Slashdot Mirror
Nanomedicine
ATOMA writes: " The book Nanomedicine from Robert Freitas is now available. And it's free on the Web. With 10 chapters, this is one of the most technical books on nanotechnology, along with Nanosystem from Eric Drexler. But Robert has said it's not his last one; we should expect another two books on Nanomedicine from him. "
It's not a good thing when the government gets ideas about how to use new technology to monitor it's citizens.
Absolutely. They must never be allowed to obtain this technology.
The idea that you're proposing seems to be really destructive.
Absolutely the opposite: I propose total personal responsibility. If you smoke, you will be caught. Period.
Would you let the government or your employer into your home and watch you day and night to make sure you're not smoking or using drugs??
That's two different questions! The government, never, absolutely never. That is totally unacceptable to a free man in a free society. As for my employer, that's an entirely different situation: I have no "rights" whatsoever WRT my employer other than those stipulated in my contract with them. If I am bound by a contractual obligation to allow them to observe me in my home 24/7, then I must abide by the terms of that contract. If I don't like it, I am free not to sign such a contract, or to negotiate a better one. Naturally, the right to contract freely must not be infringed. You seem to be suggesting that you would outlaw such contracts. Sorry, this is a free country. Can't do that.
What's most important (and you seem to have missed this) is the fact that we will be able to enforce voluntary contracts between consumers and insurance companies, thereby making health insurance much cheaper and more efficient for those honest people who abide by the terms of the contract (I expect rules regarding intake of fats, salt, sugar, alcohol, and carcinogens, a ban on smoking and recreational drugs, etc.) and absolutely unobtainable for those who have violated such a contract in the past, or (naturally) those who refuse to agree to behave in a responsible way.
little tiny machines do the same on their behalf? There's no difference, really, if you think about it.
Precisely. The only difference is the greater cost-effectiveness of nanotech, which is what makes the whole thing possible.
dildo
Now just what in the hell are you talking about now?? I'm a liberal? WRONG, actually I am pretty conservative. But apparently anybody who disagrees with you is a liberal, right? Guess so. And you are really really naive if you think that "enlightened self interest" will prevent companies from abusing information like this. They'll own you. I can't figure out whether you work for an insurance company or if you are an actual fascist. Either way you're nutty. And what is this about my "duty" to arm myself? Look I am all for the second amendment and for the right of people to own guns, but your paranoid ideas are just batshit.
It is true that companies will do whatever is in their self-interest but this is not always the same as the best-interests of consumers,
Nonsese. If they act against the interests of consumers, then consumers (who have enlightened self-interest too) will turn against them and shop elsewhere. Problem solved. No company will ever risk that, unless they have been philosophically poisoned by paternalistic government interference, or unless they are a pseudo-business propped up by a state-enforced monopoly.
quite often counter to the best-interests of labor
If labor were free of the state of indentured servitude imposed by unions, workers would be able to enter freely into contracts, and the best interests of labor would be guaranteed by the workers themselves.
nearly always counter to the "interests" of the environment.
You won't fool me with that old lie. There is no conclusive evidence indicating that so-called "pollution" has any negative effects on anything. You can believe old wives tales and succumb to blind hysteria if you like, but if so, you are mentally incompetent and potentially violent. The community has a moral obligation to incarcerate you in order to protect itself.
Without regulation it is easier and cheaper for a company to trick, disceve, and otherwise screw-over other parties than to act in "enlightened self-interest".
I've already proven this proposition wrong. With regulation, companies have no incentive to behave honestly. Without it, they have every incentive. Q.E.D. Those companies which act in their own best interests will survive.
The free market seems to benefit a few of us in the first world but harms a great many less fortunate.
Pure gibberish. Freedom harms no one. Those who live in the so-called "third world" are the chattel property of slave-states. Any contact they have with free markets, or with the products thereof, is to their unalloyed benefit.
And you are really really naive if you think that "enlightened self interest" will prevent companies from abusing information like this.
You're out of your mind. Enlightened self-interest will do precisely that, and can do nothing else. If they abuse the information, they will be subjected to a backlash from their customers, and they will lose business. This problem, like all problems, is solved by the natural action of the free market -- unless a government interferes, in which case the forces are thrown out of balance and damage will inevitably be done.
They'll own you.
