https://www.bbc.com/news/av/technology-54327412 "Scientists at Cornell University have created a tiny micro-robot that "walks" using four legs. Invisible to the naked eye, 10 of the computer chip bots could fit within the full stop at the end of this sentence." Came across this little story crawling around the news today. These guys are somehow cute, yet absolutely horrifying.... The talk of curing cancer and disease of course leads the introduction, however the cynic in me wonders how long before something like this becomes weaponized. Even at the size of an ant, throw in video and/or audio surveillance functions onto its back, and this micro machine could become a gigantic pest. This story gave me one of those 'double take' moments....
I'm not afraid. I think it would be useful to have injectable nanobots. They could have their place in medicine (fighting cancer), IT (imagine installing computers in your brain), and even (airborne) clean us off and we would never have to worry about taking a shower or bath ever again.
Hey, fair enough, and your reply inspired thought as to how the nanobots would break the blood/brain barrier, or if they would just go through your nose or be implanted somehow, was a fun excercise, so thank you for that. I guess after these years of walking on this rock and watching the hairless monkey's, I'm left with a little skepticism. It isnt the nano machines that worry me so much, but whose hands are on the joystick. Something like this has incredible potential, both on this third rock and exploring far beyond it, so there is the potential for something awesome to come from this.
1st off I want to mention that, at the BBC site, it says there are only 11 hours left in which to listen to the podcast/broadcast recording (which would bring us to about 4pm Eastern Time [9pm GMT]). For anyone in a hurry, though the recording is about 44 mins., the interview w/ the Cornell scientist is only 6 - 7 mins., from about the 23- to the 29- or 30-minute mark. Almost any new technology can have the capacity to be, "weaponized," including internal combustion & jet engines, which most would consider indispensable to the modern world. Every advancement in computer & telecommunications technologies pose greater risk to privacy rights, etc. So, obviously, they each need to be judged individually. In this case, I think the benefit, most saliently in medical applications, outweighs the risk. Eventually, huge advancements will be made possible, which will depend specifically on this technology. They, of course, still have a long way, & numerous other breakthrough advances, to go before they could be functional. The solar-cell power source, for one, seems limiting. Also, for me to use them, there would need to be miniaturizing advancements in optics & telecom. to allow these microbots to send video to an external screen, akin to the Mars rover. I do NOT have anywhere near wgabrie's confidence in allowing those things to operate independently in my body. If he wants to be one of the guinea pigs, be my guest. For example, the long-established technology w/in my phone is currently showing the upper, blue, "menu," portion of the reply-box I'm using, completely devoid of any markings-- B(old), underline, italics, "copy-"icon, etc. And anyone remember, after AAALLLLL the preparation, the initial performance of the ObamaCare website? Not to mention all the hacks of massive #s of peoples' confidentional personal & financial info., including from Equifax, 1 of the 3 major Credit-Reporting (& now, monitoring) Agencies! On top of the technical issues of unreliability, there is the over-presumptuousness of modern medical practices & product-developers. I'm thinking, here, especially of Pharmaceutical Co.s, but it shows the willingness of the medical community to accept the word of medical suppliers even w/o full understanding of what they're doing. Case in point, look in the Physicians' Desk Reference at all the drugs classed, "anti-depressants." I don't think there's a single one that doesn't begin, under method of action, with the words, " It's not known exactly how (this drug) works." Yet they're prescribed as panaceas, though they cause all sorts of side-effects (including serious & even lethal ones) and leave 2/3rds of the people taking them, still suffering from depression. I could go on for quite a ways here, about financial interests, & drug recalls, & the revolving door between Big Pharma & the FDA, but that would be a bit of a digression. So I'll end by saying, interesting innovation, I'm glad I found out about it through your post.
We have a nanotechnology research facility in my city. People who work at it that I have met are weird as hell but not malicious. They are more like geniuses with extreme OCD who are obsessed on medical minutia. My hunch is Epidemiology with eventually abandon this in favor of designer viruses. They have already figured out a way to treat sickle cell anemia with altered, neutered HIV
