Everything Is Going to Kill Everybody (11 page)

Nobody dies today!

Why, Eric Drexler himself states that Gray Goo has become a scaremongering scenario that only takes away from more pressing concerns regarding nanotech. Chris Phoenix, Director of Research at the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, also states quite clearly that it is a nonissue:

Runaway replication would only be the product of a deliberate and difficult engineering process, not an accident. Far more serious, however, is the possibility that a large-scale and convenient manufacturing capacity could be used to make powerful nonreplicating weapons in unprecedented quantity, leading to an arms race or war. Policy investigation into the effects of molecular nanotechnology should consider deliberate abuse as a primary concern, and runaway replication as a more distant issue.

So that’s … comforting, I guess? He’s saying that Gray Goo won’t ever happen on accident! Admittedly, it would be slightly more comforting if he didn’t also say, practically in the same breath, that you shouldn’t worry about Gray Goo happening
on accident
, because it’s only going to happen
on purpose
, and even then only if
far more terrifying things
do not happen first. Jesus, hopefully nobody’s turning to cry on Phoenix’s shoulder, because he certainly didn’t get his doctorate in compassion.

Better Names for Gray Goo

• Steel Pudding
  

• Robot Death Buffet
  

• Reverse Voltron Disorder.
  

However, who would ever want to engineer it on purpose? Gray Goo wouldn’t be appealing for military purposes because it’s so hard to control and so wantonly destructive. When other nanotech weapons can be used far more effectively to kill with control, who would want something that just randomly destroys life and sows chaos? Only psychopaths and terrorists want that kind of stuff.

Oh, wait; we have a whole bunch of those around, don’t we?

In light of this fact, the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology realized that they couldn’t scratch Gray Goo off their list of concerns just yet, but did add that it was a low-priority threat because there were “far more dangerous and imminent issues with nanotechnology.”

There were far more dangerous issues than sperm-powered blood robots eating the Earth.

That’s what they said.

They think that’s comforting.

“I’m so sorry, sir. You have terminal cancer. But don’t worry; it’s all going to be OK! You won’t be dying from the cancer … because I am going to shoot you in the face right now. Isn’t that reassuring?”

No, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, that is not comforting. I would suggest you offer hugs instead of these horrifying press releases, but judging by your previous “consolation” track record, I’m afraid you’d just end up whispering obscenities in people’s ears while punching their children.

11.
NANOLITTER

WITH ALL THE CURRENT
fearmongering about nanotechnology—most of which has been done within the confines of this book—it’s not
actually
very likely that the nanobots are going to build their children out of the last sad remnants of Earth or inspire a deadly new team of superanimals like the world’s tiniest Legion of Doom
.

But don’t worry, that doesn’t mean we’re not all going to die anyway!

This is because even the most benevolent of nanobots share one simple, undeniable commonality: To achieve any major effects, there are going to have to be a lot of them and, though it is infinitesimal, they do take up some space. When their purpose is complete, they’ll deactivate and die off—unfortunately leaving their corpses where they lie.

But so what? Aside from the hassle of having to construct a plethora of mini tombstones (and the rather gross prospect of microscopic widows getting grief fucked inside your teeth), how could this possibly affect you? Well, the primary application for a lot of this nanotech is going to be for health issues: improving stamina, boosting immune systems, and fighting off cancer. All those corpses are basically just litter, and the human body is their environment, which means that when they die, they die
inside of you
. And if you think this scenario—that you’ll be poisoned to death by the corpses of miniature robots that live inside your blood just like that hobo down by the library keeps screaming—sounds somewhat outlandish, then you should know one little thing: It’s already happening.

The Five Stages of Grief

• Denial
  

• Anger
  

• Bargaining
  

• Acceptance
  

• Grief fucking
  

Take, for instance, the scientists over at Kraft foods—scientists whose job, ordinarily, probably consists of formulating the perfect Dora the Explorer pasta shape-to-cheese ratio—are instead currently working on new types of nanoparticles to add to beverages. They plan to create “interactive beverages” that will shift colors and patterns according to your input. So on the plus side, you can have green beer whenever you want it, but the trade-off is that it’s
potentially full of superpoisons
. Some would argue that these risks dramatically outweigh the benefits here, but those people probably haven’t spent their entire lives wishing beyond hope that their Coke would turn pink when they rubbed it. Clearly, those bastards just don’t understand the dream.

Kraft Interactive Mood Beverages

• Angry Cherry
  

• Depression Blueberry
  

• Jealous-Rage Sour Apple
  

• On-the-Prowl Pink
  

• Willing-to-Settle Gray
  

OK, so nanoparticles aren’t exactly murderous microscopic robots. They actually have a lot of positive effects, and are being used in vastly increasing numbers across myriad products, from paint to socks, makeup to underwear. Their upsides are easy to see: They can have a lot of useful effects, cost very little to produce, and take up almost no space in existing products. Most of what we know about them is quite beneficial; it’s the stuff we don’t know that’s worrisome.