If the logic of the market dictates that this be so, then so be it. If it's a bad thing, the market will prevent it from happening. If it's a good thing, you'll be glad you didn't interfere.
I can't figure out whether you work for an insurance company or if you are an actual fascist.
You dare call me a fascist?! Have I not been explaining my opposition to Liberalism and other forms of socialism? Have I not stated my unwavering support of the right and duty to bear arms? Have I not stated my unwavering support for freedom of assocation and contract?
You are deliberately attempting to anger me, because you are unable to refute my logic. A despicable tactic, and one which has failed. I expect no better from radical leftists.
And what is this about my "duty" to arm myself? Look I am all for the second amendment and for the right of people to own guns
I don't believe that a Liberal like you is telling the truth about supporting the Aecond Amendment (Liberals are incapable of telling the truth in general, in addition to their allergy to natural rights), but the right implies a duty. Only an armed citizenry can prevent tyranny. Therefore, the citizenry has an obligation to go armed. Clear enough?
I hope you enjoy wearing your oxygen-meter to enable worldcorp to determine how much to charge you for your air usage.
They can't make you wear one, you say? They can hire troops to beat you up or kill you if you don't. There is no government to stop them, after all.
Free market needs government precisely to ensure that it remains free.
You're assuming no one lacks money.
Close: I am bearing in mind the fact that no one will lack money. In a truly free economy, in a truly free society, infinite wealth will be created and no one will lack for money, or for anything else.
If we simply abolish government, all other problems will naturally and immediately be solved by the unhindered operation of economic entities.
I hope you enjoy wearing your oxygen-meter to enable worldcorp to determine how much to charge you for your air usage.
They can't make you wear one, you say?
If I have contracted to wear such a device, I will do so. If I have not so contracted, I will not. If that is the only way to obtain air, I will quite naturally do as I must in order to survive.
You are really making no sense here at all.
They can hire troops to beat you up or kill you if you don't. There is no government to stop them, after all.
Dear GOD, you are INSANE! Are you on medication of some kind? Hallucinogens, perhaps? Holy mother of God your delusions are beyond belief!
In the absence of a government, violent coercion is not only theoretically impossible, but totally unnecessary, because the inevitable actions of a free market will ensure that there is no need for force. Armed thugs such as you describe are a feature of government, not business. Or are you under the impression that the children at Waco were burned alive by somebody other than the government? Exxon, perhaps? Proctor and Gamble, maybe? Heh. Indeed.
You are clearly an idiot.
>What I'm talking about is a truly free market,
>where you will be free to negotiate any contract
>you choose, and enforce it, all without recourse
>to government (read: military) coercion.
ummm... let's see: "and enforce it"?
So, how does an individual "enforce" a contract with, let's say... Microsoft, for example, when that big corporation chooses to screw you over, and there is no court system enforced by a police system supported by a government, (hopefully) legitimized by a democratic process, protected from external interference by a military?
AND, how does an individual enter into intelligent/profitable contracts with powerful entities without access to good information, which is only available when there is a free press, which in turn can only exist as long as powerful entities are unable to control the dissemination of good information... and this cannot happen unless there is regulation to prevent such control and abuse, and regulation in turn relies upon legislation, government, police enforcment, etc etc.
It is so strange that so many of the reactionary far-right ideas of absolute "free markets" are based on unsophisticated, utopian ideals of what should be, instead of on the realities of societal dynamics among advanced primates, otherwise known as "human nature".
:)
Of course, even a democratic government is not a guarantee of a better situation, especially if there are too many paranoid idiots with knee-jerk negative reactions to any concept of authority.
--lazlo
vagina!!!!!
pussy!!!
goatse.cx!!!!!!
i stop frequently and marvel at the ability of mindless technofetishists to gawk instead of thinking.
anal warts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
dick-pimples!
mmm... Finger-licking good!
Yes, I call you a fascist and you're a sociopath too.
Yes, of course. Your "savior" Josef Stalin said the same of those who disproved his irrational "theories". He then sent them to Siberia, or committed them to mental institutions: This is why you call me a "sociopath", of course. You declare by fiat that anyone who disagrees with you is insane. No doubt you would have me imprisoned if you could.
I am not impressed.
I've got to go watch malcolm in the middle.
This remark would no doubt refer to some sickening variety of interracial sexual debauch involving your wife.
People like you are destroying my beloved country. You will not be forgiven.
piss-licker!
