Slashdot Mirror
Diamond Age Approaching?
CosmicDreams writes "The CRN (Center for Responsible Nanotechnology) reports that nanofactories (like the ones that were installed in every home in Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age) will arrive "almost certainly within 20 years". In short they claim that molecular nanotechnology manufacturing will solve many of the world's problems, catalyze a technologic revolution, and start the greatest arms race we've ever seen. They conclude the risks are so great that we should discuss how to deal with this technology so that we don't kill each other when it arrives."
To avoid killing each other?
If I were in Washington, I'd wonder what the point would be to that.
One of the great promises of nanotech are mini-attack bots which can eliminate cancer cells, viruses, germs, etc etc. What, though, will happen when someone comes up with a way to attack cells based on the DNA within? Racial cleansing, removal of unworthies from the pool. It may not happen but it very well could if they don't come up with global policies and laws. (even then...)
Yeah, that's likely far in the future but 50 years ago a desktop computer was impossible.
Trolling is a art,
There has been talk after every revolution that we're going to destroy ourselves. For better or for worse, I sometimes doubt its possible. We're like cockroaches.. even our most fatal diseases end up having a few people immune to them. Every technology comes along and integrates itself into our society. These will too. I'm not really worried.
Oh NO! I guess we will all start listening to Crappy Music until we go insane!!!
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
"almost certainly within 20 years"...so right after those flying cars and human-equivalent AI that are about 10 years off, right?
No there won't be nanofactories in everybody's homes in 20 years, that's nonsense! I'd be surprised if there were any within 100 years. And it is naive to think they'll be put to use solving the worlds problems.
SURELY NOT!!!!!
I've written in my journal about their proclaimed timeline. Excert here:
"The Space Shuttle took less than ten years to design and build, from 1972 to 1981. The atomic bomb took only three years, from 1942 to 1945. Both of these programs involved more new science research and more development of new technologies and techniques than an assembler program would likely require. As analyzed above, they probably cost more too. The main question in estimating a timeline for fabricator development, then, is when it will be technically and politically feasible. There are probably five or more nations, and perhaps several large companies, that could finance a molecular fabricator effort starting in this decade. The technical feasibility depends on the enabling technologies. Even a single present-day technology, dip-pen nanolithography, may be able to fabricate an entire proto-fabricator with sufficient effort. At this point, we have not seen anything to make us believe that a five-year $10 billion fabricator project, starting today, would be infeasible, though we don't yet know enough to estimate its chance of success. Five years from now, we expect that a five-year project will be obviously feasible, and its cost may be well under $5 billion."
source
Journal
Go Gusties
"and start the greatest arms race we've ever seen. They conclude the risks are so great that we should discuss how to deal with this technology so that we don't kill each other when it arrives."
50 B.C. - What a terrible weapon the catapult is!
600 A.D. - What a terrible weapon the crossbow is!
1550 A.D. - What a terrible weapon the cannon is!
1865 A.D. - What a terrible weapon the machine gun is!
1945 A.D. - What a terrible weapon nuclear weapons are!
2004 A.D. - What a terrible weapon nanotechnology is!
we have been hearing the same stuff since the beginning of history.
Im sure we will be JUST FINE.
In other news, Center Dedicated To Promoting Specific Technology reports that Technology, which is just around the corner, will revolutionize the economy, end world hunger, provide limitless energy, and make your teeth whiter while you sleep.
All in about 20 years, by which you will well have forgotten this press release.
Nothing to see here, move along.
"Molecular nanotechnology will be a significant breakthrough, comparable perhaps to the Industrial Revolution--but compressed into a few years. This has the potential to disrupt many aspects of society and politics. The power of the technology may cause two competing nations to enter a disruptive and unstable arms race. Weapons and surveillance devices could be made small, cheap, powerful, and very numerous. Cheap manufacturing and duplication of designs could lead to economic upheaval. Overuse of inexpensive products could cause widespread environmental damage. Attempts to control these and other risks may lead to abusive restrictions, or create demand for a black market that would be very risky and almost impossible to stop; small nanofactories will be very easy to smuggle, and fully dangerous. There are numerous severe risks--including several different kinds of risk--that cannot all be prevented with the same approach. Simple, one-track solutions cannot work. The right answer is unlikely to evolve without careful planning." There is a lot of subjective inuendo in this but I am not convinced that this will lead to anything more dangerous than what we have now. I just love when people start crying about the sky falling!
and start the greatest arms race we've ever seen.
Awesome! There is nothing better than a watching limbs battle it for supremecy on a mile oval!
