Slashdot Mirror

Choose Option #2 - Nanotech. The faster we get there the less we'll have to suffer in the meantime.

In all seriousness, if I was to go back to college again, I would not waste my money or time learning any field other than nanotech or cognitive science.

Why? Simple: When nanotech matures, it means that "Putting FOOD On The Table(TM)" is no longer an issue because we'll finally have the god-like power to cheaply and easily reconfigure the molecules in a pound of random garbage into anything else we need or want (composed of the same component molecules as said garbage).

Nanotech's about the only thing on the horizon that has the chance to reverse the obscene concentration of wealth we're seeing today.

--

any cargo which hits the moon at that speed...

Darn. There goes my bucket o' nanites idea.

If I'm not mistaken the article is talking about media mastering, not playback. There's a BIG difference there. Also, the article mentions that the market is expanding, which implies that they have either already sold some units or plan to do so real soon, not 10 years out as someone claimed.

Another point: If you read the specs attached to the article you'll notice the phrase "Vacuum seal air spindle motor". Unless they're referring to something different than what I've worked with, that means getting a rotating mechanism into a vacuum chamber using either a magnetic coupled drive shaft or a rotary vacuum seal.

And for those of you wondering how an electron beam DVD device is going to work with your current PC: Well, the simple answer is that it won't. Not unless you have a vacuum chamber sitting next to your PC and bunch of multi-stage pumps and gas traps sitting underneath. Electrons don't remain focused and usable for very long outside of a vacuum. They tend to either dissapate or show up as sparks or arcs.

And, lastly, to answer someone's question about a homemade SEM. Yeah, you can build one, and it's been discussed before. It's really not that hard, just expensive (you'll need the previously mentioned vacuum pumps and assorted plumbing, and a couple of precision power supplies in the 10 to 50KV range will come in handy as well).

With the democratization of molecular manufacturing, anyone will be able to download a "molecular blueprint (scan)" of any object -- including food, clothing, iPods, diamond, etc. -- and recycle local component molecules into that configuration. Of course this doesn't mean that you can transmute nitrogen into gold, but it does mean that you can turn the raw atomic material in, say, Ethiopian compost, into a thanksgiving feast.

--

As to why I claim that nanotech is a near-term probability, rather than hundreds or thousands of years off - it's because the law of accelerating returns convinces me that the future will arrive much sooner than most people are comfortable thinking about.

--

The use of Nanotechnology is the most powerful proposition...

I hope you didn't think I was talking about seawater droplets. Sea spray does contain submicron particles. And with toast, I was talking about aerosol soot, not bread crumbs.

You're not playing Chicken Little; I'm not throwing caution to the wind. I'd rather see someone like the Forsight Institute setting the pace for nanotech; you'd probably rather see someone like the EPA or FDA.

You're right that caution can kill. How about a real-life example? The FDA took ten years to approve the Sensor Pad, a simple device that makes self-examination for breast cancer much more effective. FDA put it in the same class as an artificial heart for approval. Their incentives are wholly on the side of caution. They're not accountable to the victims of their delays. Another notable example is the FDA's footdragging on approval for the home HIV test. The FDA serves a good function. But that function often comes at a high price. My point is that regulation isn't a panacea.

I'm not an anarchist, and I'm sure you're not a totalitarian. But we probably do have different world views. You're worried about DDT thinning egg shells; I'm worried about millions of people dying from malaria. You don't like asbestos; I don't like the thought of dying in a house fire. You're offended by car exhaust; I can't stand horse manure. Nanotech could be poised to drastically improve material conditions in the world. I'm asking that you consider the flipside of your worldview, the risks of choking progress, as you promote regulation.

When you impy we should wait until the best experts have given us a thorough diagnosis on the safety of nanotech, I'm thinking of the benefits we'll lose while stalled: cleaner cars, safer buildings, medical breakthroughs, better slacks. I'm also skeptical that nanotech regulation won't be motivated by junk science, liker other health scares (e.g. alar, saccharin, acrylamide, etc).