I, as a rich private citizen wish to hire troops to enforce my point of view, there will be nothing to stop me, save the troops of other private citizens.
Precisely. A balance of power will be maintained. Furthermore, all temporal power will reside in industry, and war is bad for business.
Luckily we have a democratically elected government providing the force on our behalf, so we don't have to do it ourselves.
An absurd lie. We are at present suffering with the boot-heel of a proto-Stalinist slave state on our necks, with all its apparatus of murderous repression (Waco, Ruby Ridge) and confiscatory taxation (around the middle of next month).
It is precisely this brutal, implacable oppression by the warlord Klinton which first led me to recognize the fundamental and ineradicable evil of all governments, everywhere and at all times.
The existence of poor government does not imply no need for a government at all.
The poor quality of government demonstrates, ipso facto, a priori, the poor quality of government. Or, in other words: We tried government and it burned children to death in Waco. It has failed. We will now try something else.
If you stick your finger in a light socket and receive an electric shock, do you repeat the process indefinitely in the hope that it won't happen next time? I would assume not, though with liberals one can never be sure.
How, in your utopian free market, with no force of any kind, will you get people to pay their bills?
No one will voluntarily enter into a contract with a deadbeat. Once government coercion is removed and contracts may be freely entered into -- and freely avoided -- that problem will solve itself.
With no government, you have to break their kneecaps instead.
This also is a viable option. You will be well-advised to pay your bills when the government is abolished and we are finally free.
You should not jump to the naive conclusion that freedom will entail great license, or that when finally and fully free you will be able to do anything you like. Your actions and movements will be considerably more circumscribed than they are now, your standard of living will almost certainly implode, and at some point in your life you will probably experience mutilation or death due to late payment of bills for reasons beyond your control. This is the price of freedom, and one which you will gladly pay.
Just out of curiosity, are you a Communist? For some reason I don't quite believe you when you claim to dislike government. Your level of comittment to loss of personal freedom and privacy is a bit suspicious if you ask me. I think that you are a Communist and your remarks about government are just intended to pander to the far-right loonies to enlist their help until you win. That's what I think, anyway.
Your level of comittment to loss of personal freedom and privacy is a bit suspicious if you ask me.
Don't be absurd. In a modern economy, a maximum of personal freedom (freedom for all, including corporations) will entail the imposition of certain very drastic limits on any given citizen's range of possible actions, and privacy will certainly become obsolete. This is the price that one pays for freedom.
As I have repeatedly said, I am absolutely opposed to all forms of government, as they tend to reduce personal freedom. A maximum of personal freedom will be provided by a total absence of government. As I mentioned above, this will also involve certain regrettable but unavoidable side-effects which may, to the naive mind, appear to bear a slight superficial resemblance to a Stalinist dictatorship. The resemblance is, however, entirely superficial and of no importance. We are not concerned with petty material gains and losses. Freedom, absolute, unhindered freedom such as I advocate, is a moral absolute, and one must not count the cost incurred in pursuing it.
I trust that the above is clear enough to dispel the cloud of radical leftist propaganda in which you have sought to envelop this conversation.
In the absence of any balancing force, they will take control and effectively become yet another government.
In any case, you are entirely wrong. Free men will never voluntarily enslave themselves. Once government is gone, it will be gone for good.
In the absence of any limiting factor
In the absence of any "controlling legal authority", isn't that what you mean? You haven't fooled me.
If you touch an electric fence and receive an electric shock do you assume forever that all fences are electric?
Yes, of course. All fences are electric. I established this undeniable fact many years ago. Once was enough for me. I'm no fool. You, I assume, are still touching fences and receiving shocks.
No one will voluntarily enter into a contract with a deadbeat.
Sure they will. They do right now in many cases where there is no government coercion whatsoever. Trouble is, you don't know the deadbeats until _after_ they haven't paid
A man's word should be his bond. A deadbeat's reputation will precede him. Each deadbeat will get away with it only once. The cost of the bad debts will be considerably less than the crushing tax burden borne by businesses today.
Unless enlightened self-interest brings with it the ability to see into the future.
Objective reason, allied with a strong grasp of facts, will suffice quite nicely, thank you. When the government is gone, we will all have accurate information at last, and I expect that accurate predictions of the far future will be made with no great difficulty. Those of us who now have access to the relevant facts, and who are blessed with a clear head and strong logical abilities (such as myself; I do not believe in false modesty) are capable of predicting events many years in the future with astonishing accuracy. I have shared many such infallible predictions with you in the course of this discussion. This is the basis of my confidence: I have accurate information about the future at my fingertips.