Although I may be more excited about the detached ankle crawl obsticle course.
there was a program in the uk about this, DeBeers had a method for finding manafactured diamonds... it worked on the sub-atomic level, at that scale its indistingushable from a natrually formed on to the naked eye
It is my opinion that since the dawn of literacy, People have been predicting the impending doom caused by new technology. Anyone ever read about how ther were worried about setting the hydrogen in the air on fire when they did the Manhattan Project? Yes, as any boy scout will tell you, being prapared is usually a good thing, but please can the gloom-n-doom because the world isn't going to end just because we made really small machines. *grumble*
Lagito ergo expectabo
"Well, we were pretty sure that Saddam Hussein III had at least 18 microscopic nuclear warheads hidden in the Arabian desert. We've not found them yet, but we will! We will!"
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Queue in the Grey Goo theorists. Personally, it's probably be to humanities benefit to be turned into a nanomechanic slop if we're irresponsible enough to make this buggers self-replicate without a suicide switch.
I welcome the diamond age - it is nice to finally put the bronze age behind us. I look forward to my diamond ax head.
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
While the nano-replicators Stephenson envisions in Diamond Age are pretty cool the two things not well discussed were the source of raw materials (glossed over) and the power source (not discussed at all). We've still got a long way to go before these things can be worked out.
-The whole world is going to hell and I'm driving the bus...
"Secrecy is the Beginning of Tyranny" "No intelligent man has any respect for an unjust law" -Robert Heinlein
Burbank, CA - The CRP (Center for Responsible Predictions) reports that articles
about nanotechnology (especially ones that mention Neil Stephenson and/or Eric Drexler)
will "almost certainly" contain over-optimistic estimates of the arrival of nanoassemblers.
In short, these claims will be far enough in the future to protect the prognosticators
from immediate ridicule, while still appearing chillingly close.
I for one welcome our DeBeers overlords...
actually on second thought... no, no I don't... I sure hope synthetic diamond making catches on and that diamond prices finally come down to reality.
e.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
How exactly does one write code for the placement of billions of molecules? Is it algorithmic or a huge array?
peace,
-Grokent
It seems like these days someone manages to predict all the new tech before it comes out. Has it always been this way? Did people see the atom bomb coming before it did? Because I have to say, this prediction thing is really taking the fun out of everything. Rather then being plesantly suprised by new things I am just pissed that I can't buy stuff I'm reading about.
...the pointed stick.
I, for one, welcome our gooey gray overlords. Anything that doesn't kill us makes us stronger.
Really though, everything is going to cause the end of the world within 20 years these days. Did you know 15% of the world's methane comes from cow farts? And that methane is one of the worst greenhouse gases? And as Al Gore said back in the early 70's, we'll be dead by the late 90's if we don't stop driving cars. And everyone wants to blow everyone up nowadays anyway, so...screw it. Have a drink, sit back, get yourself a pretty friend, and get a perspective that takes things from scary to amusing.
No not the "Source", the source of this article. They say in their FAQ:
"What is your source of funding?
Got any ideas?? Seriously..."
That noted I can't wait to install Linux on my new matter compiler and go to work on some serious hardware using my pirate material templates.
"I'm just here to regulate funkyness." - James Gandolfini, as Winston in The Mexican
Your wish about laws and treaties - or rather, effective laws and treaties - ain't gonna happen.
Anything man CAN do, man WILL do. Regardless of if rules are in the way.
Even if we had such a thing as global laws (which ain't gonna happen anytime soon, either), the difference is that nanotech engineering would just be performed by outlaws instead of official scientists. Anything that carries a reward will get done, by somebody, somewhere. The greater the potential reward, the more people will be attempting it.
Whether it is legal is secondary to many enough people that it won't really matter whether it is.
Could I get one of those nanofactories installed in my flying car?
we're borg. resistance is futile.
been there. time travel was invented first. then the planet was destroyed from pollution and propagation of genetically altered plants (which evolved in generically altered insects which had their own viruses who killed all non-mutated life forms). From the piles of trash, plastic-worms kinds of life evolved who ate everything plastic and petroleum in their way. they ate many ill mutants. the skies rained fire. the aliens dropped bombs. the machines got intelligence and started a war against each other (the worst enemi of a computer is another computer). the earth opened and lava and beasts emerged and started eating each other and doing horrible mosterisities. flood. All these happened but NOT nano technology with diamonds.
The promise of nano-manufacturing puts into perspective a lot of the issues we face with copyright of information today. Will the motor companies become the next RIAA when it is possible to make a perfect copy of any car? What will Coca-Cola say when I can nano-replicate coke from water and hydrocarbons?
I can almost imagine a future a where we could have unlimited resources, but the necessary machines are forced by law to be user hostile monsters extorting fees from the user anytime something they make comes close to a perpetually copyrighted object.
