posted
Me and my friend disagree on this topic, these are both potentially good things, but which is better eh... if you don't get it I will elaborate!
The future should have many great health benifits, but between a super-virus that act's as an additional immune system+repairing, while nano-machines may be able to do the same thing mostly a suppliment to an immune system.
Pros/Cons Nano-Machines Pros- Efficient, does exactly what it is made to do. Cons- It will take significantly longer to produce compared to super-virus. What powers this.... The use may be exploitable! Like smaller RFID chips in yer body..
Super-Virus Pros- Once it's there it can multiply itself. Might be manufacturable in the near future ;o The energy from the bacteria/viruses it kills could be the source for energy.. HIV is already being used to kill cancer in rats.. (Between you and me, using HIV is a bit iffy), everyone getting infected with SHIV lawls calm down it would be a good things ;o It could be made non-communical so it won't spread to others so it can be manipulated for sale? Cons- Making the virus do exactly as our immune-system does (Or Better) may be difficult, im-no-biologist-or-micro-biologist... Because it multiplies it COULD mutate... Ever seen Resident Evil.......(dot dot)
Opinions please! I want a massive pro/con list, and overall opinions of these super-treatments.
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nano-machinese: may be immunogenic, or promote an immune response, or bad in other ways
Virus: may be carcinogenic, or promote cancers, extremely hard to understand health implications of using 'em
quote: The energy from the bacteria/viruses it kills could be the source for energy..
Killing bacteria is unlikely to provide energy, and killing viruses certainly won't. (A virus killing another virus is technically possible, but it works by a little weird details)
Hope that helps! =)
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
The flexibility and adaptability of nanobots is amazing instead of for a virus being need new pants scary.
Once you have basic nanobots you could use them to make more and more advanced nanobots.
The main thing about nanobots vs viruses is a conceivable way to shut them all down if something went wrong. EMP? Built in kill switch? Something. If a virus goes all wunky then you are F-ed in the A my friend! And not just you, possibly everyone, or even every living thing.
With viruses, they are alive, and all living things are designed to adapt to keep living. Even if you were to make the best ever super virus, eventually it would change, and then it wouldn't be the best, it might be just a little worse or perhaps disastrously horrible.
Again, with nanobots, you have an element of control. Maybe not directly at first, but eventually you actually be able to order them about. And machines, even little ones, while they do break down they generally don't change radically from original design in an attempt to stay alive.
Plus making nanobots self replicating is entirely conceivable.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
The problem with both these things is us, it all varies on how well we can create/recreate either of them.
If the virus itself fights cancer then being a carcinogenic only matters if it can't fight off that form.. all of this is confusing XD
My dream job Would be micro biologist and geneticist, but the moment I found out some scientists were rigging the HIV to cure cancer I got sad ): --------------------- Stone, symbiosis is natural and as long as the virus has no need to adapt it won't just look at sharks they have changed so little yet lived so long .-.
quote:My dream job Would be micro biologist and geneticist, but the moment I found out some scientists were rigging the HIV to cure cancer I got sad ):
You know someone would create an iphone app to control them. Is your back hurting? Get on the Nanobot app to tell the nanobots where it hurts!
Nano bots that could reconstruct tissue would be useful as well.
The only con of Nanobots that I can think of would be if the nanobots could be infected with a virus. (How'd that be for irony?)
Well, that and programming the nanobots to transform us all into Wels to be used to rebuild Deus. (Shameless Xenogears reference )
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I'd say nano-bots.
You know someone would create an iphone app to control them. Is your back hurting? Get on the Nanobot app to tell the nanobots where it hurts!
Nano bots that could reconstruct tissue would be useful as well.
The only con of Nanobots that I can think of would be if the nanobots could be infected with a virus. (How'd that be for irony?)
Well, that and programming the nanobots to transform us all into Wels to be used to rebuild Deus. (Shameless Xenogears reference )
I disagree. A nanobot should NOT be re-programmable. Its program would be its actual mechanical design. It is designed and built to do just one thing, like killing cancer cells. If you need to cure something else, you get a different nanobot to do that. I wouldn't want someone hacking my iphone and programming my bots to make me impotent or nauseous or something.
