Okay, here's the scenario I've had in mind for some time, and which I may try to incorporate into the book I'm writing -- IF you eggheads don't come up with a compelling counterargument.
We all love electricity, right? Because it heats and cools our homes, and powers our TVs and DVD players and PlayStations and (of course) BYOND-running PCs.
But, setting aside all the thorny problems of energy generation, what materials are indispensible to energy-using infrastructure?
My guess is that 99.9% of electrical infrastructure considerations, however complex, have a common denominator that could also prove to be a "weak link": i.e., copper.
And, if that's the case, then a nanotechnology designed to deconstruct copper -- degrading wiring into dust, but allowing for fine enough grains to support the human body's "Recommended Daily Allowance" of copper (assuming it has one) -- would, in less than a year, send humanity back to the mid-1800's: after locomotives but before the telegraph.
Come on, you scientists of BYOND: post a comment and tell me this is nonsense.
[Edit: if you don't know what "nanotechnology" means, it's basically the idea that you can build really, really small machines that will work together, and perhaps even reproduce themselves like viruses, in support of some goal.]
ID:3886
 Sep 14 2005, 3:25 pm
|
|
There are other things besides copper that we can use to send electricity. Any metal will do. We simply use copper due to the fact that it is very neutral and doesn't react with much of anything. Plus, its very flexible, good for wiring.
| |
I'm not sure I understand the question. Destroying copper would only make other metals, like gold or platinum, more precious because of their current carrying abilities. Since I don't quite get what you're looking for, that's about the best I can do.
| |
Oh, I get your question now. Well, as far as I know the only component required in and energy using infrastructure is the energy, ie: electrons. As far as I know, everything else is exchangable. Now, you could use light, to an extend, but I doubt it would work very well.
| |
It probably is total nonsense, scientifically, but the requirement for fiction is merely suspension of disbelief. As long as the fictitious world and all its components agree with one another, then all is well. Take The Matrix as an example. Scientifically, could using human beings as batteries to power a planet full of machines work? Probably not. But nobody thinks about that while they're watching the movie.
The scenario you describe probably would work, Gughunter. The use of copper is so pervasive that an innumerable number of devices could be seriously affected by their copper components mysteriously disappearing. It would be possible to replace the use of copper with something else, eventually. Eventually is the key word. It might take quite some time, people experiencing mysterious bugs, glitches, and hardware failures before anybody even notices that something is out of the ordinary. At first, some statitician would notice that hardware failures are up by 10% compared to last year, that support calls involving dodgy RAM or other items which are sometimes working and sometimes not are up. It would take still longer before somebody realizes that the copper in the devices is under attack, and still longer to pinpoint exactly what. By the time the problem is identified, and a remedy to the copper-destroying nano-bots developed, it may be too late to do anything significant. The world would already be well on its way to before the mid-1800s (sort of). Developed countries would be hit hardest by this, since their reliance on electronics, and copper, is so high. Some technologies would be in a pre 1800s state, and some in a post 1800s state (this depends on the particular items' dependence on copper). Even with the knowledge of how to rebuild something without its dependence on copper, it may well be impossible to do so. Item X would need to be rebuilt using a substitute for the copper. But to do so would require the tools used to build item X to be rebuilt as well. And the tools to build those tools, and so on. Even if the theoretical nanobots mentioned were detected early-on, if the only solution were to remove humanity's dependence on copper, it may not be possible. The amount of funds required to change the entire world's copper-using infrastructure would be staggering. If your theoretical nanobots go after copper in alloys too, the Bronze Age is right out. Bronze and other copper alloys like brass would be gone too. | |
Also, sanitation and other water-related things will go to heck. Copper pipes are in use all over. :)
Yay for copper-related page for kids! http://www.copper.org/copperhome/Kids/ copperandkids_home.html | |
<Off Topic>
Just a question: Isn't the whole problem with nanotechnology is the size itself? It could take an incredible amount of time to assemble even one nanobot. Thus, the solution is to create nanobots that assemble other nanobots. Now here's my big question... What if the assemblers somehow got out of control? They would go on and use resources to make more nanobots, which go and use even more resources. Eventually there would be nothing at all except a whole bunch of nanobots. <On Topic> The others explained it pretty well, but I believe that eventually people would realize what was happening to the copper. At that point people would just switch to another conductor. The advanced nations who would theoretically be so crippled by such an event would also theoretically have the most money available to rebuild technology without copper. | |
Being Nano robots. It would just take an EMP blast to destroy them, would it not?
