Caution Over 'computerised World'
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">BBC fluff piece, but still interesting</div> <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3340491.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3340491.stm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A future where everyday objects have computer chips in them will have a dramatic effect on our lives.
But we should know about the potential risks from technology, say researchers.
The team in Switzerland looked at the health, social and environmental implications of what is called pervasive computing.
"We should reflect on how we use technology," said Swiss professor of computer science, Lorenz Hilty, "and society is not reflecting enough."
Smart paint
The idea behind pervasive computing is that everything around us contains some sort of electronic device.
In their report, the Swiss team talk about a future where computer chips, remote sensors or radio transponders are scaled down to microscopic size and built into just about anything.
You could have a pint glass that sends a signal for a refill when it is empty.
Or even have paint that contains electronic dust particles that could control a room's temperature or turn a wall into a big screen.
"The idea of pervasive computing is that you are no longer aware of the electronics," explained Dr Hilty, Professor of Computer Science at the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research, EMPA.
In 10 years' time, predict the researchers, a trillion objects all linked electronically could be available to a billion people.
But before we get there, we should consider the risks of blindly stumbling into a technological advanced future, they say.
"People should be critical of technology," said Professor Hilty told BBC News Online. "We are not saying don't use it, but there should be a public discourse."
Surveillance city
One of the main areas of concern is the possible health implications of a world where every object is emitting some sort of low-level radiation.
"There is no proof of negative health effects," said Professor Hilty, "but you can never be sure. There could be long-term health effects."
"Mobile phones are a huge field experiment in which we are the sample."
He said we simply do not know what the risks are of prolonged exposure to low-level radiation from devices close to the body, like watches, or perhaps even chips under the skin.
The ubiquity of radio sensors could also have a lasting impact on the way we live. A world of chips and sensors everywhere conjures up an image of a world of surveillance.
"Privacy could be an inhibiting factor in the development of the technology," warned Prof Hilty. "Pervasive computing means that we would have to change our view of privacy."
Similarly, it could change the way we deal with waste. Coping with piles of discarded mobiles, computers and the like is a growing problem in many countries.
Pervasive computing could simply add to the problem, if every household product has some sort of electronic component built-in.
"What happens if people don't know what is electronic or can't separate it manually, especially if every milk cartoon has a radio transponder?" asked Professor Hilty.
"I am not saying I am against technology," he insisted, "but we should be aware there is a price to pay."
The study by the EMPA team, entitled the Precautionary Principle in the Information Society, was commissioned by the Swiss Centre for Technology Assessment. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
An interesting vein of thought. I'll weigh in shortly, work calls...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A future where everyday objects have computer chips in them will have a dramatic effect on our lives.
But we should know about the potential risks from technology, say researchers.
The team in Switzerland looked at the health, social and environmental implications of what is called pervasive computing.
"We should reflect on how we use technology," said Swiss professor of computer science, Lorenz Hilty, "and society is not reflecting enough."
Smart paint
The idea behind pervasive computing is that everything around us contains some sort of electronic device.
In their report, the Swiss team talk about a future where computer chips, remote sensors or radio transponders are scaled down to microscopic size and built into just about anything.
You could have a pint glass that sends a signal for a refill when it is empty.
Or even have paint that contains electronic dust particles that could control a room's temperature or turn a wall into a big screen.
"The idea of pervasive computing is that you are no longer aware of the electronics," explained Dr Hilty, Professor of Computer Science at the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research, EMPA.
In 10 years' time, predict the researchers, a trillion objects all linked electronically could be available to a billion people.
But before we get there, we should consider the risks of blindly stumbling into a technological advanced future, they say.
"People should be critical of technology," said Professor Hilty told BBC News Online. "We are not saying don't use it, but there should be a public discourse."
Surveillance city
One of the main areas of concern is the possible health implications of a world where every object is emitting some sort of low-level radiation.
"There is no proof of negative health effects," said Professor Hilty, "but you can never be sure. There could be long-term health effects."
"Mobile phones are a huge field experiment in which we are the sample."
He said we simply do not know what the risks are of prolonged exposure to low-level radiation from devices close to the body, like watches, or perhaps even chips under the skin.
The ubiquity of radio sensors could also have a lasting impact on the way we live. A world of chips and sensors everywhere conjures up an image of a world of surveillance.
"Privacy could be an inhibiting factor in the development of the technology," warned Prof Hilty. "Pervasive computing means that we would have to change our view of privacy."
Similarly, it could change the way we deal with waste. Coping with piles of discarded mobiles, computers and the like is a growing problem in many countries.
Pervasive computing could simply add to the problem, if every household product has some sort of electronic component built-in.