You don't need to buy Engines of Creation in dead-trees format; you can read it from the web.

http://www.foresight.org/EOC/

Lots of free resources available at foresight.org:

http://www.foresight.org/NanoRev/index.html

By the way, the reason Engines of Creation rocks so hard is because it's all about existance proofs. K. Eric Drexler claims that we will be able to build little machines to do this or that, and then he shows how there are already bacteria, or viruses or something in nature that does something similar.

For example, he describes a nanocomputer with moving parts. There's no reason to think that nanocomputers will always use moving parts, but there aren't any electronic or quantum computing devices in nature, while there are lots of microscopic things with moving parts.

steveha

You don't need to buy Engines of Creation in dead-trees format; you can read it from the web.

http://www.foresight.org/EOC/

Lots of free resources available at foresight.org:

http://www.foresight.org/NanoRev/index.html

By the way, the reason Engines of Creation rocks so hard is because it's all about existance proofs. K. Eric Drexler claims that we will be able to build little machines to do this or that, and then he shows how there are already bacteria, or viruses or something in nature that does something similar.

For example, he describes a nanocomputer with moving parts. There's no reason to think that nanocomputers will always use moving parts, but there aren't any electronic or quantum computing devices in nature, while there are lots of microscopic things with moving parts.

steveha

Although Freitas' paper is oriented towards showing ways to detect and fight gray goo, a careful reading shows that it answers most of the superficial objections to the concept. There is plenty of energy to create diamondoid (rock-like) nanobots starting with energy-rich organic matter. Specialized gray goos could eat things like auto tires or road asphalt and bring commerce to a halt. It might even be possible to create a solar powered replicator that could work in air, extracting carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen from common gasses. A single microscopic seed could turn the atmosphere opaque within days.

In short, there are enormous dangers from gray goo, and the only thing that can save us is that it will probably be quite difficult to design, so safer forms of nanotech can be well established before goo becomes a real threat. At that point Drexler and Freitas hope that we will have a nanotech immune system for the biosphere, "blue goo" (named for the color of police uniforms) which will be omnipresent and constantly monitoring for the signature of gray goo outbreaks, ready to attack with overwhelming force.

Sure, it's all sci-fi now, but it's going to be a reality eventually. If the Drexlerian vision of nanotech comes to fruition, it brings great dangers along with great rewards. We'll look back on the world of today as a sleepy, safe, comfortable time when nothing much happened.

Although Freitas' paper is oriented towards showing ways to detect and fight gray goo, a careful reading shows that it answers most of the superficial objections to the concept. There is plenty of energy to create diamondoid (rock-like) nanobots starting with energy-rich organic matter. Specialized gray goos could eat things like auto tires or road asphalt and bring commerce to a halt. It might even be possible to create a solar powered replicator that could work in air, extracting carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen from common gasses. A single microscopic seed could turn the atmosphere opaque within days.

In short, there are enormous dangers from gray goo, and the only thing that can save us is that it will probably be quite difficult to design, so safer forms of nanotech can be well established before goo becomes a real threat. At that point Drexler and Freitas hope that we will have a nanotech immune system for the biosphere, "blue goo" (named for the color of police uniforms) which will be omnipresent and constantly monitoring for the signature of gray goo outbreaks, ready to attack with overwhelming force.

Sure, it's all sci-fi now, but it's going to be a reality eventually. If the Drexlerian vision of nanotech comes to fruition, it brings great dangers along with great rewards. We'll look back on the world of today as a sleepy, safe, comfortable time when nothing much happened.

Plus, of course, the expectation in SF is both that the writer gets all current science right, and that extrapolations are (as much as possible) plausible. MC doesn't have to care about that, and it shows (warning: spoilers for Prey): he isn't writing for a science fiction audience.

Back in 1999 the Foresight Institute released the first version of the Foresight Guidelines on Molecular Nanotechnology. MC's "nano" researchers followed none of the major principles of molecular nanotechnology safety. Had they done so, the novel wouldn't exist.

That the WaPo article itself didn't mention the Foresight Institute is a mistake: it makes it seem like scientists haven't been thinking about this, when in fact they've been thinking about and writing about these issues for years.

