Debate Civilization and Evil: A Debate

Because those cells are thought to 'belong' there? Our body cells belong there. Our cancerous cells are our body cells that only have an altered DNA sequence. They still belong there if they are abnormal. Virus cells do not belong there - they are a foreign body. Similarly, so are nanobots.

Yes, but for anti-personnel procedures, reproductive booms are a lot more efficient than pumping out drugs with your initial ten. While med-bots wouldn't need reproduction at all, the anti-bots would be producing at, at the very least, a reasonable pace.

Because you may want to keep the shell and/or the structure intact, while just disabling any dangerous elements it may bring. The specifics for the EMP gun are unknown - I'm not one of the people who announced that it could be done. I only stated that there had been rumors of such a thing being possible.

We have sensitive scanners that can scan abnormalities in chemical levels in blood, used in blood tests. If minute components in blood can be measured today, why not pick up the increase of the presence of metallic components throughout the entire body?

I brought up signal jamming, perhaps, I'm too lazy to look, but I believe you are the only one who proposed a hacker who may want to reprogram those bots to their own designs.

Nanobots also need maintenance - They can't always retain the same program, they need to adapt as well. They can also deteriorate. They can make a big fat target for a flamethrower, as you yourself have said. Nanobots also can't really be bothered to detect strictly organic enemies and could probably also succumb to a decoy such as a sentry gun could without a supervisor (which is extremely unlikely, since the sentry gun would shoot any guests), you can jam the sensors of a camera just as you can jam the sensors of a nanobot - as far as I know jammers radiate, not specifically target. A remote hacker can also control one nanobot and force it to reproduce and overwhelm the other nanobots.

 

please you guys talk about civilization and evil and not about the crap you guys keep talking about b/c it is getting annoying...why dont you justpersonal message each other...thats all iwanted to say and do not take it the wrong way....

 

This WAS a debate about Civ and Evil, as you can see in the first vestiges. But with most unsupervised debates, it goes in many different directions. But, as long as Neph and I keeps going, there's nothing that's stopping us, really. There's no reason to bring it to PM when it's been only Neph and I for the majority of this debate, and it is in the Debates forum for a reason.

 

thats exactly what i am saying it is between you and neph. This thread is taking up space and whenever a new thread comes in you guys post in this one and make it so no one see's the new thread...that may be a little confusing but since the debate is only between you 2 you should either pm each other or im each other....

 

Uh, Hiro, this is one thread. Not a school of threads. One thread keeping near the top isn't going to slaughter a new thread, unless all the other threads on the page gets bumped as well.

 

i am sorry and wish to apologize it is just when i wanted to debate something in this thread i couldnt b/c it got off topic and we are not aloud to start a topic that has alredy been done....but i am sorry i was just a little disappointed thats all....

 

Whoops.

That one person did do it solely for money but they prefer it to be religiously based.

...So you think that a dual processor system is less efficient than a system with one processor? Look - if I had to choose between a drone that couldn't fly and manage itself at the same time, or a slightly pricier drone that could, what do you think would be the better use of money?

...You know that modern avionic computers do work all the time, right? It isn't going to just "do nothing"...

Take a look at the F-117 Nighthawk.

http://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/00181/f-117.html

Does it look particularly aerodynamic to you? Do you think it'd really fly very well without its computer? Yes, you can say "put enough thrust behind anything and it'll fly" but I somehow doubt that thats the operating principle behind the majority of modern aircraft.

...So you're saying that something that would keep the drone alive is a bad thing?

Piloted aircraft have a huge portion of themselves dedicated to the crew.

...Says who? Since when have drones had a size restriction? Particularly when I'm not talking about Star Trek-esque drones the size of a football helmet, but at smallest drones the size of a bed?

...So you can say 'its theoretically possible to (do all this magical crap with EMP)' but I cant say its theoretically possible to miniaturize?

I think if you took a modern aircraft, got rid of the weight from the crew compartments, and removed the G-force restrictions necessary to prevent the people inside from becoming a delicious paste, you'd see quite a speed boost.

Y'know I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why a camp (which DOESNT MOVE AND HAS NO ARMOR) is a better choice than ships, particularly since you need to establish that base beforehand.

 

So if we want to use nanobots for medical care, you don't think it would occur to us that we'd need to do something to make it appear as a non-hostile entity?

