“Grey Goo” Scenario

The nightmarish scenario of nanotechnology, the “Grey Goo” scenario (“global ecophagy”) takes its name from futuristic visions of the Earth if out of control self-replicating nanorobots destroy the biosphere by endlessly producing replicas of themselves and feeding on materials necessary for life. This scenario has been a staple of science fiction—Michael Crichton in his 2003 novel Prey visualized a swarm of nanobots that had gone haywire and preyed on human beings. The Borg in the Star Trek series constantly replicated or mutated to escape from the ethical constraints imposed on them by their creators.

The term also owes its origin to a similar term; Green Goo, which refers to out of control DNA-based artificial organisms (genetically modified organisms or GMOs, also termed Frankenfoods). At the core of such scenarios is an enormous shift in power from nature to humankind, as the ability to self-replicate—the modus operandi of genetic engineering, that uses the machinery of the cell to replicate its designs—becomes a field of human endeavor.

The “nano-cogno-bio-info” economy has made such a scenario possible for the first time in human history. Molecular electronics—the new subfield of nanotechnology where individual molecules can become circuit elements—would make it possible to manipulate matter at the molecular and atomic level, and this, combined with advances in the physical sciences and gene technology, would make it possible for enormous transformative power to be unleashed.

Optimists have hailed the positive possibilities of such self-replication. Molecular-level “assemblers” could solve the world's energy crisis through low-cost solar power, cure terrible diseases like cancer by boosting the human immune system, completely clean up the environment, and even enable the restoration of extinct species. The cheapness and abundance of materials, since the basic building blocks of the technology are at the molecular level, would make it easy and cheap to create any product, including incredibly inexpensive pocket supercomputers.

However, pessimists have warned against the possibility of such molecular level assemblers wreaking havoc because they could spin out of control, could be deliberately diverted to destructive applications for the military (using knowledge-enabled mass destruction or KMD), or become so incredibly efficient and intelligent that human oversight or control would become superfluous. Central to this argument is that nanotechnology, unlike other potentially destructive technologies such as nuclear power, crucially gives nanoassemblers the ability to reproduce, meaning that it would be a small step from an intelligent robot to a robot species. Thus, “plants” with “leaves” no more efficient than today's solar cells could out-compete real plants, crowding the biosphere with inedible foliage, new robust omnivorous “bacteria” could replace real bacteria, and could potentially spread like blowing pollen, replicate swiftly, and reduce the biosphere to dust in a matter of days. Complicating this scenario would be that dangerous replicators could easily be too tough, small, and rapidly spreading to stop in spite of efforts to do so. Moreover, historical examples of unforeseen consequences of technological innovation, such as the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria or DDT-resistant malarial mosquitoes have been used to underline the dangers of creating robots, engineered organisms, and [Page 303][Page 304]nanobots that self-replicate, manifestly multiplying their capacity for destruction of the physical world.

...