And you will be well advised to wear your Oxygen-meter, because otherwise the thugs will come and break your kneecaps. You have already described such actions when taken by government as armed robbery.
Wrong. I have no contract with the government. "Robbery" is defined as taking-by-force in a case where there is no voluntary contractual agreement entitling the taker to that which is taken. Violence in defence of contractual rights is not "robbery" in any sense of the term.
If you take away the government, all that will happen is that businesses will start to do all the things you hate about government.
This is a patent absurdity. Government is not profitable. Businesses must turn a profit to survive. Therefore it is physically impossible for a business to take on the functions of government. Businesses and governments are fundamentally opposed, both pragmatically and morally. One could never become the other.
Obviously not, a true geek would be using his computer too much to eat, unless of course his obesity was from eating a small amount but being on the computer so much that he never went to the bathroom, in which case is not full of fat, but full of shit!!!
I see the Free Market. But where did all the free people go...?
If the market is free, you are free. I'm talking about guaranteeing you the freedom to enter into any contract you wish, and enforce it. Once you've got that freedom, the rest is inevitable and trivial.
And nanotechnology is the right way to prove it. with nanotech, we can, for example, build enforcement of IP law right into the products being protected: Your DVD's will not only refuse to play in areas where you have no permission to play them, they will destroy themselves and alert law enforcement. Granted, this is some distance down the road, but it's just one illustration of the way we can make this world a better place by ignoring the Luddites and trusting the objective, forward-looking people in industry. All we have to do to keep it on track is preserve a free market. Incentives and enlightened self-interest will do the rest.
Oh, you think you should be able to rip off DVD manufacturers? Tough. A contract is a contract, kids. A contract is a contract. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Don't like the contract you have to agree to? Don't agree.
Free. Market.
Got that? Good. Now quit whining.
Nanotech also opens up wonderful possibilities in enforcing other legitimate laws as well. There is a danger of abuse, but that can be dealt with merely be ensuring that the government is too poorly funded to buy the stuff. If they don't have it, they can't abuse it. Problem solved.
Next?
Marketing 101. _Repetition_ works.
raging hard-on
ham-humper!
turd burglar!
Hey, I said "almost!"
"Free to negotiate a contract" will need government and laws, because without those, a big corporation that is the only provider of a product will screw the customer of rights/money/etc,
No, no, of course not. That's absurd. If there's profit in it, and if there's no government to enforce monopolies, then there will always be competition. That's a basic law of economics.
Furthermore, the customer is always free to do without the product entirely.
In fact, it is theoretically and practically impossible for any form of coercion, monopoly, or involuntary servitude (taxes) to exist in the absence of a government. Anything the government supposedly does for you, could be done more cheaply and efficiently by private enterprise. Governments are pure parasites. They have an infinite appetite, and no useful function.
pecker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
.
ass-sucker
Are you a nut?? For a self described "free man" you sure are willing to surrender a lot of your freedoms. You're saying that health insurance should only be given to people who live 100% perfectly healthy lives, and nobody else? Hello, that's ridiculous! Healthy people can drink alcohol. Healthy people can use recreational drgus. And so on and so on, are you also going to require that people be vegitarians?
And you are naive when you assume that all of this information about you is less of a threat if it is in the hands of corporations instead of the government. Both big companies and big government are dangerous things and too much information will only hurt YOU, and it doesn't matter whether it's a company or government that has that information. America needs some sort of health care reforms, but this is just plain nuts.
jizz-guzzler!
We'll just run windows on them, so when they try and take over the world we can DoS the crap out of them :)
"... government
now there's an oxymoron
At this point in history, I'm sorry to say I have to agree with you. But we can defund government. We can cage the tiger and pull its teeth. All we need to do is enforce the Constitution, and one of these days the American people will get so sick of confiscatory taxation and forced dependency via regulation that they will stand up and be counted.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the right of Free Speech in the halls of Congress. You can express your political preferences any way you like, and contract freely with your elected representatives. This is a major avenue towards freedom, and the cryptofascists would whould close it are being roundly defeated at the polls. McCain's humiliating loss last week was a significant milestone on the road to freeing this nation.