Or will people finally realize that when the means of production are endless, human means of invention drive themselves?
Does anyone else feel like its the end of the world after reading that article?
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
They certainly don't suffer from any lack of ambition!!! goodness... :)
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Riots on earth and complete banning of nanotechnology when it is learned by the masses that it is possible to engineer them to harm humans. Of course, on the up-side was improving the ability of humans to withstand more natural threats.
I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
will solve many of the world's problems
kill each other when it arrives
Now there's a drastic way to solve this world's problems.
I dropped my entire life savings into Jupiter mining rights - now I am totally screwed! http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2270.html
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
Fascinating that this movie should become so topical again.
Dr. Edward Morbius: In times long past, this planet was the home of a mighty, noble race of beings who called themselves the Krel. Ethically and technologically they were a million years ahead of humankind, for in unlocking the meaning of nature they had conquered even their baser selves, and when in the course of eons they had abolished sickness and insanity, crime and all injustice, they turned, still in high benevolence, upwards towards space. Then, having reached the heights, this all-but-divine race disappeared in a single night, and nothing was preserved above ground.
(I'd hate to give away the ending, but it's extremely relevant to this story! Rent it and see for yourself!)
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
In short they claim that molecular nanotechnology manufacturing will solve many of the world's problems, catalyze a technologic revolution, and start the greatest arms race we've ever seen. They conclude the risks are so great that we should discuss how to deal with this technology so that we don't kill each other when it arrives.
Politicians: Yay. More legislative work means we'll forever be yammering about stuff.
Missionaries: Yay. End world hunger. I can go home and stop building bridges.
Eco-groupies: Boo. This will destroy the environment.
Engineers: Screw the consequences, I want ot play with one! Less talk, more tech!
Your Rights Online Whiners: We have to pass laws NOW about this technology. Because there's nothing like an archiac law for a technology we can't understand the ramifications of until it's been used for many years.
Console Junkies: Wha...? Can this wait? I'm almost through to the boss...
Babies: YES! With this power I alone will rul - WAAAAAAAAIMHUNGRYAAAAAAAA!
-Adam
This will never happen period.
Why?
Because of the tremendous shift in social power such a device would create. If you think the MPAA and RIAA are bad, imagine the stance of the entire corporate world to these devices being in the hands of consumers.
Not to mention the fear this ability would create within government circles.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Take my word for it...as we gradually run out of oil, (and we will reach the halfway mark sometime between 2015-2030 according to that article), the rising costs, scarcity and worries will spark many more serious wars than the current one (of which oil is the root cause, I believe) a long time before the "final crunch".
It remains to be seen if we will have a future left to worry/fantasize about if the current world scenario continues down it's plunging curve.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
If you think its been bad with the RIAA and MPAA going after people, wait until you see GE, GM, Daimler-Chrysler, pharma companies, etc. start to take action when people are duplicating their products for a fraction of the cost without them getting a single cent for it.
I personally think this is great, as it would put many things within reach of people who would never have had a chance of ever being able to afford those things, but the ethical issues are the same as they are today, only perhaps escalated due to the increased value of the things you could duplicate.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
debeers uses metallic spectra formed when the diamonds (synthetic) are subject to pressure vessel contaminants (mostly metal particles) to detect real from synthetic. BTW, debeers has no process for identifying the new CVD processed diamonds which do not require metal pressure vessels and hence have no metallic spectra.
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab has come up with a proof of concept nanotech conveyor belt. When an electrical current is applied, a carbon nanotube acts as a conveyor with Iridium atoms. They are moved up and down the tube without losing a single one. Read more here.
A step closure to that assembler. :D
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
we got closer it only turned out to be the cubic zirconium age approaching.
If they already know what's gonna happen and how it's all gonna end, then why don't they just skip the Feed scheme and start working directly on the Seed?
or maybe they know what happens in the sequel, when the bad guys start developing weapons with the Seed...
Go hug some trees.
Actually since 1945 mankind already has had the ability to destroy himself. I think nuclear weapons are a more likely threat and the technology has been available for almost 50 years now.
Diamond life, lover boy.
We move in space with minimum waste and maximum joy.
He's a smooth opewata,
smooth opewata,
smooth opewata,
smooth opewata.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
The article talks about how a suitcase of equipment could create a village-sized industrial revolution. But this technology is, at least potentially, post-industrial. That is to say, it can be used on the small scale, making advanced technology available in a way which is independent of big corporations and large-scale manufacturing facilities. This is a huge thing.