"What happens if people don't know what is electronic or can't separate it manually, especially if every milk cartoon has a radio transponder?" asked Professor Hilty.
"I am not saying I am against technology," he insisted, "but we should be aware there is a price to pay."
The study by the EMPA team, entitled the Precautionary Principle in the Information Society, was commissioned by the Swiss Centre for Technology Assessment. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
An interesting vein of thought. I'll weigh in shortly, work calls...
Comments
As for the radiation, it would be huge if this was widespread throughout the world. Of course, there could also be possible health benefits, such as automatic services for the elderly, gas being turned off if there's a danger of a fire, and other such things.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmmm. People could not comprehend the effects of a global network of hundreds of millions of information nodes 10 years ago. But here we are with the World Wide Web and a PC in every (western) household, a communication technology that has fundamentally altered much of humankind. For better and for worse. We should really be thinking as far ahead as possible about consequences, don't you think?
It's going to be coming a lot faster than you think. We celebrated the 100th anniversary of man using powered flight last week. Within 45 years of us flying 120 feet, we were flying Mach1. Within 20 years of that we were walking on the moon. Technology is not going to wait for us.
Sure, first we <a href='http://members.cox.net/impunity/endofworld.swf' target='_blank'>blow</a> ourselves up with the technology and then some guy saves his arse with it and moves to Mars.
Oh damn, that ontopic thing. I almost forgot. So we will have microchips all around us. Like said before, science is not going to wait for us, it's inevitable but probably not as bad as people makes it out to be. We are still here and technology hasn't killed us, even though people were all sure that this devils invention 'car' is going to destory us all. The change isn't going to be over one night. Few people at a time will get these products more and more and if there's some problems, we will notice them before everyone is under the rule of machine lords. We'll just slowly slide in to this pervasive computing and even though I'm sure there will be setbacks, we'll manage. I don't think there's need for some special testing and arrangements. It'll work out naturally like with every other invention in the history of human kind.
--Scythe--
of course still something to think about since we obviously haven't solved it yet.. lest some inventor has his plan on a backburner somewhere.. or some mastermind is secretly whiling away.. or it's hidden in some random blog musings somewhere..
yeah
It's all part of the evolution. With that logic of yours, we would be still hunting mammoths with wooden clubs. Not that I have anything against a little sprint but humans are inherently weak. We don't run fast, we can't climb very well. We hardly have teeths or claws to kill anything and our muscles are pathetic compared to our weight. We need technology to survive, we fight with our brains. Our evolution is based on us inventing stuff that makes our lives easier. There's no point fighting it <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
There is no "the good old times when men were iron and there was no television and kids were strong." That past would be "the good old times when everyone worked their arses off just to stay alive." Of course someone might thing there's nothing wrong with that but in the future we probably think how hard the life was for us 19/00 century people. Heck, our very own children will think how hard it was for us <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I don't know if I'm ontopic. I'm just talking crap. Someone shut me up.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd argue that the reason kids are getting fatter is because parents are all too happy to let little Timmy sit in front of the TV or PC for hours on end without giving their child some constructive parenting: i.e. Getting some exercise. However, it is an interesting idea that with ease comes weakness. Physical weakness perhaps, even certainly (though again, much of this is a matter of choice. No-one forces you to drive your car 500m down the road to the shops, and just about every city has a gym or equivilant work-out facility in the western world), but mental weakness? Perhaps not. Looking at the internet for example, we are at a stage in our cultural evolution where just about all the information collected throughout history is at our fingertips, a mere google search away. I can't imagine why such an influx of information and research aids such as computers could lead to our species becoming less intelligent.
Perhaps, eventually, technology will supercede evolution, and our bodies will be turned from flesh and bone to robotic frames, or cyborgs. Nano-machines could swim through our blood, burning fat deposits and stopping disease before it sets in. We could even, possibly, leave our bodies behind and transmit our thoughts and selves directly into cyberspace, existing as programs. Sure, a lot of this stuff is pretty far-fetched. But remember, like Monse said, 10 years ago people wouldn't have believed something like the Internet could exist. The world of tommorow may have a few surprises in store for us.
And the easier world domination gets. Right? Of course then humanity grows some balls and fights back against that oppression and then the cycle starts over again but this time it gets bigger and so on until humanity goes far off into space where we have to fight aliens and what not and you know. What I mean is, I don't think humanity will get worse or better as time goes on. We never really change, but we have a skill in making ourselves believe that we do. But I'm not sure what a good example of that would be. I guess you just believe that or you don't.
Maybe I'll edit this for comprehension after I get some sleep.
