This blogger creates graphical programs that simulate cellular processes.

Have a look!

planetary gear

This is a startling example of the trend towards merging software and biology. It might be a ways off, but eventually we will be able to create entire organisms. If you created a sentient organism, would deleting it be murder?

Creating software based organisms could lead to incredible insights on evolution. If a method for reproduction was created that leads to diversity(like meiosis), then organisms could evolve. An environment could be created where only the most intelligent programs survive and have offspring. With the ability to create an environment that doesn’t need to abide by the same rules, evolution could be unimaginably faster.

Robotics, virtual reality, material construction, and medicine are a few of many additional areas that will benefit from this kind of research.

*update*

I emailed the images creator. Below is my email and his helpful reply.

“I wrote a post linking to your web page here: xxxx
I’m confused about how to describe the image. What would a planetary gear do? Are your designs generally for nanobots?

Any help will be appreciated

thanks,”

———————-

“Hi,

Thanks for the link!

The gear was first designed by Eric Drexler and Ralph Merkle; I just did a computer simulation. You can think of it as a torque converter that changes the mechanical advantage from the input and out shafts. It is also a speed reducer. I try to focus on things that can be built in the laboratory now (DNA or carbon nanotube stuff) or this year, instead of way in the future, but of course I dig the far out nano-bots and stuff.

You could definitely use a torque converter in a nanorobot.

Tom”

Thanks for the informative reply!

We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.

Carl Sagan

When deciding what decisions should be made in the future, it’s important to analyze what aspects of a decision hold value.

Here is an interesting moral dilemma that was created by Philippa Foot.

“A runaway trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people who have been tied down in its path. If nothing happens, they will be killed. Fortunately, you have a switch which would divert the trolley to a different track. Unfortunately, the other track has one person tied down to it. Should you flip the switch?”

According to the results found in this study, about 77% of people will choose to pull the switch.

Here is a situation with the same consequences, where only 36% of the poll takers choose to sacrifice one in order to kill five.

“A trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?”

Here is another popular ethical dilemma. This scenario leads to the same consequences, yet, only 2% of the population will choose to kill one person in order to save five.

“A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no-one would suspect the doctor. Should the doctor sacrifice the man to save his other patients?”

Here are the results from the link above.

Question                              Yes No
surgeon                                2     98
fat man                                30    70
Pull switch to save 5             77    23
Pull switch to save 10           82    18
Pull switch to save 15           83    17
Pull switch to save 20           83    17

% with this response triple:

——-flip switch?   push fat man?     sacrifice traveler for organs?
42.6          Y                   N                                  N
29.8          Y                   Y                                  N
20.6          N                   N                                  N
5.0            Y                   Y                                  Y
0.7            Y                   N                                  Y
0.7            N                   Y                                  Y
0.7            N                   Y                                  N

It is obvious that means matters to most of the population. Granted, there are some inherent inaccuracies in this survey. It is a small population size, and it doesn’t proportionally represent people from all walks of life. Still, a difference of 2 percent and 77 percent indicates that importance is placed on means.

We’ve established that generally people take means into consideration when making a decision.  Is it logical to place importance on means?

I think the answer to this is yes/no. Logically, consequence is all that matters. Consequence is the long-term affect that will permanently alter things. A means is temporary, so it is potentially infinitely less important. But, means inevitably leads to consequences. This is why I think if different means lead to the same consequence, the consequence is what should be considered.

However, different means will almost always lead to different consequences. If not directly, then indirectly.

The doctor scenario  goes against beneficial societal thinking in many ways.  It requires killing an innocent person in cold blood and taking out their organs. A doctor is viewed as someone you can trust with your life to do their best to heal you.  And personally killing an innocent person is an act that only the outcasts of society commit.

These views are beneficial. If we didn’t trust our doctors, or thought that a normal person could kill an innocent, this would lead to huge problems. Granted, this scenario specifically says that no one will find out about it.  But, that kind of certainty rarely exists in real life.  This is why a willingness to commit such an atrocity would be detrimental.

In conclusion, I think consequence is what matters. However, the effects of crossing moral boundaries need to be considered. While consequence may be somewhat immortal, if ignoring means was a consistent practice, it would also have a kind of immortality.  Thus, the reason means should not be ignored is because harmful means can often lead to harmful consequences.

For me science fiction is a way of thinking, a way of logic that bypasses a lot of nonsense. It allows people to look directly at important subjects.

Gene Roddenberry

Today, slashdot is running an artcle about how the U.S. army has developed power suits, which give the wearer super-human strength. When this technology comes down in price, it could have lots of practical applications. Imagine how useful it would be to wear one of these while working in a lumber yard or moving hay bails.



Even more interesting, Japan has developed something similar, and they plan on making it commercially available within four years. The price range is expected to be between $4,500 and $9k.