Slashdot Mirror


Nanotech Goes To Capitol Hill

akb writes "The Tech Law Journal has the rundown on a panel held on Capitol Hill by the Nanotech Business Alliance and the Progressive Policy Institute. The panel was intended to educate legislators and government agencies about nanotech and (of course) to drum up money to support research."

3 of 59 comments (clear)

  1. Small minds meet small machines... by corebreech · · Score: 5, Funny

    Who better to understand this new technology?

  2. Nanotech, and the economic disruption... by cr0sh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let me first start out by saying that I believe nanotech - ie, the real stuff: assemblers, etc - will come about some day - maybe not soon, but probably sooner than we think. I believe this because of simple reasoning - we (ie, the informed /. crowd) know that computers ARE software, and that software can act as a computer. This is a fact - software only needs a physical hardware form to produce results in a small amount of time - for software cares, rocks and buckets are sufficient. With this realization, it should come as no surprise that once you can create a computer based on nano-elements (that is, an atomic structure computer), then software will have come into "physical" form. At that point, quasi-"living" things can be built, via software.

    We see this in nature - it is called DNA and RNA - in fact, I wouldn't doubt that our first nanotech computers (ie, ones that are "general purpose" - yes I know about the parallel processing DNA "computers" that have been made in the lab), will in fact resemble DNA and RNA - and in fact may be based off of such natural structures, once we unravel the DNA "code" and how it works to assemble and disassemble the helical structure to form, well, "life".

    Once that is done - whole new realms open up - because software is then hardware - hardware which can be coded to replicate, mutate, infect - viral hardware, in essence. Think about that.

    Such a technology could be the "ultimate" weapon. It could be both the destroyer and the life giver. I believe we are on the cusp of having such great technology - but we, as a society, are immature babies - most of us are litterally unable and unready to wield the enormous power at hand (almost akin to another story we all know about, eh?).

    Such technology will ultimately destroy our current sociological and economical bases - all of them - in near a blink of an eye. At first, I am certain there will be bans on it, then companies will wield it, regardless of bans - because it would give them enormous power. They will try to keep a tight reign on it (mutatable hardware that is the embodiement of software - ie, IP? DMCA, etc - you see where that can head - is it alright to make a copy of that "nano-steak"?). However, just like life - it will escape.

    Likely, it will be one of us, or more likely, out progeny - who "crack" this code, and hopefully, release it to the world. This of course will open up the script kiddie floodgates of nanotech. I might have this backward - and these misuses will cause the ban. But it will escape nonetheless.

    However, we won't be ready for it - I have no idea how it will end or begin.

    But, I think it will begin with nanotech logic gates, assembled as a "blob" style computer - maybe deep in a packaged well on a computer chip. Watch for it. That, I believe, will be the beginning of the end - that will lead to a revolutionary new beginning. Whether humans will be human or alive for that new beginning I can only say is unknowable to me...

    They may get funding for this - only because Congress and the people as a whole are clueless when it comes to understanding what nanotech will ultimately bring. It is a pity that the same amount of funding (nay, much greater!) won't be made available to schools for math and science funding (as well as probably socialogical science funding, or whatnot)...

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  3. Re:*ahem* Nanotech Business Coalition? by tim_maroney · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nanotech is decades off. This whole thing was completley blown out of proportion. Let's keep it in reality, please. What's the point of even having a business alliance for a non-existant business?

    I've been a critic of nanotechnology ever since reading Drexler's rather silly book in the 1980's, but I feel you are mistaken in the absolutism of your position. It has become clear from the mid-1990's to the present that nanotechnology is real, and that nanotechnology has very little to do with the crackpot speculations of the 1980's. The movement has differentiated into the real wing, represented by among others the inventors of buckminsterfullerene, and the remaining crackpot wing, still led by K. Eric Drexler and other quacks such as Ralph Merkle.

    Which half of the movement is being represented here? Well, let's take a look at the overview of nanotechnology at the NanoBusiness Aliance web site. What ho, it's quite pragmatic. "Reporting, both from the popular press and respected business sources, all too often mixes up nanotechnologies that are just around the corner with those that are highly speculative or very long-term." Very true, and as polite a critique of the quack wing as one could hope for.

    Let's see what technology they're most interested in. Is it artificial intelligence? Resurrection of the dead? Medical nanobots? General-purpose assemblers? Smart mists? No, it's materials, electronics, and biochemistry, all of which have started to be affected by nanotechnology now. Interesting. Even more interesting, looking at their coming reports page, we see very plausible applications for the short term, and no bizarre science fantasy of any kind.

    So it looks like these are the people we would want talking to Congress. Let's give them a shot.

    Tim