Plus, of course, the expectation in SF is both that the writer gets all current science right, and that extrapolations are (as much as possible) plausible. MC doesn't have to care about that, and it shows (warning: spoilers for Prey): he isn't writing for a science fiction audience.

Back in 1999 the Foresight Institute released the first version of the Foresight Guidelines on Molecular Nanotechnology. MC's "nano" researchers followed none of the major principles of molecular nanotechnology safety. Had they done so, the novel wouldn't exist.

That the WaPo article itself didn't mention the Foresight Institute is a mistake: it makes it seem like scientists haven't been thinking about this, when in fact they've been thinking about and writing about these issues for years.

Imagine it as a huge mesh of strong, flexible, microscopic interlocking nodes with a distributed brain. Its density is so low that you couldn't see it in a volume as small as a glass, but like a cloud it becomes more opaque with thickness. Sort of like that aerogel stuff, but more XTREME(!).

The applications of utility fog are boundless, but one I'm sure parents would love is the "security blanket" for their kids - the fog would act as smart 24/7 airbag extending for several feet around the body so little Timmy never gets bruised falling down the stairs...

--

Foresight Institute

Institute for Molecular Manufacturing

Singularity Institute for AI

--

So what technologies are pursued today and almost certainly doable, and are widely derided or ignored by people who should know better?

Machine phase chemistry (The real stuff - Drexler)
Cryonics
Space Elevator

Do you have any links to any NanoTech think tanks or anything which talks about your claims further? I couldn't find any critisms on any nanotech websites

The primary MNT websites (primary because the people who really invented nanotech work there) are those of the Foresight Institute and the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing. Their people are the editors of the Slashdot-like MNT discussion site Nanodot. Here are a couple of news articles they've posted there about the NNI funding issue:

TNT Weekly: deletion of MNT study from nano bill is "a farce"

Nanobusiness Alliance spokesman attacks MNT

Granted. Feynman theorized that it could be done. He made a $1000 bet to his students that they could not construct a working motor 1/64 of an inch square -- He lost this months later when a student was able to produce it. Feynman was disappointed because he figured that the technology needed to get construction down to the molecular level would have sprung forth from his little grassroots project. This is where Drexler and Feynman differ.

The main difference between Feynman and Drexler, (and why Drexler deserves to have an equal share of the limelight) is Drexler is a more responsible scientist.

I highly recommend you stop on over to the Foresight Institute website [foresight.org] and see what Eric Drexler has been responsibly been working on for the past 20 years. There's an online version of Engines of Creation [foresight.org] available in which Drexler examines the hopes and dreams of Nanotech, minus the onesided utopia/distopian slant. Drexler has always been an advocate for technology to be developed by responsible hands (whoever that is) and asks Should We? as well as Could We?

I think this novel humanitarian approach to groundbreaking scientific development is a bit refreshing, don't you?

Granted. Feynman theorized that it could be done. He made a $1000 bet to his students that they could not construct a working motor 1/64 of an inch square -- He lost this months later when a student was able to produce it. Feynman was disappointed because he figured that the technology needed to get construction down to the molecular level would have sprung forth from his little grassroots project. This is where Drexler and Feynman differ.

The main difference between Feynman and Drexler, (and why Drexler deserves to have an equal share of the limelight) is Drexler is a more responsible scientist.

I highly recommend you stop on over to the Foresight Institute website [foresight.org] and see what Eric Drexler has been responsibly been working on for the past 20 years. There's an online version of Engines of Creation [foresight.org] available in which Drexler examines the hopes and dreams of Nanotech, minus the onesided utopia/distopian slant. Drexler has always been an advocate for technology to be developed by responsible hands (whoever that is) and asks Should We? as well as Could We?

I think this novel humanitarian approach to groundbreaking scientific development is a bit refreshing, don't you?

This could be the start of something beautiful.

Compare this with that.

But this issue seems to be fraught with misunderstanding.

Granted, it's offtopic, but the future is in Nanotechnology. It's a promising future for folks that stayed awake during materials science classes.

Of course, this gives new meaning to BSOD.

I'd start here.