Except the point of that scenario was that we wanted these people alive. Also, how do you know it would be more efficient?! These things are 1/10th the size of a human cell - do you know how long it'd take to clog an artery? Of course if you have stats on nanobot reproduction vs drug synthesis, please share, elsewise you can't say for sure if its faster or not.

Ah, just like there are rumors that there are space lizards controlling our minds with satellites that can be blocked by tinfoil hats.

And how quickly do these scanners work? You do know that a somewhat substantial level of the chemical has to be in the blood for it to be picked up, right?

Because that doesn't necessarily prove anything? Especially if that society doesn't know these bots are coming? Or are you proposing a daily EMP-blast?

You asked why someone might ever use nanobots as security, I brought up a line of reasoning that could lead one to do that. Given that I'm not disagreeing with you on their inefficiency as guards...

...Where in the hell are you getting these insane ideas about nanobot reproduction speeds? You think that one (1) nanobot is going to, in a small amount of time, reproduce quickly enough to overwhelm millions of other nanobots?

 

Well, of course they prefer it to be known as religious based - that's what they always say out of their mouth. But remember that the Quran noted that suicide was not allowed, so this bombing process is more or less suicide twisted into 'martyrdom' for the purposes of religion. If they based it on religion, they would know that it actually isn't allowed.

Look at it this one. In a base setting, with one AI, there would be one processor with the power to handle the basic functions of that AI. You proposed the extra processor/computer to handle any emergencies that caused an overworking of the AI. Now, since the AI could work using the base processor normally, and the extra one would just be used for contigencies, the extra one could be considered as dead weight until those contigencies are needed. An extra computer, though halving the workload, would also need control over the whole drone - the computer itself and the modifications made for it to be able to have the same level and the induction of the new processor would increase the size of the drone dramatically. Since you are mass producing them, and those contigencies would probably only happen rarely, would it be efficient to add such modifications for an expendable drone?

It is borderline aerodynamic at the very least - I mean, it doesn't have a satellite dish or such sticking out of the front. Since it does have thrust, you can probably still pilot it and steer it to your own needs. A computer just does that faster than you, though it may not account for anything.

I never said it was necessary to keep it alive, I said it would be used as a backup contigency once an overloading actually happened.

There is still a large part taken by the engine, necessary mechanical components, and such. The cockpit isn't really large these days.

Mind you that they would still find it hard-put to put a modern aircraft engine into such a drone and make it work, which was the point that I was getting at there.

You discredited the EMP gun, why can I not discredit miniturization? Seriously, it's going to take quite a powerful source of energy to make suchy a small engine possible, even compensating for the smaller size and weight of a drone.

From the loss of weight, yes, but you probably would still want to take in consideration of the G-force before the drone itself becomes disfigured, and the engine required to reach such a speed. We have means to resist G-force - that's why we are flew the Blackbird and didn't splat.

Because the frigates themselves may need repair, and a camp (which can be situated anywhere from your own land to a remote place used as a base (hint hint, fortifications = armor), and, well, mobile fortresses are becoming more possible. Bases have more armor than a frigate since you can make as many fortifications as you want there.

(OOC - Reply to second will come about an hour or two later. Gotta go work. Coincidentially, work is what's been delaying my replies.)

 

Not have it reproduce, and not have it contain any hostile chemicals? It can be used simply for a diagnostic drone, you know.

Well, here's some logic. Because the nanobots contain formula for the drugs in, say, your code, the drug volume would presumably be less than the nanobot volume. Remember that the nanobots number increase exponentially over time, multiplying itself by two every set amount of time. If you have the drug synthesis also come in at this point, it would also be an equal increase. However, drug synthesis (knowing how as well as when to do is) is a complicated process, and I don't believe that nanobot reproduction, a thing that's only the result of copying oneself, would be slower than that of copying from available resources (which lower as you make the drug) from only a reference.

And rumors of the ability to miniturize anything down to the size of a nanobot while still retaining a staggering ratio of power, eh?

The nanobots have to reproduce to either kill with a clog or make enough drugs to have it actually take effect. We can detect clogs with our current technology, and it can probably pick up the chemical differences if you used the drug. Either way, the reproducing nanobots would eventually be of enough volume to become a observable distance.

When random people spontaneously die or suddenly fall into a deep sleep out of nowhere, I believe that the possibility of nanobots would be very clear, seeing as any scientist can probably figure out that they aren't doing such things for no reason.

Right.

