Debate Civilization and Evil: A Debate

Ha ha, hold on, you don't believe there are religious wars? Oh man...

And like I said, you have to ignore vast parts of it to not think it cruel.

...Given that I already said there are Muslims who do that, what point exactly are you trying to make?

You don't get it, do you? The "blame on gays" was there to highlight how zany religion can be.

Injuries do not equal someone who can't do work. Broken arms can heal; missing limbs can be overcome; bloody gibs however stay that way.

Ok, so they'd get maybe 1 or 2 kid bombs off. Then the advantage of surprise would be gone and then kids would be treated even worse.

Course not. It's glorious and heroic.

Do pilots supervise the procedure started by flicking a real switch?

I never mentioned anything about a carrier, but how is losing a carrier then any different from losing a carrier now?

Which is different from modern carrier based aircraft... how?

 

What's going to be easier to destroy - a metal object that antibodies aren't designed to combat, or a modified organic object that the body could adapt to or be innoculated against?

Yeah, but so have super-sea-fortresses and thats a retarded idea.

...How does being able to shield against it equate to the ability to control it?

Ah, so the nanobots inside the machines are still active and eating the components away. Great.

Well, theres no signal to jam. Theres no way to hack into all of them at once either.

Ok, hold on. How much power do you think these things are going to consume? You know that we want to use them as medical devices in our own bodies, right? Complete with methods to remove arterial buildup, right? These aren't going to suddenly drain the life out of a person.

(Edit: Also regarding altering things into other things, our own bodies can synthesize some of the nutrients we need. Pretty similar concept if you ask me and our bodies pull it off every day.)

Given how the scenario discussed was nanobots as an anti-personnel security device, that's a bit of a leap.

 

I don't see how, given that he provided counters to all the bad scenarios.

We have made a machine that can synthesize oil, you know?

(http://www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/featoil/)

Course you won't. The only reason our nations can support us is due to the tech-dependant techniques we use. Of course that's assuming it even collapses to begin with.

 

Hmm, I think I'll just let that speak for itself.

Of course.

You stated that Christians have to do the same thing with the Bible to believe in the peace, I only made a similarity comparison.

I'm pretty sure we already touched on that issue... I mean, we've been talking suicide bombers for the past couple of posts. Either way, gays aren't the only scapegoats for religion.

...How does this apply to the quote that you used it on again?

No, as with Palestinian bombers, they become heroes. Only Israel, or whoever the target of the bombing, would treat the worse, and that's hunky-dory for Palestine, because when they send people in there it is for gathering intelligence or for blowing themselves up, anyway. Might I also say that children are generally better at hiding and getting through narrow places?

And also potentially heartbreaking. Ever saw the deeper emotional side?

No, controlled mechanics do that. But, since an AI would be controlling the mechanics, yes, the AI would have to supervise it.

A carrier now would probably be repairing a lot more, and holding a lot more parts, due to the vast number of drones you can make because they are smaller. If it is blown, you lose support to many more drones, and parts as well. Above all, a carrier now isn't as necessary as a carrier then.

I never said that modern aircraft doesn't have this weakpoint. I meant that if you made automated mass-produced drones, that you wouldn't really need carriers.

 

I never said that nanobots are as easier to destroy, but they can still be attacked and thusly their progression slowed, as with many 'incurable' diseases.

Shrug. EMP guns can be pretty useful if it came through, actually. For espionage amongst other things.

Set off a EMP in a shielded area so it doesn't get past the shielding but still hits everything inside?

If the nanobots are already inside the machine, it's pretty obvious that you'll be screwed one way or another.

..So why would a hacker/jammer be interested to try in doing so?

Using them as medical devices in our bodies doesn't constitute reproduction as a virus does, if used as a weapon, so, of course, using it for medical reasons wouldn't incur any loss of energy.

And it is getting mechanical parts to do the same things that organs do by mess around with our biochemistry that is pretty difficult. Like said, atom manipulation isn't really an easy feat - you can't really take a little metallic hand and rearrange things with it.

Anti-personnel, yes. Security device... where did that come in again?

 

Oops, I thought you meant there were no religious wars period

Big whoop if you wound someone, that wound can be healed or made up for. A death however can't be altered.

I'm referring to the treatment they would recieve from Israelis.

Yes, put a bomb into a cramped area. Perfect. That could result in an accidental trigger.

Anyone willing to harm civilians, let alone sacrifice someone they "love" deserves to have their heart broken.

...Ok, look. A pilot flicks a switch and the mechanics handle it for him. Why an AI could not do that is beyond me (or indeed why you couldn't have a seperate computer to handle mechanics...)

...Carriers are very useful in modern warfare which simply can't be won without air support. Besides, who said the drone carriers have to be the massive carriers we have today? Why not see a return of the frigate class?