The only controls possible should be an on/off switch.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why? Once you get down to nano-scale -- what's the difference between a machine and a biomolecular superassembly? Nothing substantive that I can see
Google "bio nano machines" to get an idea of how many researchers are making biological or bimemetic nano machines.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Once you get down to nano-scale -- what's the difference between a machine and a biomolecular superassembly? Nothing substantive that I can see
quote:From: Microbial Life "Viruses straddle the definition of life. They lie somewhere between supra molecular complexes and very simple biological entities. Viruses contain some of the structures and exhibit some of the activities that are common to organic life, but they are missing many of the others. In general, viruses are entirely composed of a single strand of genetic information encased within a protein capsule. Viruses lack most of the internal structure and machinery which characterize 'life', including the biosynthetic machinery that is necessary for reproduction. In order for a virus to replicate it must infect a suitable host cell".
Although there is no definitive resolution to the question of whether viruses can be considered living entities, their ability to pass on genetic information to future generations makes them major players in an evolutionary sense.
It's arguable. Viruses are in a class all their own. But to say they are "nanobots", to me at least, is a stretch.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's arguable. Viruses are in a class all their own. But to say they are "nanobots", to me at least, is a stretch.
Then define "nanobots" (or preferrably nano-machines since its the term I used) in a way that would clearly exclude viruses. I'm confident that any nano-machine would "contain some of the structures and exhibit some of the activities that are common to organic life, but they are missing many of the others."
If you read the open post, the question wasn't actually about natural occuring viruses but about engineered super viruses. An engineered super virus would be a type of nanobot in every way that's meaningful.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: An engineered super virus would be a type of nanobot in every way that's meaningful.
Except adaptability. If you read the second (er, third) post, you will see that my point all along was that viruses are -alive- and therefore have the ability to change as needed to stay that way. As such they are unsuitable and unstable platforms for human improvement.
Nanobots are not alive. Therefore they should not evolve beyond original design specifications.
posted
Viruses are not alive either as they lack many of the features essential for life. They are most commonly considered "replicators" not living organisms.
In order to have this discussion, you have to define "machine" and define "alive". When we are talking about nano "things" those definitions become important.
Can a machine be self-reproducing? If not, what would you call a machine that made copies of itself? If its possible to have a self reproducing machine, why shouldn't we consider a virus a nano-machine. What about it makes it not a machine.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Heh, I -said- should.
And what does "should" mean. Is this a moral imperative or a statement about the scientific feasibility of nanobot evolution?
If nanobots can reproduce, their reproduction is subject to occasional mistakes and there is some sort of selective pressure, nanobots could theoretically evolve.
There is no reason viruses shouldn't reasonably be classified as a type of nanomachine.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Show me a self replicating machine which improves (or at least changes, with the possibility of improvement) itself and I will classify it as life.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Show me a self replicating machine which improves (or at least changes, with the possibility of improvement) itself and I will classify it as life.
Since there aren't any self-replicating machines, I can't show you anything. There also aren't any truly functional human engineering nano-machines. So this is a discussion about what could reasonably happen in the future, not what has happened.
Living organisms don't "change themselves" per se. They make mistakes when they copy themselves.
If machines could replicate, they would certainly make occasional mistakes. Most of those mistakes would cause the machines to function badly, but occasionally a mistake might lead to improved performance. If we are talking true "self-replication" then the mistakes will be passed on to future generations. If there are selective pressures, the improved machines will out compete the original machines. This is evolution in a nutshell. There is nothing in this that logically couldn't happen with machines.
You still need to define machine in a way that makes it distinct from a living organism.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Living organisms don't "change themselves" per se. They make mistakes when they copy themselves.
Incorrect. For example, my children are a random combination of half of my genes and half of my wife's. Not a mistake made while trying to perfectly duplicate either myself or my spouse.
quote:You still need to define machine in a way that makes it distinct from a living organism.
You have asked, but seriously, do I really need to do this? Bossy much?
I'll oblige you though. From dictionary.com
quote:2. a mechanical apparatus or contrivance; mechanism.
quote:Living organisms don't "change themselves" per se. They make mistakes when they copy themselves.
Incorrect. For example, my children are a random combination of half of my genes and half of my wife's. Not a mistake made while trying to perfectly duplicate either myself or my spouse.
Not quite. Each of your kids has copies of half of your genes (with a few errors) and half of your wife's (with a few errors).