Who said it needed a small amount of time? If a remote hacker gets his hands on a program of a bot and change it, it would pass on to all other nanobots. The remote hacker is not in danger because he is in a remote location. So, he can just sit back and watch as the more aggressive, and actively reproducing nanobots eventually overwhelm. Remember, the numbers grow quite quickly, even if the reproduction process may be slow. If it was too slow, then nanobots would be quite hard-put in being used as a viable weapon, seeing the resources needed to achieve such a level of miniaturization that still retains the ability to follow programming.

 

Depends on how you interpret the book. You can pretty much justify anything if you interpret an Abrahamic holy book right (like suicide bombing red lobster! )

But then you said that any time it made adjustments it would have to "focus" and its flight skill would decrease, which is why I mentioned that secondary computer. If it CAN do just fine, then no I wouldn't add another computer.

My butt is borderline aerodynamic too, that doesn't mean it'll fly if you give it a propeller.

Yeah but more thrust = lower manueverability. I wish I still had the link for it but those things do have pretty good turning ability.

The way you proposed it, it made it sound like overloading happened any time the AI had to make an adjustment.

http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/images/f-22.jpg

Thats still a fair chunk of it gone, and that IS a nice bit of weight removed too. Factor in the removal of life support systems and you have improved it slightly. This is assuming miniaturization of systems NEVER happens.

Well drones the size of the bed wouldn't have THOSE engines, but please take a look at the size of modern drones and realise that YES you could put the best engines on them.

Because I pointed out that EMP doesn't work in a way conducive to a gun and gave reasons why it wouldn't, not the least of which is the fact that it radiates, not beams?

Yeah, but we're in the la-la land of nanotech and intelligent AI anyway!

Yeah but human pilots can only do so much. Thats why pilots sometimes come close to blacking out if they take too sharp a turn. Now of course there will still be restrictions to avoid ripping the drone to shreds, but these are going to be much better compared to a soft organic clump of cells.

...Aaaand what are you going to do if the enemy is overseas? If we got into a war with someone in the Middle East (again) would you launch bombers from Texas or would you launch them from a nearby carrier?

So what if frigates might need repair? Mobility and the ability to be close to the enemy make up for it. Plus water makes a good shock buffer in case an attack IS made.

Mobile fortresses would make a sickeningly sweet target for the enemy due to size, cost and complexity, and if you want them to be air based they cant be too heavily fortified, and sea based ones... laughably vulnerable. I'd much rather have a few dozen frigates that can divide themselves into smaller groups if necessary and cover each other than one massive floating metal island just waiting to be attacked.

No worries, real life is keeping me from this too. **** happens.

 

...Hostile chemicals? The body doesn't just see chemicals as hostile; if it did then sleeping pills or even poisons wouldn't work. And if the 'bots do have a lifespan long enough to hang around for a good long while, then we get past the need for the "virus-bot" to reproduce too.

So you think that rearranging molecules is going to be more complex than constructing a same-size bot complete with flagella and coding, particularly when you'd also have to synthesize the materials for the bot? Our body synthesizes things it needs all the time. Its obviously not that time consuming.

Given that I've never mentioned nanobot power capabilities and have illustrated ways for it to conserve power by letting the body move it about...

Assuming the drug synthesize takes long enough.

That happens nowadays. Why couldn't it happen then too?

Case A) My friend Roman works morning/mid afternoon shifts at a local truck factory. He gets 2-3 hours of sleep a night, by his own choice. Roman is still just as alert and awake as before he started the job.
Case B) My Uncle was found in what was essentially a diabetic coma. He did not have diabetes (or at least was never diagnosed with it) and remained in said coma for nearly a year before dying.
Case C) Narcolepsy.

As can clearly be seen, those sort of things DO happen and you cant just start a nanobot scare any time one of those things happens. And if it starts happening en masse at about the same time then they're rather screwed.

Signal tracing?

Unless of course Nanobot Team A knew to attack nanobots not on Team A.

Unless they get picked off.

Try training troops or building a structure in the middle of a combat field. Now try doing it in a safe zone.

 

Sure. Just get some preacher or some such to say that it is unjust or such and a devout person (also requires Disadvantage: A Little Wonky In The Head) will probably bomb it if you prod him long enough.

It would decrease either way, though it probably won't be very noticable. Comparing an AI committing 80% of its processor power to controlling the flying to it committing 60% instead. It can still fly - but it won't be able to react as well. But that's not something you'd see until you see them getting blown up.