 

Provided they are even recognized as an enemy.

Why? Espionage is about retrieving data; shutting off electronics like security cameras would only tip the enemy off to the fact that something is wrong.

...Ok... wait. Now, lets assume we have a machine. It has shielding. There are nanobots INSIDE IT, UNDER the shielding. And you want the EMP to... not get past the shielding... but...

...

Huh?

Free healthcare bots.

...Yes it would, it has to get energy SOMEHOW and given that we are figuring out how to get them to run off ATP... I'm not really seeing much in the way of proof that it'd be as debilitating as you say it is. Let's assume a base daily calorie intake of 3000 calories (American average intake). Lets assume that drug synthesis (once you work out the math) consumes 150 calories to be effective (I'm being extremely generous here since our body synthesis chemicals, vitamins and minerals all the time). Base metabolism of an adult male is, what, 2400 cals a day? It'll be close to that anyway... that still leaves extra energy.

Pfft. Organic processes are slow and frankly horrible ways to go about things. If an organic device can do it, then by gum, we can figure out a way to replicate the process.

Security is about the only way to make use of them as anti-personnel. Nanobots are not fast outside of a transit system like blood. But at least nanobots as security could have already filled the air or walls of a sector.

 

Right. Moving on...

I know what you were talking about then. I'm just wondering how that applies to me comparing the possible consequences of doing the job and trying to over-do the job and ultimately failing.

Not like they don't get treated well any time, anyway. There may be feelings of pity, but not much else.

Shrug. Either way, a kid can fit into more holes than an adult can.

They didn't always have a choice, you know. Like before, money was an issue. But more so, since religion is such a big part in the doing of these actions, what about being ostracized for refusing such an 'honorable appointment'?

Because, if you did that, you just made yourself a computer that's dead weight unless called upon to do its duty. When you can have an AI that can multitask, why add extra computers to the load?

It'll still be larger than the drones themselevs, and they'll still stand out. But we are talking about expendable drones that probably doesn't need to be kept alive across a battle, as opposed to fighter jets and people, both of which are expensive (or priceless) and both of which one cannot afford to lose.

 

(Forgive me for the lateness of this one - I was subject to a parental assault. )

What's preventing them from doing so? They aren't bodily cells, they are of an unknown structure to a white blood cell, they are reproducing - something that food wouldn't do...

I guess Espionage was a bit subtle. Let's try assassination. No sight is better than sighted when you are trying to hide, after all.

We were talking of controlled EMP on eliminating nanobots from people. Like I said, if you already have nanobots inside it, you're screwed if you EMP, and you are screwed if you don't.

Oh, I'm pretty sure hackers would have use for free healthcare bots amongst the multiplyig bots that are killing the electronics and are programmed (probably hard-written) to eat instead of diagnose... I think other thoughts may be on the engineer's mind.

Extra energy, yes. But, using nanobots for anti-personnel purposes would expend a lot more energy than using them for diagnostics and simple labor, no? Using them as weapons require producing of your drugs, or reproduction to clog up a vessel, while diagnostics require no reproduction, only sensoring and perhaps using of aiding medicines from time to time.

Yes, there is almost always a way to replicate anything that blood and flesh can do, but that doesn't always mean that it'll be performed at the same speed or with the same results. As stated in the first article you posted about nanotechnology, it's pretty difficult to employ a number of nanobots to create a few things, seeing as how coordination betwen them is nearly impossible to smoothly implement.

But you talked of using nanobots as weapons by putting them in the food supplies and such, no?

 

You asked whether a bloodthirsty god would want 20 kills, or 3 kills and 20 wounded. The answer is 20 kills.

Well aside from the fact that you have to volunteer to do this IIRC...

Ok, hold on. You've gone from "the AI would be stressed to and maybe beyond the limit by flipping digital switches!" to "it can multitask". When a pilot flips a switch, he does NOT observe what happens. He has no part in what happens save for any minor adjustments if its a sensitive instrument. It's handled automatically. Yet you seem to think this would tax an AI? Please. You presented a scenario (that somehow the AI would be overburdened by the response of flipping a switch triggering automatic responses), I provided a solution.

*sigh* You realise that the drones have to launch from somewhere, right? And that having a local base of operations would drastically increase not only the survival rate but also how often they could go out and fight, and it would also make it easier to customize them for situational changes, right?

 

They're not reproducing constantly for one... as far as varying structures go, perhaps they could be built to resemble platelets. But given that we want nanobots to swim around our body in real life...

Unless the EMP gun was extremely miniaturized and somehow had a very portable and streamlined power source, it would still be inefficient.

You weren't too clear on that. Anyway, so you're suggesting herding, say, a cities entire populace in small chunks into a large, shielding building so you can douse them in EMP. Huzzah! That's a huge, huge slow down to productivity. I <3 nanobots of dewm.