We just have to go farther and keep working. We can't just give up because it's not easy. One day, we will transfer the reins of power to those in industry who have demonstrated competence to lead, and who have an incentive to govern well through a vested interest in prosperity.
Don't give up. Victory is not near, but it is inevitable.
You're saying that health insurance should only be given to people who live 100% perfectly healthy lives, and nobody else?
Let me restate that proposition: Insurance companies have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that they insure nobody under false pretenses. If you eat fatty foods or too much salt, they have a right to know, and to charge you proportionally higher premiums according to the increased risk you run of ill health. If you deny them that right, you are robbing them at gunpoint (government holds the gun, not you).
Do you consider armed robbery an honest way to make a living? Oh, wait. Of course you do. You're a Liberal.
Healthy people can drink alcohol. Healthy people can use recreational drgus. And so on and so on, are you also going to require that people be vegitarians?
When insurance companies have complete information, they will be able to establish extremely accurate correlattions between health and behavior. If your drugs cost them money, they will take it out of your hide, just as you deserve. If not, they will not care. Fair enough? I'll answer for you because you're a liberal and cannot be trusted to respond rationally: It is fair enough, and more than fair.
Both big companies and big government are dangerous things and too much information will only hurt YOU
The principle of enlightened self-interest restrains big companies from doing any harm. Furthermore, they have an undeniable right to gather this information. To deny them this information is to deny them their Constitutionally guaranteed right of free association, in the form of the right to enter freely into contracts.
Are you really demanding to have your most fundamental liberties denied like that? Heh. Yes, of course you are. You're a liberal.
Government (if we are so foolish as to allow it to exist at all) is (or should be) restrained by an armed citizenry. It is your duty to arm yourself.
If I have sufficiently developed medical nanotechnology, then my body is self-repairing.
This is a nonsequitur: "If grandmother had wheels, she'd be a train." So what? "Detect" != "repair". The fact that we can do one does not necessitate an ability to do the other.
Next?
He spent most of his life working on it. That's where he was headed.
Did he get there?
Get it?
"Intent" != "result". Count your chickens only after they hatch. And then again after they survive to adulthood. And then again every morning if there are foxes in the neighborhood.
I dont see why you're so happy about all this. It's not a good thing when the government gets ideas about how to use new technology to monitor it's citizens. The idea that you're proposing seems to be really destructive. Would you let the government or your employer into your home and watch you day and night to make sure you're not smoking or using drugs?? If not, then why would you let little tiny machines do the same on their behalf? There's no difference, really, if you think about it.
Give companies the lawful power to make you accept any contract or license (UCITA, DMCA, shrink-wrap-crap, whatever...), and the market is still free.
Wrong! Then market is then unfree, because the government has interfered in it. What I'm talking about is a truly free market, where you will be free to negotiate any contract you choose, and enforce it, all without recourse to government (read: military) coercion. Anything in which the government is involved is by definition unfree, because the government is a inherently coercive entity.
UCITA and DMCA are fine, if the customer voluntarily enters into such agreements -- but the customer never will, so coercive laws are required to make these things a reality. If you remove the government from the picture, UCITA and DMCA will vanish immediately. That is called freedom.
If companies are freed from paternalistic regulation, they will be able to act in their own best interests. The principle of enlightened self-interest demonstrates that the consumer will benefit, because companies will do whatever most attracts consumers. Under the current quasi-fascistic system, corporate America is so bound by regulation that they have become dependent and irresponsible. This is why we have quality control problems, pollution, etc. It's the "welfare effect", on a grand scale. If the regulations were removed, large corporations would become self-reliant and responsible citizens.
great. yet another example of technology humanity is not mature enough for, yet keeps rushing into
Enter the DirtMerchant
fire, rocks, water, and oxygen all being inventions.
Enter the DirtMerchant
This is fantastic. With nanotechnology, we will be able to monitor people's health with amazingly fine resolution. Imagine being able to catch smokers reliably! We'll be able to cancel their insurance instantly, with no time wasted and no pointless legal garbage. Guilty. Bam! Done. Maybe we can finally free ourselves of that disgusting habit. Drug users won't be able to get away with it, either. Quit, or lose your insurance: No ifs, ands, or buts.