Depends on how powerful the propulsion provided by the propeller is - if sufficient it probably can. Though I don't see why one would want to do that.

Not necessarily. More thrust just means that you turn slower, not that your ability to turn is hampered - unless you move so fast, that a turning may cause friction to rip apart your plane, or something like that. Despite friction, a jet can probably perform a barrel roll just as well as a slower fighter craft would. However, they wouldn't turn as far, because of the increased distance they travel and the possibility of a turn going wild.

Man, don't we love misunderstandings.

They would be small, but not THAT small, and since you'd want to mass produce them for them to be better than piloted planes which, by their greater size, can probably carry a greater weapon load. Their number would have to be more to match the power, and their AI would have to be more self-responsive - remote control is very unreliable.

At a cost of a large size increment. They would probably be fine with a more compatible engine, because they really don't need to move that fast in combat - such speed lowers turn, which is what most people want to control if they are controlling such a plane. Also considering the price that comes with creating such 'best engines' on thsoe drones..

Fire used to be an uncontrollable thing, radiates whereever flammable objects existed, and yet we have the flamethrower.

Nanotechnology is possible with our computer chips growing smaller and smaller. Putting a power of a full jet engine into something the size of a pea isn't as easy, I reckon. Since we have very minute memory chips that still output a large amount of power, I'm sure you can lower the storage memory needed and make it even smaller.

Of course, but more speed isn't always what we are looking for. Reconaissance has no point if you fly over the target area too quickly and is unable to turn back because you have travelled more formidable distance.

Well, there would probably be a naval assault on a coastal base, followed by an establishment of facilities at that coastal base. Now we have a base, where we can transfer weapons to and launch weapons from.

The fact that water makes a good shock buffer applies to the enemy as well, and that doesn't prevent the point that owning one of those frigates produces quite a juicy monetary and military disadvantage for the frigate owner.

How about land fortresses with hover capabilities. Realize that they would have a lot more power in them, having more space than separate frigates, and that it is much easier to coordinate one than it is to coordinate a dozen units. A mobile fortress also has a lot more armor than frigates - and a coordination of a frigate may be ruined by two or so of them being destroyed.

Oi, gotta go to work. Second post will come.. later. Obviously not an hour this time. -_-;

 

But the thing is, releasing hostile chemicals does damage to the body, thus prompting the body to release countermeasures, which would include the source of said chemical, no? The fact that they launch countermeasures doesn't mean that those countermeasures are successful.

The bots are also synthesizing the chemicals the same way. To make another nanobot, the bot can rearrange molecules to create the material and the structure at the same time. It would probably be easier since it has itself to go off of as a case. Our body synthesizes things it needs all the time, but our body isn't freeform - each part of it does one particular thing, and has contigencies for anything happening there - it doesn't have to worry about anything else. However, organs doesn't realize the need to reproduce and remake itself, other than the liver.

Power would be needed to maintain such a small size while retaining basic coding, and more importantly a manipulator to carry out those things to exact specifications.

A handful of nanobots, many of them who may not even make it in (would make it quite apparant if they all went in), probably won't make enough tranquilizer to off a person in an expedient number of time - unless, of course, the drug reproduces.

I'm pretty sure that a look into the work histories and a scan for diabetic and narcoleptic symptoms would dismiss those things - nanobots aren't particularly picky, so what if a 12-year old, unlikely to have either of those ailments, and perfectly healthy before, falls to this, and increased traces of metals are found?

Signal masking? Hiding? If tracing was absolute, there would be no hackers, would there?

If a Nanobot that was on Team A reproduced, would it not still retain the allegiance? There must be some signal or marking to depict that a nanobot is on Team A, and if it is the fact that they aren't attacking - well, reprogrammed Team A can just reproduce peacefully until the time of striking is at hand.

That's why one converts a nanobot that was once an ally - it would retain everything but objectives, and at a sight or scan, it wouldn't be doing anything out of place.

Nanobots need not to be trained, and they are extremely small - such as that most conventional weaponry wouldn't affect them. Plus, their rapid rate of reproduction wouldn't be stopped by a battlefield other than being eliminated. Nanobot reproduction doesn't require human work, and the fact that building and training works not in a battlefield is because of troop morale and thinking - a man is much more hasty in his work in the battlefield because he fears for attacks. A nanobot has no such thoughts.

