Slashdot Mirror
A Review of Nanotech's Future
captainsaavik writes "A Washington Post article today reviews nanotechnology - 'Nanotechnology, the hot young science of making invisibly tiny machines and materials, is stirring public anxiety and nascent opposition inspired by best-selling thrillers that have demonized the science -- and new studies suggesting that not everything in those novels is fantasy.'"
We will research, improve, innovate and ultimately implement nanotech solutions for one simple reason: we can. It's been the same right throughout human history.
The views of the objectors, no matter how well founded and how well intentioned, will not lead to r&d into nanotech (or any other new technology, including human cloning) being stopped. At best it might be delayed, but even then the money to be made by Big Business makes this unlikely IMO.
Can anybody think of any kind of new technology that has been abandoned, or even significantly delayed, through alleged (or real) risks ? I suspect new technologies are only abandoned because they are not feasible either technically or commercially (cost too much, too late to market etc) rather than for some ethical or environment consideration.
Never, ever lose a file again. Ever.
...the truth of nanotech's future probably lies at neither extreme: I doubt that the disastrous runaway growth grey goo scenarios will be true, nor will they be the be-all and end-all of any kind of physical and biological technology. They'll probably have many useful applications though, possibly concentrated all in one field.
FloodMT: crapflood Movab
... and I'm a friggin atheist. :)
Man, I can't wait. Of course, the greatest innovations of the coming Diamond Age haven't even been imagined yet, if history is any guide.......
(just wish they'd hurry up)
I found the fortune surprisingly appropriate for this discussion: "Never worry about theory as long as the machinery does what it's supposed to do." -- R. A. Heinlein
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
First, its going to be really hard, IMO, to get these things to autoreplicate as suggested. Shit, we cant even get large robots to replicate; how will they get nano-sized ones to do so?
Personally, I only see nanotech being used in manufacturing, but eventaully branching into other things after a century or so (similiar to the way computer tech has spread).
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
Does anyone recall the hostility encountered with GM crops in Europe and Africa? I do believe that corporations are going to have to take a good long hard look at how they are going to handle the public with regards to nanotech.
Somehow I get the feeling nanotech is a solution looking for a problem.
Religion is the main cause of atheism.
Because unlike Wesley Crusher, we're real human beings. I've seen plenty of examples of this - for example, the game Alpha Centauri predicted that we wouldn't finish the Human Genome Project until far into the future (when in fact it was completed within years of the game's release).
--- Bwah?
Isn't prey the novel were the guy actully has to run from the nanites that he sees chasing him?
If not there are plenty of other errors.
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...
--
Power to the Peaceful
One of the things that I appreciated about this article was how it only spent a small bit on the grey goo hypothesis. The folks who propose any kind of a goo should step back from the science fiction, and read some biochemestry and microbial ecology. Energy is probably the primary limited resource for replication and there just is not that much out there available to nano-scale machines or organisms.
The medical concerns should be taken seriously however. The Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology has a nice page that promises to be a clearinghouse for information on these issues.
so this publicity is probably a good thing, even though they never tell the truth.
I can still remember the days when these books hit the shelves:
"Evil steam-monster", around 1803, told a horrifying tale about a big steel monster that spewed steam, ran over everyone and made everyone cough very heavily.
"Lightning horror!", around 1877, very good thriller about artificially created light that made zombies of everyone so they couldn't stop working for the whole 24 hours.
"Tube of death", around 1926, which was mostly about a tube that transmitted moving light-beams and brainwashed everyone with stories about fictious people through their everyday lifes.
See, nothing to worry about...
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
A salient quote from a nanodot.org article on this subject:
--
Power to the Peaceful
The fears about nanotech existed far earlier than 2000. I don't know the origin of the term "grey goo" but I know it existed in the early '90s, as it is referenced by Ben Bova in his Moonbase series of novels, which deal with issues surrounding nanotech (unfortunately, from a purely scientific viewpoint, it seems..)
Is there any field of study of "biological nanotechnology" ? I have always found a big relationship in the way many biological features work with nanotechnology, but in a more comlicated and refines way
For example a seed, could be considered as a nanotechnology machine which develops an extraordinary system (tree) by arranging the molecules in it sourrounding.