You are not up-to-date on the literature. The questions you pose are addressed by Robert Freitas in the ever expanding body of literature on Nanomedicine. Specificially the recently published Nanomedicine V. IIA deals with biosafety issues and the 4 year old Nanomedicine V. I deals with things like power delivery and movement. If you want to educate yourself and contribute to real molecular nanotechnology, or as Drexler has recently suggested zettotech progress, (rather than simple nanomaterials which is much of what people talk about today) feel free to come on over to the Nano@Home project. We could use a few good developers.

Damn, after looking it appears they have let the domain expire. It was a great idea, don't know what happened to it, perhaps there's an explanation at the Foresight site.

Of course this would be even better. But you know --one step at a time.

I was hoping they had some artificial plasma as well. That would be miraculous and a real cost saver. But it would also be asking a bit much. The plasma is where all the interesting proteins hide, so it probably will never be suited to a dried form. But if it does get figured out, whoa look out. That will probably be about the same time somebody pinpoints the mechanism behind reprogramming after nuclear transfer. With an endless supply of human serum and flawless regprogramming, we'll be in for a brave new world!

Praise Ford and pass the soma. This is totally pneumatic.

In other words, it is nice to get away from the computer sometimes and just read.

There's been a few comments about how the whole wearable computing thing is silly, and "it's an MIT" thing. Let me clear this up a bit. Maybe it started as an MIT thing way back in the late 50's/early 60's, at least according to this paper. But I know Carnegie Mellon has been working on this stuff for over 5 years because they had ongoing wearable computer projects when I was a freshman there in 98'. And there's a lot of others besides MIT and CMU working on this stuff, just look here under the Organizations section.

This area of technology is already being targeted at consumers. Try to have a little imagination and realize how powerful this technology could be. For example, what if you had a little speech translator that fit in your ear, recognized nearby spoken speech in foreign languages, traslated it to your language, and used a voice synthesizer to repeat it back to you in your native tongue. Just wait a few years and you'll be saying "damn, I need one of those".

I think overusing the "50 million people die every year because we have not perfected nanotechnology" quote is a good approach; it pulls at people's heartstrings and is, in fact, the truth. Someone on Nanodot.org has been using this approach and gaining karma.

However, why do you believe it's 100 years off? All signs I can see point to it being at most a generation (20 years) away. And with each advance in technology, nanotech gets that much closer. We're about to start producing 32 nanometer interconnects on processors (the grid processor article recently posted on /. mentions this), and we've already created nanotubes strong enough for the space elevator, we just need to now make them long enough. Have you read Nanosystems? It's a bit much to get through (I haven't read it all), but it sets out a plan to get there from here (here being 1992) and was Eric Drexler's thesis so it was accepted by his numerous professors.

Personally I think the development of full-blown nanotech and the Singularity will happen at almost the same time -- within a year or two of each other. Why do you put the Singularity 500-1000 years off? (I would agree that perhaps it might take us that long to create a Matrioshka Brain, simply in moving the parts of the solar system around.)

I agree with community and family. The dot-com bust hit me hard and I'm now getting support from family (as opposed to welfare, which I suppose I could look into but ... well, not yet). So I'm not completely unbiased when I raise this topic -- what happened to me and many others will undoubtedly happen to close to 100% of the workforce, once machines and robots start becoming competitive. Perhaps we could allow people to buy (or rent? or have the right to own at least one?) robots that could go to work for them, and that might solve the welfare issue. (Not completely, but ... it's an area that needs thought.)

As far as virtual prisons, I was going a bit overboard there. We most likely won't have the technology for that for a few decades, so as you rightly said it's not something that should be on the platform for a 2008/2012 race. And as to the last sentence, prisoners could be given a choice whether to live in the traditional prison or to live in a virtual one. And if it does end up being something like the Matrix, then prisoners could learn much faster in a virtual prison and (as I mentioned) be better prepared to re-enter society. In fact, they might even be given the choice as to whether they even want to re-enter society; choosing the Matrix might be preferable, especially if they could "work" from within it as they so chose, in order to pay the costs of supporting their imprisonment.

But like you said, that's an issue to drop for the coming race.