Given that health-bots are supposed to get rid of artery clogging fat or cancerous cells (some theorize with a freakin' laser!) and if necessary balance hormones in addition to alerting medical facilities... honestly, it's not that hard a task to modify them.

I already said I don't think they have a place in war; the nanobot discussion up to this point was to address...
a) the cost issue
and
b) the fact that if you HAD to you could use them to severaly screw things up.

But I digress. Anyway, tell me whats simpler: having nanobots cover a battlefield or having nanobots cover a secure area you control. As far as food supplies go... have a spy or elite force with a dispersal system (be it simply a tube to tear open or something else) pour the bots into a granary or supermarket. Or a water supply!

 

No, I asked whether a bloodthirsty god would want 20 kills, or an attempt to get more than 20 but getting caught and having to do it for much less, if at all.

Alright, how about being ostracized for refusing to participate? All in all, there isn't such a difference, the volunteering goaded on by peer pressure and all.

It can multitask, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't stress it. As I said before, a pilot is not a computer - a pilot and the ship's mechanical systems are two separate entities. A computer can manage its own commands and the mechanical systems by itself, so why bother inserting another computer for the mechanical systems? Either the computer does it all by itself, causing some lag, or another computer, that's useless until the mechanics are called upon, that makes it overall inefficient.

It also provides a large weakness. Say your frigate got blown up before they actually launched the drones. You are talking about frontline cruisers. A carrier in the back, where the camps and such are, can also launch drones. A camp can produce the drones that can handle situational changes, something that would probably be less taxing than modularity on the spot given the expendability of those drones.

 

They of course aren't reproducing when applied for MEDICAL USE. It'd be most helpful for them to constantly reproduce when used for MILITARY purposes, since the clogging up helps, as well as a faster production of any drugs you may have in mind. We want nanobots to swin in our body, but do we want nanobots made for military purposes, or medical diagnostics and maintenance?

EMP holds a lot of power, especially when the power is condensed to shoot the pulse in one place to disable electronics.

That's only if said city allows nanobots to get into its whole populace. If it did, well, it's either EMP dousing, or the whole populace becomes infected with the tranquilizing drug that sorta stops production all together. I wonder which is better - slow, or stop?

But why would you want to modify their drug formulae to an enzyme? Why not just make your own nanobots with one piece of programming? Extraction and individual programming of nanobots is probably very troublesome, seeing as, if applied for military purposes, they can multiply and destroy themselves quite quickly.

 

Find me some examples.

So you don't have the overloading problem you're hypothesizing. Provided, of course, this problem actually happens.

...Soooooooo you think that having redundant systems, or systems that could free up processing power for the piloting AI are inefficient? Perhaps you need to go and study how planes actually work...

...When on Earth did I say carriers had to be on the front lines?! Furthermore, the same bloody risk carries on for your camp by having IT blown up!

P.S. Sorry for the delay of the response; real life caught up to me for a while

 

You realise that a nanobot reproduction is going to appear drastically different from a virus' reproduction...

That isn't dealing with the need for miniaturization or of course the power source issue.

And how are you going to tell who does and who doesn't have some 'bots in them?

*shrugs* You asked why anyone would bother trying to hack or jam 'em, I gave an answer. Perhaps overwriting code is simple when they're dormant. We don't know.

Those are some frickin' accurate sentry guns. How they're spotting, recognizing, and targeting something 1/10th the size of a human cell, I don't know.

Or just have the Security-Nanobots eat away at the flesh.

 

http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/security/articles/sec_0049.htm

Palestinians support suicide bombing.. urged by the relatives of suicide bombers (perhaps looking for equal loss of other families?) supported by religion, yadda yadda such and such. Remember that a failure to volunteer would probably provoke the thought of defiance, something that can be amplified by those who already had relatives go boom.

Overloading wouldn't happen frequently, I'll admit, but it is possible, to put such tasks on one computer. However, putting two computers there would only serve to lower the efficiency of the processes unless you use the same processor, in which case the overloading can still happen.

They aren't inefficient in current-day planes because it is necessary - a human pilot can only multi-task so much. However, in a completely AI-controlled environment, where a computer can do so much more at once than a human can, and where the AI's control can be so far spread to handle all the other mechanics by its own will, such extra systems aren't really needed.

In your statements about in-battle adaptation and modular modifications and also launching, it is quite implied that the carriers would be or at least be nearer to the front lines than a back camp would. Yes, a camp has the same weakness, even more so because it usually isn't mobile, but targetting a frigate that's out there doing active modifications is easier than targetting a fortified camp that's performing unit coordination and such.