If the bots were detected early on, all it would take would be the disconnection of every appliance connected to electricity and a massive blast from an EMP. Unless i am mistaken, the appliances that are disconnected from a power souse, would survive an EMP blast. | |
Oh yeah, for sci-fi, it works fine.
On the Matrix: did you know that originally the plot called for human brains being used as a massive neural network that facillitated the Matrix beyond what any synthetic technology could duplicate. Hence the need for humans and interdependancy. For energy they lagely relied on special systems set up over thermal vents and similar geothermal technologies. But the producers decided regular viewers would not understand it, hence the even more inane "human power plants". (Despite humans, and all animals, requiring far more caloric energy then they produce as heat by product.:-/) | |
Now here's my big question... What if the assemblers somehow got out of control? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo | |
I think Jon's on the right track here, although that brings up other problems. For example it's certain that the spread would be gradual, and this would basically lead people to replace failing products with stronger ones, even before the actual problem was identified. That replacement would probably be in mid-swing by about the time the damage got severe, at which point you'd have some major inconveniences, major economic losses, but nothing else.
Also, nanobots breaking down a solid material poses a bit of a transport problem. If you try to break apart the copper in the wire, it's just gonna sit there. At best you could powder it which would reduce conductivity but not destroy it. Rapid oxidation is a much more likely path of attack, but it would not impact insulated power lines and many devices. I also disagree with the theory that developed countries would be hardest hit; they'd be in the best position to recover quickly, having access to more materials. Developing or straight-out craphole countries, however, would not do so well; many of them rely on trade which would sharply decline, and many rely even more on the largesse of developed nations. Basically it's impossible for me to imagine anything that could turn back technology to a mostly pre-electrical level without going a lot further. It is possible to imagine scenarios which would temporarily but badly hurt the world economy. | |
'For example it's certain that the spread would be gradual, and this would basically lead people to replace failing products with stronger ones, even before the actual problem was identified'
Once they buy the new device, wouldn't that cause the nanobots to destroy it. Causing the person to A) buy a new device making prices fluxuate after doing this more and more often (considering that that individual does the same as millions of others) or B) stop buying electronic devices altogether knowing they will malfunction, once again causing the prices to fluxuate (considering the individaul does the same as millions of others)? | |
"I think Jon's on the right track here, although that brings up other problems. For example it's certain that the spread would be gradual, and this would basically lead people to replace failing products with stronger ones, even before the actual problem was identified." Even if you had identified it, how would you tell people? Internet? Phones? Messenger pidgeons? | |
I agree with Lummox, I don't think it would throw us back into having no electricity or technology. At least, not for too long.
You also have to keep in mind places may warehouse copper(like before mentioned, alot of water pipes are actually copper) and they would notice that it was beginning to break down. Now, the actual stopping of the nanomachines... that'd be for the real scientists to figure out. :P | |
If we have nanotechnology who's to say we'd still even have a dependance on copper :P. With nanotechnology we'd be able to make a manufacturing process for all sorts of new materials which we can't currently produce on a large scale.
| |
Thank you all for your input! You've brought up some excellent points and potential obstacles, though I'm optimistic that they can all be surmounted in my plan, er, story.
| |
Gold would be a very expensive substitute. Plastics that conduct electricity are being developed, now, too. And plastics are fairly easy to make.
| |
I'm curious, how would they make plastic conduct electricity without some kind of metal hybrid?
| |
It's metal's structure that makes it a good conductor, not it actually being metal.
Without wanting to patronise you, if the structure is right electrons move freely through the structure of a molecule (and all of 'em stuck together into a wire). The easier it is for the electrons to move through without bumping into things, the better it is a conductor (otherwise they bump and you get friction and stuff, generating heat). So unless my GCSE physics is sorely mistaken anything could act as a conductor if it was the right shape, no? With nanotechnology we could make hardcore new molecular structures, like super conductors! | |
But my guess would be if somebody developed such a form of nanotech, they would probably using it for something like, oh, replacing blood cells in cancer patients, rather than destroying the foundation of his creation.
But wouldn't something the destroys iron compounds be far worse? No iron, no steel, if active enough, no blood....