i know what you're talking about, but it's just a lot of "if this happens, this could happen, and then this could also possibly happen, and then the world would be consumed etc" which is basically a very pessimistic view on the matter and a pretty unlucky 'problem tree' where EVERYTHING GOES RONG AND ESCALATES.

if, in the distant future, we did get into nanobot mass production we would be fucking unbearably anal about absolutely everything due to the dangers present, the worst case scenario being similar to yours i'd assume. if one small problem has a possibility of occurring, we put precautions in to prevent that small problem ever occurring and evolving into a bigger problem. if it occurred anyway, we would have more chances to stop it as the problem grew worse and more obvious. we would do something if a problem did escalate to world-threatening level, the real question is would we be able to do enough?

personally i think yes. but i find the whole nanobot thing boring anyway, even when i was a kid. if you're going for the end of the world my interest is in cybernetic enhancements.

Nanobots would likely require very specific raw materials to reproduce themselves. One cannot simply make nano-scale robotic components out of any stones and flesh and expensive Scotch encountered.

for the record i wasn't actually agreeing with the whole 'devouring the Earth' thing, i was just talking about nanobot technology in general, the worst case scenario typically being, as it always is, some variation of the world ending.

I think the worst case scenario is developing all this wonderful nanotech and discovering that it is useless at all its applications.

Sounds like that novel Forge of God, 'bout dem wee nanobots that devour the Earth.

Curse you internet, you and your flimsy articles!

Are you sure it wasn't an article about a story arc in a comic book series