__
Sig: Marine Stock Photos
I'm hoping that Wil McCarthy is successful in his development of programmable matter, AKA Wellstone. I want a Bunkerlite(tm) jacket! :D
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
The problem is that most people don't account for the exponential nature of technological progress, and instead project linearly based on the *CURRENT RATE* of progress. If more people would view technological change (in aggregate) in the same light as Moore's Law then they'd realize how much faster the future will get here than they realize (notwithstanding *BAD* predictions like flying cars and meal-in-a-pill).
--
Power to the Peaceful
Nanotech if it takes off like predicted will basically change society like electricty did.
:)
:D), over the long term don't think one single minute they would sell the nano-communists the rope they would use to hang them.
Want a new car?
br> Dump some scrap metal in the factory, load up the car image you torrented off the internet last night, and in a few hours you have your new ferrai.
We might start getting beer that is free as in software.
If you hated the reaction from the RIAA/MPAA, wait for the reaction of lobbyists for the entire industrial sector.
The objective value of any good is only the cost of making an identical copy. Which, in the case of the home entertainment industry, boils down to the cost of the mere material support, which amounts to jack sh#t nowadays ($.60/GB atm and dropping).
With nanotech, the very same phenomenon will happen: the objective value of every tangible good will drop to virtually nothing - especially with easier-than-ever recycling (which would definitely be a Good Thing). Companies will never manage to recoup development and trial-and-error costs, and might even be eventually replaced with an even larger version of what we currently know as the Open/Free Source movement.
Our entire society, which is based on the concept of scarcity and of a chain of accumulated added value, would crumble instantly.
However, while there have been some individual or short-term cases of utter stupidity among large corporations (SCO anyone?
Big Business knows and wants one thing: to keep its current position sustainable.
This is the reason I don't see this happening without some _MASSIVE_ DRM. Digital music is but the very first battle.
What if the question is "Want a new son?"
Indiscriminately spraying tons of DDT over every domestic crop in the world is a Bad Idea - DDT is a pretty nasty substance to have in the food chain in massive quantities; I'm sure I don't need to review the effects. But, if it were used correctly, the way its inventor intended, it would be the Magic Bullet against malaria, without wreaking massive environmental havoc. (Source: New Yorker article about two years ago, reference it yourself. Interesting tangent - the New Yorker was the mag that serialized Silent Spring, exposing millions to the book and launching the environmental movement.)
Basically, DDT gets lighttly sprayed on the walls and ceilings of sleeping quarters in malarial areas of the world. The mosquitos feed, then immedately land on the wall to sleep it off, where the trace residue of DDT kills them. IIRC, three bimonthly sprayings throughout the tropics would eliminate malaria while posing negligible environmental risk. But we thought since a little was good, a lot must be better - and we ruined it for everybody.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
This is what is both magical and terrifying about it. In theory, it will allow us to build anything we can conceive of. Are you aware that Titanium is one of the more common elements? It is a source of whiteness in the earth, and I seem to recall reading that it is more common than Aluminum. Aluminum was formerly one of the most expensive metals until 1886, when Charles Martin Hall started using an electrolytic process;A carbon rod in the cell is charged and the reaction results in carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and aluminum. Nasty. That last text explains what they do with the gases. You hope. Incidentally Bauxite contains Titanium. I remember reading someplace on slashdot about someone having come up with a small-scale electrolytic process for refining titanium from titanium dioxide, which is what's everywhere.
And then there's construction diamond, since carbon is (obviously) quite common and should be easy to handle. In fact we've accomplished a great deal with carbon already, both in and out of nanoscale. And the possibility for an interstitial "double diamond" has been discussed, though I don't have a link on that, which would be like diamond, only moreso. Of course it would have twice as much mass. But, if you can place atoms, you can make structures with both that and regular diamond.
So, obviously, no one is doing this yet. But if someone figures it out, the question is, who gets their hands on it first? And what do they have to say about it? It might not turn out to be a very difficult thing to build a nanoassembler. Even just taking nanotech for the advantage you get where everything is made out of the best possible materials, with no flaws in manufacturing (but once you get to assembly, all bets are off) and, once you've done it once, it scales as far as you're willing to feed it resources and dedicate space to it. It creeps me out just thinking about it, even as I'm imagining how science and technology would be advanced. You could build impossibly well-equipped armies in days. You can construct power generation and storage devices far improved from what we have available to us now. It's either going to send us directly into our next phase of evolution, or destroy us completely. But then, this isn't the first time that's been true.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The article sounds a bit alarmist. Nanotech is an extremely broad and interdisciplinary field. Most of it poses no more threat to health and the environment than any other technology. The main danger I see is a lack of government regulations to ensure workplace safety when working with nanotubes.