 

But they still reproduce. I don't think it would be that hard to note an increase in population whether it be in volume or spread. Also, please do not deviate from the point that I was trying to make here, on how medical bots wouldn't be reproducing constantly or even often.

Miniaturization so it doesn't disable everything in a range, including your own equipment, but the power source I haven't seen - perhaps another controlled source of actual EMPs.

Scan for excess metals or whatever that the bots may be made out of?

That's not really a feasible reason, to reprogram one nanobot out of the thousands that are already in. How would that single solitary nanobot do anything that would be beneficial enough to counter the damage done by all the other ones.

I don't mean sentry guns shooting the nanobots. I meant that, if you are going to use nanobots as anti-personnel security, wouldn't it be a lot easier to use hidden sentry guns instead for anti-personnel purposes?

Sentry guns can kill too. Nanobots are just better in putting tracking devices and/or slow-killing poisons that may go undetected by its victim.

 

Unless I'm missing something, theres nothing about ostracization in that. Again, without that religious component, this sort of thing wouldn't happen at anywhere near the frequency it does, if it all.

...It would lower the efficiency of the processes by making it possible for the processes to work unhampered or even get extra CPU power?... um...

Given that I said computer and not AI, it's pretty obvious I'm not referring to one processor.

Again, it would NOT be inefficient to have a secondary computer if the drone got bogged down when flying with just one, it would actually increase efficiency. (or of course you could always have dual processors or something, but meh)

Drones = no pilot.
Piloted aircraft = very very fast.
Nonpiloted aircraft = no worries about crushing a human body = even faster.
Fast speed = reach bases and targets in small amounts of time.

...What, do you think the frigate would just waltz in unarmed or something? Frigates have weapons too you know. Weaponry + Mobility + Armor > Weaponry alone.

(side note to observers: by frigate I'm more referring to smaller sized naval vessels. I feel a frigate would be a better choice for a drone-carrier over behemoths like, say, the Missouri battleship due to expendability and lower costs. Additionally they would provide much lower targetting profiles. True, they don't have the punch of larger ships... perhaps you could have a batch of them as the line vessels with larger ships behind providing support in the form of artillery/missile launching.)

 

Our cells reproduce too. Cancerous cells reproduce too. Why are we not being eaten alive by our own immune system?

Now as far as med-bot reproduction rates go, keep in mind I never proposed some massive boom of population. I -did- say "at end of life, make 2 bots" but that was more an arbitrary choice than anything indicitave of true intent.

So how do you propose to...
a) generate the EMP
b) direct the EMP
c) make this small enough for covert ops to bring in without notice.

Why not just use a much simpler weapon?

...Of course if such a mastery of electromagnetism is ever achieved, I wonder why you'd even use an EMP gun to simply disable electronics when (provided we achieve the sort of mastery you're mentioning) we could simply rip apart the chemical bonds. If you could generate a negatively charged plane wall, it would cleanly slice any solid object in half.

Those are -incredibly- sensitive scanners to be able to pick up metallic anomalies to such a fine degree. It'd be like scanning for sand, only the sand is many thousands times smaller.

You're the one who brought up signal jamming, etc.

Depends. Guns need maintenance and every now and then have to be checked over. Furthermore, guns can make a nice big fat target. Third, guns can run out of ammunition and if a decoy is used... uh oh. Fourth, it's going to be a lot easier to muck up a guns recognition system (be it some form of scanner or camera) than thousands upon thousands of nanobots. Fifth, if a remote hacker managed to control the guns...

 

http://christianactionforisrael.org/isreport/july01/deathcompromise.html

A couple of other interesting things I found when I was hunting around..

http://www.sptimes.ru/archive/times/942/news/n_11635.htm

Interesting enough, on another topic, Muslims who attempt to become suicide bombers here become... disowned? Abandoned? Ostracized? That's new, even if it is from another place.

http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=396&issue_id=2908&article_id=23533

More specifically, this.

It tells of something, no?

It would lower the efficiency because it would have to act as an addition to all of the necessary CPU components and such that are already there. Thusly, it won't be used unless it is called upon for this multitasking - otherwise, it is dead weight and more or less some space wasted on a drone, no matter how small.

And therefore since you'd have a processor for functions that is extra compared to the processor used for the main AI, it would be inefficient, acting as dead weight. One should never have to rely on a backup processor for power to use in the main functions.

See above.

Piloted aircraft = a lot larger than drones.
Engines that allow piloted aircraft to reach extremely fast speeds = a lot larger than drones.
Drones = Cannot fit those current engines.
Miniturization of engines while keeping the same amount of power = Not happening anytime soon, even if you say it's 'in the plans' or 'have been theorized to be possible'
Thus, Drones = Not necessarily faster.

Aircraft carriers have weapons too - that doesn't mean they aren't targetted and destroyed to strand their aircraft.