We are looking at the possibility of being able to ensure a level of health that we've never even contemplated before. A whole new world is opening up, where we'll be free of all kinds of destructive crap.
if there's a possibility to make such a technology that noone will be able to copy it but yet many people want it (which is surely possible in some fields), a corportation will hold a monopoly...
Simple: If you don't want the product, don't buy it. If you do want it, pay their price or find another supplier. What, there is no other supplier? Tough shit. Meet their terms or do without. If it's an innovative product, you don't need it anyway, because by definition it's new, and you must therefore have lived without it for all these years ere now. So suck it up and do without, if you don't want to pay a fair price.
in a truly "free" market, what prevents Huge Big Company from buying newsmalljuststarted and iwannacompetewithyou and shut them down?
Nothing, other than an unwillingness to sell on the part of the competitors. If the customers really want them to survive, then they will be sufficiently profitable that they will survive. If not, then there is no need for them, and it can be inferred that the customers desire a monopoly. This is how a free market works: The customers get what they want, 100% of the time, no exceptions.
needed-but-not-profitable areas
A meaningless contradiction in terms. If something is needed, people will pay for it. If they're not willing to pay for it, obviously they don't need it very much.
Could be done more efficiently and cheaply yes, but that's assuming everyone has the money to pay for it.
In a truly free society, wealth will be created far beyond anything we can presently imagine in our government-chained state. Everybody will be able to afford anything they want.
I must disagree. It is true that companies will do whatever is in their self-interest but this is not always the same as the best-interests of consumers, quite often counter to the best-interests of labor, and nearly always counter to the "interests" of the environment. Without regulation it is easier and cheaper for a company to trick, disceve, and otherwise screw-over other parties than to act in "enlightened self-interest".
The free market seems to benefit a few of us in the first world but harms a great many less fortunate. If you are interested, here are some links about what the free market is doing to other countries right now:
Corporate Watch
Global Exchange
Campaign for Labor Rights
/joeyo
2^5
How many (important) inventions or dicoveries have been made in the last 50 years?
The microchip could be one that has really affected our society, but it's only a bunch of transistors made smaller.
After "flipping through the book" and reading a few pages, I'm filled with hopeless optimism and the ability for science to continue to contribute to the health and well being of mankind.
Is it just me or does anyone else stop every once in a while and marvel at what science has been able to accomplish for mankind?
Actually there are two paths to Nano nirvana. Thru biotech or thru "mechanics".
Genetic enginering and all that squishy stuff is but one way to do it. Different technology = different solutions.
So probably there will be room for both methods. The nano people are certainly aware of the biological solutions too.
Max M - IT's Mad Science
A higher-level page on this topic and book is at:
http://www.foresight.org/Nanomedicine
This includes a FAQ; links to other nanomedicine sites including art, author interview, and technical papers; and a writeup on the two challenge grants totalling $40K which helped get the first book written and the second one started. (Foresight is 501c3, so donations to the project are tax-deductible in the U.S. under the usual rules. Your help is welcome!)
Like the cookie cutters in The Diamond Age hey? Those things are cool.. along with all the other nano-machines in that book.
I think that as with most technology these days it'll only become mainstream after the military need it for something.
Making that statement, you imply that you are, that you indeed understand the implications of its use and all of the possible consequences. Is that what you meant to do? We won't know until we have it, and if were aren't and all die, at least we reached our maximum.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
To quote Eliezer S. Yudkowsky from that very same mailing list:
What you're talking about is not analogous to the Thompson hack; what you're talking about is more like a compiler that would recognize *any* compiler, even a compiler written for Pascal instead of C++, and which would furthermore refuse to compile anything that could be used as a spreadsheet. I don't believe it can be done, even with limited AI.
Female Prison Rape in NY
The site's not all built, but Chapter 2 is there. It looks like it has enough hard science to be valuable, or at least refutable.
Zax
-- We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms.
Does anyone else cringe at the idea of nanobots made by Microsoft running around in your body???
Would your whole body turn blue just before you died?
Who do you trust?
Perhaps you need to be informed of a recent advance in chemical detection technology. It's called a 'drug test'.
If this was ethical, they'd be doing it, but fact is, it's not. If they ever tried it, the customers would just say, "You're going to do WHAT?!?!?!?" and storm out of the office.
Lower rates are not worth the cost of freedom.