Sexual v. asexual reproduction isn't really the issue.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can see how they both would be nano, and in a way both would be a machine. A virus would function like a machine with the exclusion of being able to replicate itself, which one day machines might be able to do.. (not recommended have you seen the Matrix it has to start somewhere...)
Lawls Obama is putting us in more debt as we speak...
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: If machines could replicate, they would certainly make occasional mistakes. Most of those mistakes would cause the machines to function badly, but occasionally a mistake might lead to improved performance. If we are talking true "self-replication" then the mistakes will be passed on to future generations. If there are selective pressures, the improved machines will out compete the original machines. This is evolution in a nutshell. There is nothing in this that logically couldn't happen with machines.
You still need to define machine in a way that makes it distinct from a living organism.
Could the drive to survive possibly differentiate life from machines? I see how a machine could evolve, but can a machine be programmed with the drive to survive, so that it resists any attempts to harm it? Conversely, can we even say that all life has the drive to survive? Or does life just survive because random improvements lead an organism to want to survive? I am not an evolution expert, but how does evolution explain the fact that living things even care about surviving?
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Living organisms don't "change themselves" per se. They make mistakes when they copy themselves.
Incorrect. For example, my children are a random combination of half of my genes and half of my wife's. Not a mistake made while trying to perfectly duplicate either myself or my spouse.
Viruses do not and can not engage in sexual reproduction so its irrelevant. Viruses evolve when mistakes are made in the replication process.
quote:
quote:You still need to define machine in a way that makes it distinct from a living organism.
You have asked, but seriously, do I really need to do this? Bossy much?
That's really unnecessarily rude. I wasn't trying to be bossy I was trying to enter into a meaningful discussion of what constitutes a "machine" and why a virus doesn't qualify. Rather than just repeating "yes it is, not it isn't".
quote:I'll oblige you though. From dictionary.com
quote:2. a mechanical apparatus or contrivance; mechanism.
At the nanometer scale where the distinction between mechanical and chemical action disappears, a virus fits that definition.
[ March 29, 2011, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marlozhan: Could the drive to survive possibly differentiate life from machines? I see how a machine could evolve, but can a machine be programmed with the drive to survive, so that it resists any attempts to harm it? Conversely, can we even say that all life has the drive to survive? Or does life just survive because random improvements lead an organism to want to survive? I am not an evolution expert, but how does evolution explain the fact that living things even care about surviving?
I think its an enormous stretch to say a virus has drives and desires. Virus don't resist attempts to harm them. They don't have will. They are just little strings of DNA (or RNA) packed in a protein. Random changes that occur in the copying process most commonly destroy the virus. Occasionally those changes, lead to a more robust virus. It is entirely a random process. There is no drive to survive, no will. A virus is just a super-molecular assembly, a nano-machine that does what its programmed to do, with occasional mistakes.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:An engineered super virus would be a type of nanobot in every way that's meaningful.
Are you saying that we can stretch the definitions so that they overlap, or are you saying that typically what people mean when they say "virus" is the same with what they mean when they "nanobot"?
In short are you arguing maximally stretchy definitions, or typical definitions?
I support nanobots, because I understood the original poster to have the term 'nanobots' mean "tiny programmable robots that will remain distinct from the human cells". I don't prefer genetically engineered viruses, because I understood the original poster to have the term mean 'self-reproducing packets of DNA/RNA that attach themselves to human cells"
I think that's a meaningful distinction, and I prefer nanobots as safer, more quarantinable and more updatable.
I'm not interested in the metaphysics discussion that some of you want to insert in the discussion. Neither nanobots nor viruses will have any drives or desires. That's just stupid anthropomorphism.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm saying that once you understand what viruses and virus like particles actually do and what any nano scale machine would have to do, viruses are nano-machines by any reasonable definition, no stretching required.
Consider the definition you give "tiny programmable robots that will remain distinct from the human cells". Virus like particles exist in nature that fit all those parameters. DNA is a type of program. If we write DNA programs and put them in a protein coat that can deliver the program to the cell, it would accurately be described as both a nanobot and a virus. Unless you are talking about retroviruses, that insert themselves into the host cell genes,viruses remain distinct from the human cells, at least as distinct as anything the size of a few microns which interacts with the cell could.
