Nanotechnology: Lessig, Sherman and Drexler Speak

An anonymous reader writes "Reporting from The Foresight Institute's "Vision Weekend", Glenn Reynolds (aka Instapundit) discusses the future of nanotechnology and the politics behind it. Also featuring a video interview of Lessig, Sherman and nanotech pioneer Eric Drexler."

Comments

Something for nothing?

[Bendy Chief]

There's discussion in the article about property rights and nanotech, particularly relating to the advanced, at this point imaginary, construction of complex mechanisms through nanobots.

However, I believe they may be putting the cart ahead of the donkey, considering the need of resources for the bots. That is, unless you don't mind nanobots eating your kids and reconstituting them into Nanobot Green. ;)

Re:Still a viable field

[Otter]

My (outsider's) impression, though, is that the stuff that's really working and holding promiser in the nanotech is far from the Drexler / Diamond Age nanoscale machinery that Reynolds seems to think is still synonomous with "nanotechnology".

Glenn is obviously a smart guy, but he's there as a futurism enthusiast, not an expert. I get the feeling he's been taken in by people using the real accomplishments of others to justify their own unrealistic hype.

Usefull?

[mobileskimo]

Is it just me or did that article have very little information that I didn't know or that I didn't already suspect. Venture capitalist are looking for shorter turnaround on their investment? Wasn't that news like a year or two ago? Potential military application? Political and legislation problems? Appreciate if the other attendants could provide some more focused details about the topics and perhaps your own insights and conclusions you have drawn from the discussions and presentations.

I found the links from the replies more informative. Thanks fellas.

Re:Excellent Smithers...

[Skyshadow]

mastery of nanotechnology could lead to the kind of military supremacy that mastery of steam power and repeating firearms gave the West in the 19th Century.

It seems to me that the availability of nanotech would actually completely outmode the current definition of military mastery.

Nuclear weapons accomplished (or are accomplishing) this to a very limited extent, but they're really hard to build and require exotic and hard-to-find elements and impressive amounts of infrastructure.

Nanotech, OTOH, seems like just an advance in manufacturing techniques. Given a properly advanced state of the art, it seems like it would be fairly impossible to limit access it the tech once things got rolling.

So, what we'll have is yet another dramatic inflation of the 9-11 effect, where once again the idea of how many people can be killed by a single determined person rises dramatically. It's been a historical trend over the last few hundred years, but I foresee an increase by a level of magnitude in our near future...

Re:scientists and possibility

[PhilHibbs]

I'm afraid that so often have "scientists" stood up and said that their emloyer's activities (I'm thinking PCBs here) are safe and clean, that I just don't believe them any more. A scientist in the employ of a multinational conglomerate is more likely to be lying than telling the truth, IMO. Same with journalists, I'm afraid, they're all looking at their future employment prospects with the big networks.

Nanotech and DRM

[SiliconEntity]

John Gilmore published an essay a while back that also tied together concerns about nanotech and DRM. Gilmore of course is a long-time champion of online freedom and free software. In his essay he writes about how nanotech could bring an era of plenty to all, but only if there are free designs that people can feed into their nanotech assemblers.

Gilmore argues that the problems we are facing now with information goods - music, movies, games, software - are just the beginning. In a few decades, all products will be in the same situation. Whatever solutions we find now will be the way we handle physical products in the future.

If we can build a world where information goods are plentiful and cheap, that is a good sign that nanotech will bring us a similar bounty of physical goods. On the other hand if we end up with an information market built on scarcity and high prices, nanotech won't bring the world the riches that it could potentially provide.

The ongoing content wars are even more important than they seem. They are putting us on the path that will determine the future economy of the 21st century.

Re:Very early still

[Steve525]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I work in a related field, and I have to tell you that all this discussion about nanotech is very premature. Except for the simpliest of systems (such as self-assembled super lattices), it's pure science fiction. Might as well talk about the environmental impact of warp drives.