You might kno this but.... Everything with nanotech still realy revolves around the construction of the universal assembler. This is something that puts atoms together one by one, thus we can make these ultrasmall machines. You body does this already, but onlywith amino acids and protiens This book came out more like last october, because people were talking about it at the foresight confrence on Nanotechnology. I recently heard that the author has gone to work for Zyvex, a company trying to build the universal assembler. www.zyvex.com And for all your nano needs www.vjnano.com has all the articles you will ever want. And all of drexler's books are good, Nanosystems the least foretelling and most technical.
Just because we can create life doesn't mean we can control it.
-Eric
Remove the gov't and big corporations will jump any opportunity to screw the customer of more money. "Free to negotiate a contract" will need government and laws, because without those, a big corporation that is the only provider of a product will screw the customer of rights/money/etc, and who is free with that?
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
We did invent religion thought, and isn't that the killer of all times?
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
I'd really like to see that happen...
but it seems like nobody cares to fight this tiger. Conformity is the rule of the day.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
are there like any links where we can find Drexler's writtings on the internet, i mean... like indepth stuff... i've read interesting stuff liying around the internet, mostly short papers... does anything longer in lenghth exist?
Istigkeit -"is-ness" being and becoming & i'dfiying it with the mathematical abstraction of the idea
We could run Windows on them! Blue Face of Death...
Cheers,
Simon B.
If you moderate me down I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
Why don't you go ahead and die just now?
Good point. Which raises a whole new question: it seems that currently everyone wants to make earthshaking decisions, but no one wants to bear responsibility for them. How can be this situation amended? What society will be good for nanotechnology?
I betcha no one else has YET. Maybe Priceline or Jeff Bozos :-)
--
Infuriate left and right
People keep thinking of a tiny R2D2 unit crawling around in your body. The truth of the matter is that the resemblence at the nano level won't be there. We're already doing this with the molecules that key into receptor sites (like beta blockers) so the bad reaction can't take place as well as molecules that assist the use of the bodies own chemicals (like diabetic meds for type II diabetes) that help bond to ill formed receptor sites. This is also the reason why a large portion of the currently working nanotechnologists are in the chemistry and biology fields rather than mechanical engineers.
The Foresight Institute has full texts of 'Engines of Creation' and 'Unbounding the future' online.
- Read fiction at www.espressostories.com
Please report to the L'il Emergency Room, STAT!
Free music from Jack Merlot.
Before the ineviatble discussion about the ethics and morale of this research field and its attached dream breaks out (and I already saw some postings along this line), let me jump ahead of the nay-sayers and state this:
do you know what's the purpose of life?
for those of us who distrust formal religion (anyone who's not totally blind about it does at least a bit) and dedicates at least some time to reading about scientific knowledge, the answer is a resounding NO.
which brings me to my point... what tells you that the purpose of life for any living race isn't to survive at any cost? to ensure that humans never dissapear? reagrdless of the means... believe me people I don't just say this, after all i AM a vegetarian and care a lot about the preservation of animals and that sort of things. It's just that we just don't know.
you look at any living thing and they're all designed to survive. even death could be considered a mean for a species to survive (otherwise there wouldn't be evolution right?). we're all hardcoded with that instict that makes us follow the pattern that will make the species survive.
so what if there isn't much evolution can teach us at this point, and the only mean for us to evolve to survival is through our own means?. there's already plenty of us (some say more than the planet can hold with current resources), we live like five times longer than our ancestors, only the animal species we choose survive (except for like bugs and rats), there's no real threat from the animal world that will make us extinct (please leave ebola out of this). we're the only species capable of elaborate thought, the kind that takes the evolution process on its own hands, and on and on.
bottom line, ethics is a word we invented. the only suggestions as to what's right and what's wrong come from religious books that made most family values that eventually became government laws. add all that up and you have people's common sense (which isn't so common and sometimes doesn't really make a lot of sense).
leave the scientists be. let them work on new things even if they're risky at first as long as they're aimed at the overall betterment and survival of the species. if we stop programs that can save millions of lives because it will kill a hundred in the process (wasn't that the enola gay's payload?) we might be leaving our survival to an evolution process that's just too slow to keep up with our biggest threat, ourselves. the part of humanity that is not willing to sacrifice itself for the betterment of all.
and BTW, those hundren people that may die? i'm sure there'd be plenty of volunteers out there that are willing to take the risk
ok, enough ranting, and please don't just flame me, use intelligent arguments against my not so inteligent ones.
saludos.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
Maybe if they had, the gigantic oil companies of today wouldnt buy up any new inventions for electric cars to prevent electric cars from becoming better/popular... regardless of enviroment etc... An electric car can actually be much more efficient than a combustion-engine-car, because it can feed the engine any amount of power it needs... only problem is battery technology.