If you look at the scientific literature and look at technologies that people are studying to make nanomachines, you will find that nanobots that mimic viruses or virus like particles are one of the most promising technologies being studied.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's been established that both nano-machines and virus' are essentually the same thing.. I'm suppossing the differences would be,
Virus' would only use natural methods to remove/fix what-say-you... and self multiplication.
Nano-Machines would use mostly mechanical and some natural methods to remove/fix W-S-Y.
As far as them being alive... neither of them are as far as my definition goes - in order to be living it must be aware of it's existence.
So as far as my terms goes, I was dead 'till I was 5ish (which is when I went through the fases of "these are my hands, and I can move them like this."), which sits well with me XD
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm saying that once you understand what viruses and virus like particles actually do and what any nano scale machine would have to do, viruses are nano-machines by any reasonable definition, no stretching required.
Consider the definition you give "tiny programmable robots that will remain distinct from the human cells". Virus like particles exist in nature that fit all those parameters. DNA is a type of program. If we write DNA programs and put them in a protein coat that can deliver the program to the cell, it would accurately be described as both a nanobot and a virus. Unless you are talking about retroviruses, that insert themselves into the host cell genes,viruses remain distinct from the human cells, at least as distinct as anything the size of a few microns which interacts with the cell could.
If you look at the scientific literature for the technologies that people are studying to make nanomachines, you will find that nanobots that mimic viruses or virus like particles are one of the most promising technologies being studied.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depends on how tiny the machine is, is it just a tiny computer ran off circutry or a large chain of molecules that performs a job..
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Virus' would only use natural methods to remove/fix what-say-you... and self multiplication.
Nano-Machines would use mostly mechanical and some natural methods to remove/fix W-S-Y.
I'm not sure what you mean by "natural" here. I think most non-scientists think of nano-machines as being pretty much like regular machines just really really small. They envision nano-machines that might cut open cells with a miniature scalpel and repair damaged cells with miniature stitches . But that cartoon can't work. When you get to the nanoscale, the continuum hypothesis completely breaks down. The distinction between what is chemical and what is mechanical disappears. Every part of a nanomachine must be literally a molecule. Every action of a nanomachine would be either the change in the conformation of a molecule or a chemical reaction (forming or breaking of chemical bonds).
Nanomachines couldn't be assembled by a mechanical processes because mechanical processes don't really exist at that scale. Nanomachines would have to self assemble. Programs in a nanomachine would have to be stored in some sort of molecule. Existing data storage and integrated circuit technology simply can't work at that small a scale because of quantum mechanical limitations.
The bottom line is that no nano-machine could ever be remotely like the macro-machines we are familiar with. Researchers are trying to develop numerous different technologies that might eventually be used to make nano-machines. The only one that actually works right now, is the one invented by nature -- viruses (or virus like particles).
You can't really compare viruses to other kinds of nanomachines, because viruses actually work right now and none of the other types of nano-machines work yet. We don't know what might be possible with other types of nano-machines. We have no idea whether its possible that other types of nanomachines could by switched on and off or what a switch would look like. We don't know if they could be reprogrammable. We don't know if they could be self-reproducing or evolve. We have no idea how such nano-machines would recognize a cancer cell (for example) or what they might be able to do once they recognized a cell. Basically, we don't have any clear idea what non-biomemetic nano-machines would be like and what they might do. That makes it nearly impossible to compare them to viruses in any meaningful way.
What we do know is that in nature there are virus like particles (VLPs) that don't reproduce. Bacteria use them routinely in nature to exchange genes. We know that bacteria are able to turn these VLPs on and off (in a sense). We know that viruses and VLPs can target specific cells and specific functions within a cell. We know lots of different ways that viruses and VLPs can interact with cells to kill them,protect them or just change them. We have no idea how or whether other nanobots might work.
Maybe I'm just being nitpicky but it just isn't at all rational to compare something that actually exists and works with "gee whizz wouldn't it be great if we had these nano-scopic machines that could do anything we imagine". It's like asking, Which would be more energy efficient the shock wave engineor portkeys.
If the idea of nanobots reproducing and evolving seems dangerous to you, I'm sorry but it's happening in nature all the time. And yes, sometimes its dangerous.