There are some other issues we haven't discussed. Health care, especially eliminating patents on existing formulations (i.e., put a plant from the Amazon in pill form and suddenly you can mark it up 5000%? No, a patent should not be granted for existing biology). Universal health care? It sounds scary, especially giving everyone the same treatment regardless of how much they can afford to pay. If you can afford better care, you should be able to buy it; but the government should set a "floor" to the quality and quantity of health care you can receive. So yes, Bill Gates would get better care than you or me, but people with no income would still be able to see a doctor (I basically don't these days, as COBRA would have been like $800 a month -- impossible).

The environment -- this on

If you're really interested in what's coming soon, read up on it at The Foresight Institute and a Slashdot-styled discussion site, NanoDot.

Eric Drexler and his wife Christine Peterson started the Foresight Institute after Eric wrote the book Engines of Creation which he has now made available on-line. It was written in 1986 but is surprising still relevant. Eric and Chris also wrote Unbounding the Future which is also available on-line. His doctorate was turned into the book Nanosystems, which is a struggle to get through but has solid science in it (after all, it passed the review of his professors).

This is very relevant to the subject matter. Digital computers have created untold wealth for consumers, who can download any digital creation (music, movies, books, software) for zero cost (apart from the cost of the computer, electricity, and an Internet connection).

This is highly disruptive to the RIAA and MPAA (less so to the book publishers and SPA; people prefer books on paper, and software more often "phones home" with activation codes, preventing piracy -- except people then trade the codes). Disruptive enough that they have gotten laws passed to support their failing business models, similar to how the buggy whip manufacturers tried to pass laws stating that "carriages on roads must have horses in front of them."

My addition to this discussion is to extrapolate technological advances, and see how they will affect future industries. The truth of the matter is, no industry is safe from nanotechnology -- it will make all products duplicatable at zero cost. Like the Linux distributors, other industries will see their business model turn into one of service. And the fact that money won't matter (since you can make whatever you want) won't really hurt these companies, because they too will have replicator boxes[1] and will be able to create whatever they need in order to run their companies.

[1] -- (I understand your attack now: you singled out the word "replicator" and figured that it could only mean one thing. Sorry to give you that impression; I'm talking about reality, not a fictional TV show.)

If you're really interested in what's coming soon, read up on it at The Foresight Institute and a Slashdot-styled discussion site, NanoDot.

Eric Drexler and his wife Christine Peterson started the Foresight Institute after Eric wrote the book Engines of Creation which he has now made available on-line. It was written in 1986 but is surprising still relevant. Eric and Chris also wrote Unbounding the Future which is also available on-line. His doctorate was turned into the book Nanosystems, which is a struggle to get through but has solid science in it (after all, it passed the review of his professors).

This is very relevant to the subject matter. Digital computers have created untold wealth for consumers, who can download any digital creation (music, movies, books, software) for zero cost (apart from the cost of the computer, electricity, and an Internet connection).

This is highly disruptive to the RIAA and MPAA (less so to the book publishers and SPA; people prefer books on paper, and software more often "phones home" with activation codes, preventing piracy -- except people then trade the codes). Disruptive enough that they have gotten laws passed to support their failing business models, similar to how the buggy whip manufacturers tried to pass laws stating that "carriages on roads must have horses in front of them."

My addition to this discussion is to extrapolate technological advances, and see how they will affect future industries. The truth of the matter is, no industry is safe from nanotechnology -- it will make all products duplicatable at zero cost. Like the Linux distributors, other industries will see their business model turn into one of service. And the fact that money won't matter (since you can make whatever you want) won't really hurt these companies, because they too will have replicator boxes[1] and will be able to create whatever they need in order to run their companies.

[1] -- (I understand your attack now: you singled out the word "replicator" and figured that it could only mean one thing. Sorry to give you that impression; I'm talking about reality, not a fictional TV show.)

If you're really interested in what's coming soon, read up on it at The Foresight Institute and a Slashdot-styled discussion site, NanoDot.