Edit: After some thinking I've decided to give a parable just like Jesus would. Lets say a man walks through a park every day. Just any other man walking through a park. Then one night a storm comes and knocks over a tree onto the path the man takes through the park every day. The man gets mad and kills a whole bunch of people. Did the tree change the man or was the man always a killer?
I'm not sure how this even relates to what I was talking, which I'm not sure of either. Try to piece it together if you want. I can only assume there is some sense in what I say.
Remembered. It's called a reciprocyte, it could carry much more oxygen than a normal red blood cell.
Remembered. It's called a reciprocyte, it could carry much more oxygen than a normal red blood cell. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Could you please post more info on this thing? It sounds really interesting.
<a href='http://nanodot.org/' target='_blank'>Nanodot</a>
<a href='http://nanomedicine.com/' target='_blank'>Nanomedicine book</a>
<a href='http://foresight.org/' target='_blank'>Foresight Institute</a>
<a href='http://www.foresight.org/Nanomedicine/Gallery/' target='_blank'>Nanomedicine Gallery</a>
-------
The actual nanomachine is called a respirocyte, my mistake on the spelling. I'm not sure about whether or not it is complete, but it's been theorized by Freitas, and I think there is a prototype.
Info is here : <a href='http://www.foresight.org/Nanomedicine/Gallery/Species/Respirocytes.html' target='_blank'>Respirocyte</a>
-------
<b>Respirocyte</b>
<i>"The respirocyte is a bloodborne 1-micron-diameter spherical nanomedical device designed by Robert A. Freitas Jr.. The device acts as an artificial mechanical red blood cell It is designed as a diamondoid 1000-atmosphere pressure vessel with active pumping powered by endogenous serum glucose, and can deliver 236 times more oxygen to the tissues per unit volume than natural red cells while simultaneously managing carbonic acidity. An individual respirocyte consists of 18 billion precisely arranged structural atoms plus 9 billion temporarily resident molecules when fully loaded. An onboard nanocomputer and numerous chemical and pressure sensors allow the device to exhibit behaviors of modest complexity, remotely reprogrammable by the physician via externally applied acoustic signals.
Twelve pumping stations are spaced evenly along an equatorial circle. Each station has its own independent glucose-metabolizing powerplant, glucose tank, environmental glucose sensors, and glucose sorting rotors. Each station alone can generate sufficient energy to power the entire respirocyte, and has an array of 3-stage molecular sorting rotor assemblies for pumping O2, CO2, and H2O from the ambient medium into an interior chamber, and vice versa. The number of rotor sorters in each array is determined both by performance requirements and by the anticipated concentration of each target molecule in the bloodstream. The equatorial pumping station network occupies ~50% of respirocyte surface. On the remaining surface, a universal "bar code" consisting of concentric circular patterns of shallow rounded ridges is embossed on each side, centered on the "north pole" and "south pole" of the device. This coding permits easy product identification by an attending physician with a small blood sample and access to an electron microscope, and may also allow rapid reading by other more sophisticated medical nanorobots which might be deployed in the future."</i>
-------
<b>Microbivore</b>
<i>A nanorobotic device that could safely provide quick and complete eradication of bloodborne pathogens using relatively low doses of devices would be a welcome addition to the physician's therapeutic armamentarium. Such a machine is the microbivore, an artificial mechanical phagocyte designed by Robert A. Freitas Jr.
The microbivore is an oblate spheroidal nanomedical device consisting of 610 billion precisely arranged structural atoms plus another ~150 billion mostly gas or water molecules when fully loaded. The nanorobot measures 3.4 microns in diameter along its major axis and 2.0 microns in diameter along its minor axis, thus ensuring ready passage through even the narrowest of human capillaries which are ~4 microns in diameter. Its gross geometric volume of 12.1056 micron3 includes two normally empty internal materials processing chambers totalling 4 micron3 in displaced volume. The nanodevice consumes 100-200 pW of continuous power while in operation and can completely digest trapped microbes at a maximum throughput of 2 micron3 per 30-second cycle, large enough to internalize a single microbe from virtually any major bacteremic species in a single gulp. As in previous designs, to help ensure high reliability the microbivore has tenfold redundancy in all major components, excluding only the largest passive structural elements. The microbivore has a dry mass of 12.2 picograms.
