Slashdot Mirror
Nanotech or Nano-Not?
LabRat007 writes "CNN has a story on the current status and future of nanotechnology. This infromative overview on the technology talks about current research and when we can expect nano-parts for our geek gear."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
The whole "industry" or "line of research" is at risk from reckless advertising/marketing and unending vaporwear.
The whole "nano" buzzword has been so prostituted that unless companies start getting serious about it and stop treating it like another sales pitch, it's going to go the way of the "dot com" or "nuclear", where the mere use of the word will condemn the technology.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
The probability of an all out nuclear catastrophe happening and wiping us all out is quite minimal - but the consequences make it far less desirable, immaterial of how improbable it is.
Do not get me wrong - I'm all for new technology, and I know how implausible grey-goo really happening is. But then again, there is enough malevolence (and stupidity) in this world for it to happen, and the fact that it may actually happen (as highly improbable as an all out nuclear war is) is the reason its prudent to be careful.
Its like genetic engineering - its awesome, you will enough benefits and unless we get down to studying it, we will never really know. But all it takes is one slight mistake to cause a whole lot of bullshit and set us back really bad.
The point is, you do not need an all out destruction - even a small accident will scare the public enough to bring about legislations which will put back genuine research and badly affect progress - this is what we should be careful of.
I can sense some similarities between the belief in nanotechnology (and why not biotech.) and the belief in nuclear power in the fifties.
When asked why, the answer is almost always: "It's 2014".
Afraid of CFCs? I think not - except for the nasty habit of destroying the ozone layer, CFCs are/were practically miracle compounds.
Consider freon - it works great and is non-toxic, and replaced horribly toxic ammonia as a refrigerant.
I do expect someday to read an article about someone having his lungs ruined by nanoparticles. Not because they turned them into a VCR or anything, but in the same way working with paint can damage them.
Anyway if you ever meet someone who's affraid of nanotech, just inform them that there are already nanobots that can construct new nanobots and all sorts of complex chemical products.
Tell them there are millions just in the room he's in. Tell him running away is pointless, because they are already in his body, millions of them, every cell of his body is already infested by them.
And if he doesn't believe it, let him ask his doctor what ribosomes are.
"People" are afraid of anything that's new, that's different, or that they just plain don't understand. They are also not above fear-mongering to destroy a new development that doesn't support their particular agenda.
"Nano"-anything is a buzzword, often applied to supposedly "new" technologies in order to garner funding. Most of the stuff that your link discusses is not nanotechnology in the classical (i.e. Drexler) sense, but rather nifty atomic constructs (various kinds of fullerenes) that are essentially just neat new molecules, not atom-scale machines. The "dangers" associated with them are the same as those associated with any newly synthesized molecule. But the "nano" buzzword makes them sound "more dangerous".
When anyone drives you nuts with "gray goo" type things, just ask them a few questions: Can man create machines that can fly: Yes Can man create machines that transport disease and infect organisms: Yes Can man create machines that can stick to almost any solid surface: Umm.. probably Can man combine all this into something that can stand on the head of a pin: No Nature can, it's called the mosquito, and by transporting malaria it's probably killed more humans than anything else.
Decode these
The CNN article is pure filler. What I get out of it is 'don't go to CNN for science news'. "Nanotech turns some long-held principles of physics upside down" uh huh.
When you look at it, it is much like cryptography. Sure, people like terrorists can use it, but then again, we can as well. If, on the other hand, someone other than us developed it (because we weren't allowed, for example), who is to say that we would have access at it. So when you look at it, either way its going to eventually be used for something bad, its just a matter of weather or not we get a chance to use it for something good as well.
Sig is a crazy old German guy.
It's about the coporate mentality. What you're saying that with this (and indeed all radical new technology, see GM food) the key is to move slowly and softly -- first do no harm.
However, when you know you can grow it, sell it and bank the cash in six months, it's difficult to justify to shareholders that you wait five to ten years to do so. It's another symptom of the structure of the company/coporation. I'm not taking sides, just explaining why it has to be done in a hurry.
Now I'm taking sides -- this mentality filters down to the individuals. Quick! Get a job, a promotion, get a house. Quickly! hurry up and die!
I'd rather spend a whole day lying in the grass watching the bees float around than go to work, and the idea that I'm then a drain on the rest of society for doing so is quite repugnant, given the way the rest of society has chosen to distribute resources.
Its not the same.
The micro-organisms you're talking about are natural and have evolved slowly. The organisms in which they residehave had a chance to evolve with them. The larger organisms either aren't harmed by them, or depend on them for their very existence. If they had been harmful and widespread the two would not have co-existed, with one or both species dying off or becoming rare.
In comes mankind. Able to make multiple gigantic changes to ecological environments large and small in an evolutionary blink of an eye... changing balances here and there for reasons that are far removed from that natural system. Yeah sure the systems might establish a new equlibrium...but do you want to risk your life or the life of the species on it. That's exactly what we do when we allow profit to come before saftey with new fundamental technologies.
