets like cancer cells going rogue.

> I mean, they're intentionally designed to break other cells down into their component chemicals. So they
> must - by definition - be equipped with machinery to penetrate cellular defenses.

You have just described the process of eating. Pretty much everything has the capability to penetrate cellular defenses.

Yeah. But the nanobots would be a lot better at it, due to their massive numbers and the difficulty of defense. They'd be as easy to "catch" as the common cold.

Richard Aiken

"Never insult anyone by accident." Robert A. Heinlein

"A word to the wise ain't necessary -- it's the stupid ones that need the advice." - Bill Cosby

"We know a little about a lot of things; just enough to make us dangerous." Dean Winchester