Eric Drexler and his wife Christine Peterson started the Foresight Institute after Eric wrote the book Engines of Creation which he has now made available on-line. It was written in 1986 but is surprising still relevant. Eric and Chris also wrote Unbounding the Future which is also available on-line. His doctorate was turned into the book Nanosystems, which is a struggle to get through but has solid science in it (after all, it passed the review of his professors).

This is very relevant to the subject matter. Digital computers have created untold wealth for consumers, who can download any digital creation (music, movies, books, software) for zero cost (apart from the cost of the computer, electricity, and an Internet connection).

This is highly disruptive to the RIAA and MPAA (less so to the book publishers and SPA; people prefer books on paper, and software more often "phones home" with activation codes, preventing piracy -- except people then trade the codes). Disruptive enough that they have gotten laws passed to support their failing business models, similar to how the buggy whip manufacturers tried to pass laws stating that "carriages on roads must have horses in front of them."

My addition to this discussion is to extrapolate technological advances, and see how they will affect future industries. The truth of the matter is, no industry is safe from nanotechnology -- it will make all products duplicatable at zero cost. Like the Linux distributors, other industries will see their business model turn into one of service. And the fact that money won't matter (since you can make whatever you want) won't really hurt these companies, because they too will have replicator boxes[1] and will be able to create whatever they need in order to run their companies.

[1] -- (I understand your attack now: you singled out the word "replicator" and figured that it could only mean one thing. Sorry to give you that impression; I'm talking about reality, not a fictional TV show.)

If you're really interested in what's coming soon, read up on it at The Foresight Institute and a Slashdot-styled discussion site, NanoDot.

Eric Drexler and his wife Christine Peterson started the Foresight Institute after Eric wrote the book Engines of Creation which he has now made available on-line. It was written in 1986 but is surprising still relevant. Eric and Chris also wrote Unbounding the Future which is also available on-line. His doctorate was turned into the book Nanosystems, which is a struggle to get through but has solid science in it (after all, it passed the review of his professors).

This is very relevant to the subject matter. Digital computers have created untold wealth for consumers, who can download any digital creation (music, movies, books, software) for zero cost (apart from the cost of the computer, electricity, and an Internet connection).

This is highly disruptive to the RIAA and MPAA (less so to the book publishers and SPA; people prefer books on paper, and software more often "phones home" with activation codes, preventing piracy -- except people then trade the codes). Disruptive enough that they have gotten laws passed to support their failing business models, similar to how the buggy whip manufacturers tried to pass laws stating that "carriages on roads must have horses in front of them."

My addition to this discussion is to extrapolate technological advances, and see how they will affect future industries. The truth of the matter is, no industry is safe from nanotechnology -- it will make all products duplicatable at zero cost. Like the Linux distributors, other industries will see their business model turn into one of service. And the fact that money won't matter (since you can make whatever you want) won't really hurt these companies, because they too will have replicator boxes[1] and will be able to create whatever they need in order to run their companies.

[1] -- (I understand your attack now: you singled out the word "replicator" and figured that it could only mean one thing. Sorry to give you that impression; I'm talking about reality, not a fictional TV show.)

I first read Engines of Creation about 10 years ago (it was published in 1986, and you can read it online, or download it for free, at the above link).

A few years later Drexler published Unbounding the Future which is also available on-line.

In 1995, Ed Regis wrote the book Nano which is not available on-line, but was a much better introduction to the technology and ideas behind it, geared toward the layman. (Read some of the user comments at Amazon.)

The technology is inevitable; if we ban it, then it will be created in (and controlled by!) other countries. So we must develop it, and we must develop it first, because there are plenty of issues with misuse (diseases targeted to a certain skin/hair/eye color, nationality, etc.), terrorism, and world destruction (the "gray goo" problem).

Eric Drexler and his wife Christine Peterson created the Foresight Institute which promotes nanotechnology policy and research, and Chris is also very big on open source as a way to disseminate nano. This is where I got most of the grandfather post from, her ideas on merging our current model with an open-source-based model.

There is also a Slashcode-based site for discussion of nanotechnology at Nanodot.org.

I realize you were joking, but this state of mind is brought on by something more powerful than recreational substances: ideas.

I first read Engines of Creation about 10 years ago (it was published in 1986, and you can read it online, or download it for free, at the above link).