 

First of all, thats what testing is for.

Second of all, if only 80% is used, then cpu bottleneck is not an issue. Now, if usage is 100%...

Well y'know the quote "I couldn't give a flying rats ***"? Just for once I'd like to see something like that happen...

Which is exactly what I said. Manueverability is how quickly you turn.

We certainly do, Mr. Anderson.

Or equal to. Remember the goal of the drones is to preserve lives.

RC can be unreliable, I'll give you that, and as far as AI goes modern day Predator drones do a pretty decent job from what I hear.

Yeah, but we still use the best tech we can afford nowadays. Furthermore, how much does it cost to train a pilot?

Is the flamethrower typically active for an extended burst? Does radiation have to go somewhere when its blocked? Obviously not really or else x-rays wouldn't work. Fire is not radiation... the heat is.

...When on Earth did I ever propose putting a jet engine onto something the size of a pea or anything like that? I proposed reasonable miniaturization but I never said we'd have wars conducting by flying pea-size drones.

Pilots have a saying: "Speed kills."

In combat, your shots are meaningless if you can't get a lock on the enemy, or he moves far too fast for you to get a bead on him. In reconnaisance, even if you have to move slowly over an area (for whatever reason, I don't know, since cameras can take pictures with rather good speed), there's a handy little trick called Getting The Hell Out.

If speed isn't useful in a recon plane, why would there be a spy plane that goes mach 3.3?

http://www.eaa231.org/Museum/SR71/SR71.htm

Sure, only 32 were built, but crikey with those rates you don't need that much...

Well yes, but you have to start from somewhere, and thats why we would have the ships!

How? How on Earth does having a steady, loyal, mobile base of operations to begin with make it a disadvantage? If it's a disadvantage, then why does the USA still employ so many ships?

Hovercraft do not climb hills well. They need flat surfaces. Furthermore, do you know how massive that hovercraft would have to be in order to actually suspend all of the hardware, supplies and personnel? Not to mention maintenance costs?

And how horrible they manuever and brake given the lack of friction?

May God have mercy on your soul if you try to invade a country with hills.

It's also much easier to lose one than a dozen units, and takes much longer to build them. Fortresses have been proposed in real life. Theres a reason they weren't taken.

So you're proposing a massive, superheavy base with an excessive amount of necessarily exposed fans (hooray for weak spots!) that could never concievably invade a nation with rugged terrain.

...HEY! I just realised something! Is this base going to be armed?

You know how guns have recoil?

Guess what happens when a cannon fires with no real way to brace itself!

And you're basing this one... what? I think that my invasion plans are not going to be hurt if I lose a few frigates when I have dozens produced already. Notice how the USA relies on smaller, more independant units?

 

...Which is exactly what I said? Re-read it. I just said that not every chemical is one you can stop.

...No. Just because it "has itself" doesn't mean it can make another one of it exactly the same way with the same speed as a chemical. I don't doubt it could make itself, but I'd wager making the various materials necessary would be somewhat lengthier than making one compound.

Yep...

...

Granted what that has to do with the power necessary to synthesize a chemical, I don't know.

Did you miss the part where I mentioned ATP leeching?

Hell, why not? Why not influence organs to produce more of a sedative hormone and less adrenaline?

"Attention everyone. We found a kid that got sleepy and had some extra iron in his system. So everyone, we're going to herd you one by one and zap you with radiation. This will solve EVERYTHING, and we know you'll be fine with it because you're perfectly loyal citizens and there are no conspiracy nuts. And no there is no problem with your medical bots... none at all. Really. Granted we had to take several days in order to pick out every single nanobot in this kids body to make sure they weren't all ours. Also, in that time most of you also succumbed. Crap."

How often are military items actually hacked?

...And bots wouldn't have a self preservation routine built in to pick up unauthorized reproduction or being ripped apart?

"Oh, hi Nanobot THX-1138. I see you're reproducing a lot. We aren't supposed to reproduce beyond this number, but I'll let you go along. Also, I see THX-1138ASWEBY is ripping apart TK-421FGO, but naaaaaah."

They DO have to be built.

"Yep, we're pickin up grey goo in Area 88. Napalm it."

Especially when it gets toasted by a flamethrower, napalm spray, bomb burst, grenade...

...

and given how we agree they won't have powerful engines so they can't move fast, what are they going to do on this battlefield? Perhaps make flowers in the hopes that they'll lure soldiers over?