Yes, it's good to go both ways... if you keep going at it both ways. Competition is good...
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
The trouble with using nanobot-type technology for reapiring the body isn't that - it's what else these nanobots could be used for.
Here in the UK there was a recent case of a doctor who was killing his patients- Harold Shipman. How much easier does that necome with the use of nanotechnology? Just program the nanobots to modify the genes so the patient stops producing (say) insulin- you've now got someone who will depend on you for life, or worse. Autopsy reveals nothing wrong and so the doctor gerts away scot-free.
Nanotechnology puts the doctor almost on a par with God. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but one that needs close examintaion and discussion.
Said it couldn't last, said it wouldn't last... This is the last stand against tomorrow's world.
Fire -- look at all the trouble that's caused.
Wheels -- we are swamped by speeders and traffic cops.
Levers -- Damned Greek wants to start moving the earth!
Rocks -- people throw 'em at glass houses, for Pet's sake!
Water -- Titanic runs into one version of it, sinks in another, people down in it.
Oxygen -- contributes to all the problems with Fire, not to mention Water.
--
Infuriate left and right
Why the attempts to fabricate from scratch little machines that can manipulate the material and biochemistry of our bodies?
We have a ready made toolkit for doing just this. It is the finely tuned result of billions of years of evolution - the genes of the virus and bacterium.
Biotech is the future of medicine - custom engineered viruses that attack cancer cells, or bacteria that eat arterial plaque. These things are designed to live in us already - a few tweaks can make them do some extremely useful things.
-josh
You should always have a backup plan, and a backup to the backup. The more backup plans, the better.
Nothing wrong with going at something both ways.
100 years ago, electric cars and steam cars were more promising than internal combustion. Good thing they didn't decide right off the bat which to pursue.
--
Infuriate left and right
The problems mentioned by Bill Joy in his interview point out how poorly informed he is. Anyone who has been in the computer industry as long as he has, should know enough to "read the manual(s)" before offering uninformed opinions. The problems regarding nanotechnology run amok have been discussed for many years in the sci.nanotech newsgroups as well as at conferences for the Foresight Institute's Senior Associates. The basic solutions involve making "safe" (e.g. reviewed, open source) designs available while at the same time developing defenses against nanotech run amok. The Extropy Institute's Mailing List Archives, for example, contains recent discussions about encouraging the availability of "almost anything" manufacturing boxes (similar to Star Trek "replicators"), while discouraging the availability of "everything" boxes.
Diamondoid or saphire based molecularly assembled nanobots used in medical applications will greatly exceed the capabilities in of "biobots" built on existing genetic machines (DNA, enzymes, bacteria, cells, etc.) because they are stronger, can pack the "code" more densely, and can have more complex programs than the rather "ad hoc" designs that nature has provided us with. Most of the first volume of Nanomedicine is devoted to determining exactly what the physical limits will be on power, communication, mobility, etc. Most of the applications will be discussed in Volumes II and III.
Joy may be right that the technology poses a threat to the "human species", but that begs the question of "Why would you want to run on obsolete hardware?". Anyone who understands even a little astronomy knows that galactic hazards doom biological human forms to death at some point. Only those humans who choose to upload have any hope of living the trillion or so years that seems quite feasible. So while the hopes for biochemical humans are rather dismal even with Nanomedicine, the long term prospects for humanity, based on what nanotechnology allows are quite good indeed.
As far as nanotechnology background material goes, the best (nontechnical) source is Engines of Creation. Other references can be found in Eric Drexler's CV.
The intense focus on the idea of introducting nanobots into the body for the purpose of medicine is the sort of thing Bill Joy warns about in an article reported on Slashdot earlier today.
I paged through all ten chapters of the Nanomedicine article and I failed to find a single instance of the possible dangers of nanobots-run-amok, or the chance that a malevolent force could use them as a weapon. Without a consciousness that the technology could go wrong, or that it could be used for evil, Joy asserts that progress for the sake of progress could have dire consequences.
Marc Siry || interactive media professional, motorcycle enthusiast ||