Back in March 2002, the EPA found the first inklings of the problems to come, when a study they’d conducted found nanoparticles cropping up in the livers of research animals. This warranted urgent further study, seeing as how nanotech was on the verge of becoming the world’s largest emerging industry. Researchers at the University of Rochester Medical Center quickly confirmed that at least one kind of nanoparticle could indeed penetrate the skin, and from there seep into the bloodstream. Those particles are called quantum dots, and they’re on the smaller end of the nanoparticle scale. They are often used in makeup and sunblock, which is unfortunate, considering how they seep through skin like that—but even more unfortunate when you consider that UV light, like from the sun, actually facilitates absorption of the dots. So the thing you use to protect yourself from the sun is actually rendered harmful and then activated and inserted into your body by the mere presence of sunlight. Apparently the engineers in charge of quantum dot production got their doctorates in Irony from Incompetent University.

Separate research conducted by scientists at Purdue University concentrated on tracking the likelihood of other nanoparticles, called buckyballs, infiltrating human systems—be it through water, soil, or the fatty tissue of the livestock we consume. And they found that there was indeed a pretty high chance of these buckyballs attaching to our own fatty tissues—even more so than DDT, the notoriously harmful pesticide. Now, to be fair, it was not outright stated in the study that buckyballs do anything worse than DDT once they get in there, but this comparison
was
specified in the report. That’s like conducting research that concludes that adorable bunnies are ten times more likely to be found in your home than murderous serial killers. Sure, it’s innocuous enough information, but when you phrase it like that it’s clearly going to scare the shit out of everybody.

Rejected Slogan for Nanoparticles

“Pentetratin’ you like you know you like it since 2002.”

But nobody was entirely sure what these revelations really meant for humanity at the time; as one panel member, Vicki Colvin, professor and director of the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology at Rice University in Texas, put it:

Other Disturbing Ways to Phrase Test Results

• “You’ve got more white blood cells than a vampire Klan meeting.”
  

• “You’ve got a higher
  

• semen count than your whorish mother’s mouth.”
  

• “You’ve got an ‘A’! And an ‘I’ and a ‘D’ and an ‘S’!”
  

One thing we’ve concluded is whatever these things [nanomaterials] are going to do, they’re not inert. What will they do when they get in the environment, and what will they do when they get into people?

If seeing that sort of fearful uncertainty from people who typically really know their shit has you a little worried—don’t be! That worry is totally premature; I would save it for later … when things get worse.

When the EPA finally decided that this stuff needed to be regulated way back in 2008, they started the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program, which requested that companies send in safety records for their environmental research efforts in the field of nanotechnology. The only catch? This program was completely voluntary, and the companies could omit literally anything they didn’t feel like sharing. So basically the EPA asked large, profit-motivated companies to pinky swear that “everything was cool,” and then followed up by asking them if it was “for realsies.” And if there’s one thing that massive corporations have shown they take seriously, it’s the honor system.

Later, a member of the EPA council, Mark Wiesner, director of the Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology at Duke University and former director of the Environmental and Energy Systems Institute at Rice University, took the art of issuing worryingly ambiguous statements even further when he went on record with his concerns about large-scale nanoproduction, stating, “People talk about incorporating nanotubes in composites that might be used in tires. When you drive tires around, they wear down, and so nanotubes will be passed around in the environment. Where does this stuff go? What will be its interaction with the environment? Is it the next best thing to sliced bread, or the next asbestos?”

The Scale of Greatness to Tragedy, According to the EPA Council

• Sliced bread
  

• Kittens
  

• Warm cookies
  

• Alan Thicke
  

• Mayonnaise
  

• Awkward high fives
  

• Asbestos
  

So he’s really just trying to say that there might be cause for concern here; he just worded it as vaguely, and as threateningly, as possible. He might as well state that this scenario is either a chocolate bar or a hand grenade; it’s either a new puppy or a furious grizzly bear; either multiple orgasms or blindfolded chain-saw surgery.

As far from comforting as Wiesner’s creepy PR statements are, it starts to get worse when you realize that he’s being literal. See, carbon nanotubes closely resemble asbestos fibers in shape: They’re elongated, thin, and bar shaped. But the tubes are not typically as dangerous as asbestos, because they have a tendency to group together, which alters their overall shape and thus renders them harmless. However, if they do split into single fibers, they can then inflict the same kind of damage that long-term exposure to asbestos has, like serious respiratory problems, and even cancer, say the results of a 2008 study published in the journal
Nature Nanotechnology
. So it’s probably not such a great thing that a large area of current nanotech research is dedicated solely to finding methods that make sure these things
don’t
clump together, but rather stay separated into their tiny, thin, deadly form. After all, asbestos wasn’t all bad: Before it started killing people, it made somebody like a billion dollars!