During each cycle of operation, a target bacterium is bound to the surface of the microbivore like a fly on flypaper, via species-specific reversible binding sites. Telescoping robotic grapples emerge from silos in the device surface, establish secure anchorage to the microbe's plasma membrane, then transport the pathogen to the ingestion port at the front of the device where the pathogen cell is internalized into a 2 micron3 morcellation chamber. After sufficient mechanical mincing, the morcellated remains of the cell are pistoned into a 2 micron3 digestion chamber where a preprogrammed sequence of 40 engineered enzymes are successively injected and extracted six times, progressively reducing the morcellate ultimately to monoresidue amino acids, mononucleotides, glycerol, free fatty acids and simple sugars. These simple molecules are then harmlessly discharged back into the bloodstream through an exhaust port at the rear of the device, completing the 30-second digestion cycle. This "digest and discharge" protocol is conceptually similar to the internalization and digestion process practiced by natural phagocytes, except that the artificial process should be much faster and cleaner.</i>
-------
To my knowlege there is a nanobot similar to Microbivore, they're a little different in nature, but are similar in the behavior that they eliminate bacterium in the bloodstream by targeting certain objects and then attaching on to them to be removed magnetically. The process itself is rather simple, and to my knowledge is close to, or is currently being used as a prototype in the military. The process involves the release of the magnetized nanobots, that follow the behavior that I noted above, then its removed magnetically through a double rod object that I assume to be similar to a normal hypodermic needle. This would have applications in biowarfare for removing diseases and infections like anthrax.
-------
<b>Vasculocyte</b>
<i>The vasculocyte, intended for use in the limited vascular repair of primarily intimal arteriosclerotic lesions, is a squat, hexagonal-shaped nanorobot with rounded corners, measuring 2.7 microns across and 1 micron talldesigned by Robert A. Freitas Jr. Its 400-billion atom structure weighs about 8 picograms. The device is scaled so that its longest cross-body diagonal is shorter than 4 microns, the diameter of the narrowest capillaries in the human body. The slightly-curved topmost surface is almost completely tiled with 174,000 molecular sorting rotors to allow rapid exchange of specific molecules between the interior of the nanorobot and the patient's bloodstream.
On its six side walls the vasculocyte is enveloped by an extensible "bumper" surface which cycles between 100 nm and 300 nm of thickness as internally-stored piston-pumped ballast water inflates and deflates the surface about once every second. This cycling allows a nanorobot situated on an arterial wall to continuously adjust its girth by up to 15% to match the regular distensions of arterial wall circumference that occur during each systolic pulse of the heart. On its bottom face, the vasculocyte has 625 stubby telescoping appendages, each capable of 1 cm/sec movements. Limbs are 30 nm in diameter and 100 nm long, spaced out along a regular grid about 100 nm apart to avoid any possibility of collision. Only 10% of them are used at any one time, to preserve 10-fold redundancy. Each leg walks on a "footpad" tool tip that is 10 nm in diameter. Acting like a snowshoe, the footpad distributes leg motion forces widely enough to avoid disrupting cell membranes.</i>
-------
If you ask me, Nanomedicine is the future for curing all 20th century diseases. I think it will be the cure for cancer, and HIV/AIDS. Nanotech T-Cells wouldn't be susceptible to the parasitic behavior of HIV, or, nanotech phagocytes like the Microbivore would be able to destroy infected T-Cells stopping the spread of the disease. Even simply the creation of artificial T-cells would render HIV harmless, since it's only the destruction of T-Cells that creates a problem. People never die of AIDS, but they do die of common colds and infections because phagocytes cannot fight if the T-Cells never identify the bacterium...
All I can say is that it's very interesting.
-------
And for those who are afraid of the sci-fi take over of machines, it's impossible if you consider Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
From my favorite book, <b>An Incomplete Education</b> :
<i>The problem here-- if you, unlike most twentieth-century theoreticians, still want to look at it as a problem--is self reference, a historic stumbling block for logicians. In 1931, the Czech-born mathematician Kurt Godel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms (statements like 1 = 1 that are accepted without proof) of that a mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so,you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical systems of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules.
Godel's theorem has been used to argue that a computer can never be as smart as a human being because the extent of its knowledge is limited by a fix set of axioms, whereas people can discover unexpected truths. It plays a part in modern linguistic theories, which emphasize the power of language to come up with new ways to express new ideas. And it has been taken to imply that you'll never entirely understand yourself, since your mind, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it knows.</i>
I'm more afraid of an airborn version of HIV than I am of low level radiation coming from paint in my wall.
Is it just me or would that not be really cool?!?
yes
again long since foreseen
especially if virtual reality is invented.. and games and movies converge.
I do not say I have the answers, I only state I have seen.. people will be addicted to entertainment, far more widespread than drugs - unless ?
Maybe it will just be a better TV than TV. Like 100000x better.
Maybe it will be well worth it to leave the house. Maybe vision and other senses will be augmented, and outside would be a technological wonderland.
Of ads. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->