If you think it would be safer to design nanobots that couldn't reproduce, I'd agree with you. But whether or not a nanobot can reproduce is really independent of whether its based on virus like technology or some unknown "magic" technology.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's really unnecessarily rude. I wasn't trying to be bossy I was trying to enter into a meaningful discussion of what constitutes a "machine" and why a virus doesn't qualify. Rather than just repeating "yes it is, not it isn't".
I find it "unnecessarily rude" to be told in a "discussion" what I must do. In reading the posts, no one said "yes it is, no it isn't" even once. I do not take offense at even strongly worded requests, but I am offended when told what I must do by anyone who isn't a law enforcement officer, paying my wage or holding a gun on me.
I strongly dislike it when my wife tells me what to do, and I voluntarily married her. You sir or madam are a stranger to me so, be forewarned, I will continue to find commands rude and bossy in future conversations.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's really unnecessarily rude. I wasn't trying to be bossy I was trying to enter into a meaningful discussion of what constitutes a "machine" and why a virus doesn't qualify. Rather than just repeating "yes it is, not it isn't".
I find it "unnecessarily rude" to be told in a "discussion" what I must do. In reading the posts, no one said "yes it is, no it isn't" even once. I do not take offense at even strongly worded requests, but I am offended when told what I must do by anyone who isn't a law enforcement officer, paying my wage or holding a gun on me.
I strongly dislike it when my wife tells me what to do, and I voluntarily married her. You sir or madam are a stranger to me so, be forewarned, I will continue to find commands rude and bossy in future conversations.
I did not intend to boss you around, I intended to draw you into a higher level of discussion. You apparently have no interest in that. I'll try to note that in future conversation.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Depends on how tiny the machine is, is it just a tiny computer ran off circutry or a large chain of molecules that performs a job..
Well if we are talking "nano", it would imply things that are a maximum of a few hundred nanometers. The largest viruses are around 300 nm diameter, that's typically the upper limit for what is considered nano-technology.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I did not intend to boss you around, I intended to draw you into a higher level of discussion. You apparently have no interest in that. I'll try to note that in future conversation.
The information you have imparted has been fascinating and mostly new to me and I can see why you say that viruses are effectively nano-machines.
After saying that, I will say this: One does not draw someone into "higher level of discussion" with issued commands. One also does not continue civilized discussions with people who put words in your mouth and assume your opinions for you.
So on that note, I bid you good day.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just realized how pointless this topic was, since we've discussed, it's been deduced that a nano-machine and a virus are one the same, unless these nano-machines are 'bigger', they are both pretty much complex molecules reacting..
Besides the end of the discussion here, what exactly is the point of making a nano-machine that's flawed .__. the very fact that it could do something it's not meant to do means it's not a machine ;o because machines are flawless as long as they are built flawlessly...
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Besides the end of the discussion here, what exactly is the point of making a nano-machine that's flawed .__. the very fact that it could do something it's not meant to do means it's not a machine ;o because machines are flawless as long as they are built flawlessly...
Nothing is ever built flawlessly. No real machine performs flawlessly. Reproduction of genetic material in nature comes much closer to flawlessness than any man made process with which I am familiar.
[ March 29, 2011, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:After saying that, I will say this: One does not draw someone into "higher level of discussion" with issued commands. One also does not continue civilized discussions with people who put words in your mouth and assume your opinions for you.
Once again, I did not intend to offend you. The people who I commonly discuss things with routinely ask others to define their terms. When people ignore such requests, the requests are commonly repeated in a more forceful way. That's what I did here. That's what is done in my culture. When discussing with you in the future, I will try to phrase my requests in different way to avoid offense. In return, I would hope that in the future you would recognize this kind of thing as one of my quirks rather than taking offense where none was intended.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well said. Very well, tolerance and latitude will win the day.
Part of my definition of a machine was the word "contrivance",
quote:Contrivance: –noun 1. something contrived, esp an ingenious device; contraption
Lazy darn dictionary...
quote: Contrived: –verb (used with object) 1.to plan with ingenuity; devise; invent: The author contrived a clever plot. 2.to bring about or effect by a plan, scheme, or the like; manage: He contrived to gain their votes.
A machine is made on purpose. So, a man made virus would be a nano-machine, but a naturally occurring one would not.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
HIV confuses, it undergoes mutation after mutation, while still maintaining the exact same function that kills us, so I'm supposing a super virus, could take the same trait...
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