Faster simply isn't always better. Taking the time to study the effects of what we're doing to ourselves and our environment is worthwhile.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
The truth is, while many new academic centers are going up because the research funding is there, little or no real nanotech is being done. The grant-writers know what to go after. Noble speeches are given at groundbreaking. But the core of the federally funded "nanotechnology" movement is allergic to the concepts put forth first by Richard Feynman, and developed by Drexler and others since. The movement is owned and the vision scripted by chemists beholden to their own particular culture and party line. It's financial opportunism pure and simple. It's fine that scientists will get some funding to do some work, but unfortunate that the most ambitious long-range research will be cut out of this process.
Nanotechnology *now* means any process for determining structure or composition at a molecular scale.
It didn't used to. The problem isn't that the public doesn't understand what nanotech is. The problem is that the chemist have redefined it and are catching flack because public conciousness hasn't caught up.
Nanotech, as originally defined, really does mean nanoscale universal assemblers. Grey goo, of course, is universal assemblers gone amock. Neither is of great concern right now as actuall implimentation is far, far off and may always be.
Researchers started labling physical chemistry "nanotech", probably because it sounded cool and got people excited. That helps for getting funding, recognition, etc but it also creates fear in the public.
If the "new nanotech" community is concerned about negative publiciy, then I really have no sympathy. If you co-opt a pre-existing sci-fi'esc term, you take the good with the bad.
I worked in this field 12 years ago doing a Ph.D. in chemistry. My project was self-assembling monomers that could be polymerized to make electrically conducting polymers.
For disclosure, I'm no longer a chemist, and haven't kept abreast of the state of the art in this field. However, in ten years since I left the field I'm not aware of any great strides or breakthrough products. I really believe it will be 20-25 years before consumer applications are readily available.
Caveat, it's been at least 25 years since I heard a physicist claim it would be 20 years before fusion reactors came online!
There is another issue that I am not sure was touched upon, either in the article, or in any of the posts I was patient enough to read up until now. This issue is that of the 'surface tension' of the bulk product.
By this I mean that there is a thermodynamic drive to make particles of a certain size: anything smaller than this size, which varies from one material to another, and you get instability. For those of you that like fancy catch phrases, think in terms of Brownian Motion, and in Quantum Confinement: There are concerns that we are reaching a lower limit for detail on cpu's because of these very same things.
Now, the engineering problems that are caused by these quantum mechanical effects are non trivial, to say the least, and just controlling the shape of something too small to manipulate is a massive problem that takes years to deduce: you have to manipulate phase transitions from one crystal form to another, vary concentrations....etc, etc.
It is no surprise to me that this is taking so long.
Seeing how I and all known living matter is composed of such nanobots, I'd say the theory is quite well tested...
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
... is not "gray goo", but the collapse of our economic system.
;p), just as oil companies routinely do.
Think about it. Right now the objective value of music, movies and software is nil. After all, you can get an exact copy for the mere cost of its material substrate (ie at under $1 per Gb, not much).
(now if you really like an artist and are willing to buy the original CD and go to her/his concert to support her/him, this is another matter. But I'm talking about objective value, not subjective value here. Nothing prevents me but morals from downloading her/his works off Kazaa although I do really love them after all!)
Fast forward to 2050. As the first company starts mass-marketing home universal replicators, hardly anyone remembers of those petty cartels known as the **AA. Hardly anyone expects the turmoil ahead.
Just as the **AA failed to realize it was doomed because what the objective value of what it was selling suddenly dropped to zero (or to rather the mere cost of its material substrate, which is -> 0 with infinite recycling), every industrial company on the planet goes Chapter 11 as the concept of rarity vanishes with them.
While the collapse of our current economic system wouldn't necessarily be a Bad Thing, it would definitely be to Big Business and Big Government... Thus I expect such breakthroughs to be swept under the rug in any manner deemed necessary (buy-out, assassination...
Or it could happen, provided the **AA manages to pull off a massive and effective DRM scheme which would then be reused to prevent you from building your own Ferrari in your garage for $100 worth of aluminium... or was it your own Flying Anthrax Spreading Device? (sound of black helicopters hovering nearby)
For some reason I don't believe in the technical efficiency of DRM - every Maginot line has its flaw that will eventually be found out. The **AA will die a painful and well-deserved death. To put it in a nutshell, I for one do not yet welcome our new nanobot overlords.
Try this
Aside from social needs (hospitals, internet service, transportation, government) there won't be a whole heck of a lot left for people to do. Expect the cost of physical labour (and people's incomes from that) to dwindle. Expect the cost of goods to do likewise. "Knowledge workers" who design new items, the recipes for which can be sold over the Internet will do well. These will be people who know How Things Work, and who are currently emplloyed in the manufacturing industry, so at least some people will make the transition nicely.
In a lot of ways it will be good. It will remove a lot of resource bottlenecks such as food, water, oil, .. chocolate. :-) How it will impact our need for energy depends on the efficiency of the technology. Will the energy cost to make a barrel of oil be higher than a barrel of oil? If not, we're in good shape. If so, then we would be in for interesting times.
[ReidNews]
The trick is to make the nanobots really stupid. This might sound funny, but look how successful (and useful) bacteria are. They certainly aren't one-size-fits-all, but each is remarkably suited for it's task. Ultimately, there are only two ways nanotechnology will work: very stupid, autonomous, specific-use nanobots; or very stupid, externally controlled, general-use nanobots. Keep in mind, even a nanoscale cube, packed with transistors of 1 nm cude, will only have 1 million transistors, and nothing else.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?