A few years later Drexler published Unbounding the Future which is also available on-line.

In 1995, Ed Regis wrote the book Nano which is not available on-line, but was a much better introduction to the technology and ideas behind it, geared toward the layman. (Read some of the user comments at Amazon.)

The technology is inevitable; if we ban it, then it will be created in (and controlled by!) other countries. So we must develop it, and we must develop it first, because there are plenty of issues with misuse (diseases targeted to a certain skin/hair/eye color, nationality, etc.), terrorism, and world destruction (the "gray goo" problem).

Eric Drexler and his wife Christine Peterson created the Foresight Institute which promotes nanotechnology policy and research, and Chris is also very big on open source as a way to disseminate nano. This is where I got most of the grandfather post from, her ideas on merging our current model with an open-source-based model.

There is also a Slashcode-based site for discussion of nanotechnology at Nanodot.org.

I realize you were joking, but this state of mind is brought on by something more powerful than recreational substances: ideas.

I first read Engines of Creation about 10 years ago (it was published in 1986, and you can read it online, or download it for free, at the above link).

A few years later Drexler published Unbounding the Future which is also available on-line.

In 1995, Ed Regis wrote the book Nano which is not available on-line, but was a much better introduction to the technology and ideas behind it, geared toward the layman. (Read some of the user comments at Amazon.)

The technology is inevitable; if we ban it, then it will be created in (and controlled by!) other countries. So we must develop it, and we must develop it first, because there are plenty of issues with misuse (diseases targeted to a certain skin/hair/eye color, nationality, etc.), terrorism, and world destruction (the "gray goo" problem).

Eric Drexler and his wife Christine Peterson created the Foresight Institute which promotes nanotechnology policy and research, and Chris is also very big on open source as a way to disseminate nano. This is where I got most of the grandfather post from, her ideas on merging our current model with an open-source-based model.

There is also a Slashcode-based site for discussion of nanotechnology at Nanodot.org.

I realize you were joking, but this state of mind is brought on by something more powerful than recreational substances: ideas.

Yeah, pondering the implications of nanotech for years can do that to you. Of course, it's easier for people like you to be pessimistic and overly cynical about the future because you didn't get the impractical flying car that was promised you for The Year 2000.

--

The goal might be different, but the methods seem largely the same; an eternal war that can't be won against a foe with a constantly changing face, surveillance of citizens in the name of this war [...]

At any rate, it was about then that we started the whole "War on Drugs" movement. I knew as it was being started that it was completely unwinnable; people have various reasons for altering their consciousness and nobody will ever be able to remove all of those reasons (I mean, children spin around until they fall down dizzy -- how can you eliminate that?).

You hit the nail on the head -- an eternal war with constant casualties on both sides which is completely unwinnable, consuming more and more resources because we MUST "think of the children."

Changing the subject slightly, we are in for an incredible conflict when nanotechnology becomes a reality: we truly will no longer need the "ruling class" and there will be one hell of a class struggle. I am looking forward to the technological aspects (physical items will be "free" just as music and movies are currently "free", although frowned upon; IA (intelligence amplification) will be possible and most probably required (the government mandates vaccines...)) -- however, I am most definitely not looking forward to the social aspects of the singularity, because things will be changing too fast for people to keep up, and people will start to revolt. We truly live in interesting times.

PS A great book on facing and traveling through the singularity is The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect which was mentioned here several months ago.

I think the rod logic in Diamond Age is more a mechanical thing. It is a Babbage Engine at the atomic scale with little gears and rods. This is talked about in K Eric Drexler's book that started the nanotechnology craze Engines of Creation.

The book seems to be available online.

I could've sworn I previewed that. Try again.

If you can make pretty much anything at home, using nanodevices, then information becomes the key input. But how would the auto industry feel about a Napster for Ferraris?

They would hate it. And they would be powerless to stop it.

Just like the buggy whip manufacturers were powerless to stop the automobile industry (although they did try to pass laws that required any moving vehicle to have a horse in front of it).