I've worked as a graduate student at a major nanotech research institute in the United States. Until recently, students were routinely exposed to SWCNT's and SWCNT derivatives without being informed of the suspected dangers to respiratory health. Researchers still carry out nanotube related work with no real guidelines for workplace safety. I've "scooped" nanotubes out of containers in the open air when weighing them for solution preparation, etc. There are no procedures for the proper handling of nanotube spills.
If SWCNT's really are as dangerous as some studies suggest, there should be an immediate halt to research until proper Federal guidelines are established.
Kurzweil is a madman and he is full of shit. This is no troll.
The guy says people have historically underestimated the future. This is painfully not true. Think about it: HAL, Flying cars, personal helicopters, nuclear reactors in your house, big settlements on mars.
People ALWAYS take a current trend and "overestimate" what that tech can do. Kurzweil is one of them.
Why?
Because that is what gets peoples attention. This year we have already seen Intel researchers write scientific papers about why Moore's law will end soon. Now these are the people that have everything to gain from Moore's law continuing.
Kurzweil is just a crazy optimist, and his articles are sensationalist, higlhly speculative and more often than not: factually incorrect.
Will code a sig generator for food
After having read the article, Yep I RTFA.
Good article overall. Points out that the extent of nanotechnology is likely to be less than some hope and fear.
The gray goo ideal is hampered by design, energy and speed/movement constraints which means that it's only going to be a problem if we haven't the technology to combat isolated outbreaks.
We can't put the genie back in the bottle, someone is going to study this technology and use it for unfriendly ends. The only question is will we have the knowledge and skills necessary to counter that.
I believe that restrictive regulation would make it more likely that we wouldn't have the resources to fight such threats. I also believe that there is a limited period of vulnerability until all citizens have defenses as part of their normal biotechnological compliment. The less restriction on research in the bio/nano technology arena the faster I believe we can get through this threatening period.
As an aside on "Prey", I've noticed over the years that Mr. Crichton has made it a point to use his status and writing talents against Bio and Nano technologies. I understand that he has every right to do so, but I also believe I've a right to point out such.
*chuckle* it's going to be a VERY interesting couple of decades...
*now* back to my regularly scheduled Thorazine dose...
Ward
. Silence! Be thankful thy species is unpalatable! .
Yes, nano-tech is unstoppable and inevitable, but that says nothing for how it'll happen.
l
As we speak, millions starve because people are afraid of genetically modified rice & corn. Protectionist farmers and extremist environmentalists are afraid of the risks (none proven to date).
People die from malaria because DDT isn't used to kill mosquitoes. Rational: it might (very unlikely) kill some animals. Response: let the people die instead!
We must not let bad PR hurt the nano-tech industry like genetic engineering has become anathema! Here is an interesting article on this topic:
http://techcentralstation.com/012804A.htm
Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
The question, of course, is whether we should value beluga more than the millions of humans who die from malaria.
Sounds like SF, and I don't expect to see it happen in my lifetime. But if we ever manage to make nano-replicators, this could eventually become reality.
but we dont need to use electron tunnelling microscopes to fix a Buick.
It isnt that small things start first: its that simple things start first. And a single celled organism is far simpler than an intelligent, multi-celled organism.
When you build things to run reliably, you need to be simple. Simple means less things which can go wrong. Complexity can do more, but more can go wrong, and its harder to fix if it does.
But, you can put in redundancies or self-diagnostics, but the irony is that you have just made it more complex; you need to first make sure you can trust the system which is giving you the diagnostic info, then you can accept its data.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
I started to retort about how easy it would be to build self replicating lego robots, then I got a clue and used google.
It's been done, as a college project.
The materials certainly are not just details when you're comparing
1) premade legos
2) smelting materials yourself from ore
3) molecules with valences, electric fields, and thermal motion
But I agree with you: if we can do it with one set of materials, it is very likely we can do it with the others. Smalley, however, holds fast that we can't build "real molecular nanotechnology", although as far as I can tell he keeps moving the line of his definition of real molecular nanotechnology, since even he can't refute that cells do it.