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

Nanodangers.

[caquillo]

Has anyone noticed that most of the nanodangers people are worried about are far-future sort of scenarios. Though I'm no Nanotechnician, I've got enough of a passing interest in the subject to know that scientists are not so much saying that nanotechnology is impossible(like the author of this article seems to suggest) but that self replicating nanotechnology is impossible. Now, while I know if it is actually impossible, I strongly believe that self-replicating nanotechnology is beyond our mortal grasp, and without self-replicating nanomachines, most of the other really big nano-dangers ( and many of the nanodreams ) become nigh on impossible.

For Instance, take any sort of nanomachine that affects a human body. Nanomachines are very small and very hard to make. Our body is made of many, many cells. To kill, or change, or even repair a signifigant number of those cells, you need an obscene number of nanomachines. Without self-replicating nanos, you're going to be using alot more resources to make the nanos than it will take to achieve the same ends through other means.

Most of the current Nanotech seems to be centered around production methods of non-nano devices, sensors of different sorts, computing, and biotechnology. (Biotech being it's own can of worms and a very different matter from nanotech, indeed.)

Clarke's Laws

[Noren]

The article somewhat misquotes Clarke's First Law, written in 1962, which actually said:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

He continued:

Perhaps the adjective "elderly" requires definition. In physics, mathematics, and astronautics it means over thirty; in the other disciplines, senile decay is sometimes postponed to the forties. There are, of course, glorious exceptions; but as every researcher just out of college knows, scientists of over fifty are good for nothing but board meetings, and should at all costs be kept out of the laboratory!

One should keep in mind Asimov's Corrolary to Clarke's Law: (from 1977)

When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervor and emotion -- the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right.

Nanotech has some danger of falling under Asimov's corrolary. Clarke's Third Law is actually better known than his first, and may apply here too:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

All quotes taken from the rec.arts.sf.written FAQ.