Nanotechnology is going to completely rock our world. In Engines of Creation, Drexler talked about a "retreat" he and his MIT buddies had at which they drew a line down a blackboard, and listed on one side the technologies/industries that nanotechnology would profoundly affect, and on the other side, those that would not be affected.

One half of that blackboard was empty.

Money won't matter when you can create anything just by shoveling dirt into your replicator. And "blueprints" will be traded on-line, not so much like MP3s but more like Open Source software. In fact, Christine Peterson (Drexler's wife and business partner) was heavily into open source technologies many years ago, in conjunction with their involvement with the Foresigt Institute.

If you can make pretty much anything at home, using nanodevices, then information becomes the key input. But how would the auto industry feel about a Napster for Ferraris?

They would hate it. And they would be powerless to stop it.

Just like the buggy whip manufacturers were powerless to stop the automobile industry (although they did try to pass laws that required any moving vehicle to have a horse in front of it).

Nanotechnology is going to completely rock our world. In Engines of Creation, Drexler talked about a "retreat" he and his MIT buddies had at which they drew a line down a blackboard, and listed on one side the technologies/industries that nanotechnology would profoundly affect, and on the other side, those that would not be affected.

One half of that blackboard was empty.

Money won't matter when you can create anything just by shoveling dirt into your replicator. And "blueprints" will be traded on-line, not so much like MP3s but more like Open Source software. In fact, Christine Peterson (Drexler's wife and business partner) was heavily into open source technologies many years ago, in conjunction with their involvement with the Foresigt Institute.

Engines of Creation is a good read about the possibilities we have with nanotech. It's also pretty cool that this was published in 1986 (several years before the internet really was available to most people) and he wrote about having online forums and large reositories of books/information like exists today. (and he even published the book online in hopes more authors would do the same.)

Hall, J Storrs, Louis Steinberg and Brian D Davison (1998) "Combining agoric and genetic methods in stochastic design" Nanotechnology 9 No 3 (September 1998) 274-284

the paper can be found here

If we have nanotubes in quantity tomorrow, I'll be the first to cheer, because you can do many interesting things with them on a smaller scale than building space elevators. However, I'm not holding my breath.

The present problem is the old "how do they stick the teflon to the pan" problem; getting them to play nicely in composites, and finding ways to manufacture the composites.

-- MarkusQ

Shameless plug: See also my page about an alternative concept which avoids the problem with skyhooks that they are incompatible with satellites.

They could put a link for comments about search results, and link discussion sites (slashdot and similars, weblogs, usenet, etc) that show links to this sites as possible comments.

The Foresight Institute sponsored something several years ago to annotate the web, called Crit , written by Ka-Ping Yee.

Unfortunately the site seems to be down right now, but it was a great way of adding notes to web sites. There was no moderation or "note ranking" so it was fairly primitive but a great start.

Karl Marx has already explained exactly where money is going to go... into the ash-heap of history.

You're quite right, although the singularity will be what causes it.

Nanotechnology will play a big part in this. What it boils down to is, once we can replicate materials (like in Star Trek) we won't need to exchange pieces of paper in order to obtain goods. Services, perhaps, but the machines will be able to perform most services and you can replicate the machines.

This should all happen within our lifetimes. Perhaps in less than a generation (~20 years).

See generally the Foresight Institute, but in particular: Drexler's books. Very specifically, Engines of Creation mentions this in Chapter 11 and it was first published back in 1986:

"States could become more like organisms by dominating their parts more completely. Using replicating assemblers, states could fill the human environment with miniature surveillance devices."

Nice, huh?

See generally the Foresight Institute, but in particular: Drexler's books. Very specifically, Engines of Creation mentions this in Chapter 11 and it was first published back in 1986:

"States could become more like organisms by dominating their parts more completely. Using replicating assemblers, states could fill the human environment with miniature surveillance devices."

Nice, huh?

See generally the Foresight Institute, but in particular: Drexler's books. Very specifically, Engines of Creation mentions this in Chapter 11 and it was first published back in 1986:

"States could become more like organisms by dominating their parts more completely. Using replicating assemblers, states could fill the human environment with miniature surveillance devices."

Nice, huh?