If it is allowed to develop along these lines, it will mean the restructuring of our entire society, in a way which I and many others have been waiting and hoping for for some time now. It will mean we can have our cake and eat it too: we get all the benefits of advanced technology, without all the horrible detriments of the hegemony of megacorps. Whohoo!
Unfortunately, I doubt this will be allowed to happen, at least not at first. Here's a prediction: as soon as this becomes imminant, we will see the massive implementation of extremely restrictive measures to control it. These will be adopted in the name of security, but incidentally they will also have the effect of making it virtually impossible to use this technology independently, without relying on megacorporate support. This will probably mean continued widespread poverty in the third world, but we will accept it out of fear.
But at least the potential will be there.
On a completely unrelated note: most human-scale products would consist almost entirely of empty space
Actually, to be precise, everything consists almost entirely of empty space. "The solid parts of this rock, the neutrons, quarks, protons and electrons, compose only one quadrillianth of its total volume... you could pulverize that mountain and sift through it like breadcrumbs for the rest of your natural life, and you would never, ever, find... this!" --Buccaroo Banzai.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
If we start by limiting distribution of the relevent technologies to only me, then I will take care of it.
Promise!
kulakovich
You sound like Bill Clinton. Dude commits ethnic cleansing in Krajina, Croatia then attacks Yugoslavia claiming "Ethnic Cleansing". We don't need to pass laws against nanobots. NOT NOW, at least.
We do not need "global laws". We need vigilance and circumspection but not "UN/HooverInstitute/IMF/WTO" style tribunals. Yet.
First of all, I'd like to point out the article doesn't make any mention of the substantive amount of energy one of these molecular assemblers would undoubtedly require. If I understand the science even remotely, will it not take energy to break and form atomic bonds that are not naturally occuring? I understand chemical means can be used, but those chemicals need to be manufactured as well. Ignoring such a huge part of the problem doesn't give this article much credibility. Does it matter how far we push technology if we don't have the means to power it?
Aside from that, I can't say I'm overly impressed by the source of the article. The CRN FAQ doesn't inspire much confidence. The two directors have a single undergrad degree between them. I appreciate their enthusiasm in promoting the discussion of nanotechnology and its implications, but I think I'd take it a bit more seriously from a more credible source.
It was an interesting read, but sounded more like wishful thinking from a sci-fi fan than from someone who has a grasp of all the issues that factor into such a huge leap forward for technology.
we should discuss how to deal with this technology so that we don't kill each other when it arrives.
Are they implying that we don't kill each other now with current technologies? Or are they saying that the technology alone will turn average homo sapiens into blood thirsty murderers?
Where's all the dicussion about how this technology could reduce current stress?
Our economy, and wealth, is currently based on a system of scarcity. When you can take raw molecules and arbitraily combine them into useful/necessary/life saving objects then scarcity dissipates. Many, if not most, of today's conflicts revolve around scarcity or perceived scarcity.
I say bring it on. The consequences will sort themselves out as they always have upon previous technology.
Think about how many in the previous world viewed modern health care as cheating darwinism/survival of the fittest and that the resulting overpopulation of lesser fitted humans would be catastrophic. Can you say now whether they were right or wrong? Can you believe they would have made the correct choice if they could have caused researchers to halt experiments on such common materials as antibiotics?
-Adam
Give certain people the right and duty to kill the people who kill people without the right or duty to do it. And make doing it accidentally illegal, too.
Then we won't use it unless safety is built in.
I can't believe this got modded up. You're talking about just killing off people because they don't meet some definition of "worthy."
I've got type 1 diabetes (not the weight related type 2). Do I fit into your new order? My immune system is a little bit messed up, but other than that, I think I can contribute to society.
The point is, it doesn't even need to be based on diseases or anything like that. One person's worthiness could just as easily be people with blue eyes and blonde hair, or people over 6 feet tall, or people without freckles.
Dangerous Nano-Technology? It's a good thing we have presidential term limits.
Just using machetes, in Rwanda a few years ago they managed to kill more people per day than died in 9.11.2001 world trade centre; every day for 100 days. I can't remember it getting 100 times the news coverage of the US event though :-(
Maybe the people that can afford it in the future will have scads of nanobots in their bodies, patrolling it.
The human body will turn into the next battleground, and nano-armies will be the ones fighting on it.
After all, if bio-terrorism is going in that direction, someone will develop counter-measures.
Whole armies fighting between the pores of your skin and in your tissues - weird!
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
back when I first heard about nano this was my first thought. I tried to get my friends into a discussion about what ethical and sociological questions might arise from such a tech and they were all like "no, no you are worrying too much!" Most other people I heard talk about, even some Nanotech Professors seemed to enjoy the topic as a thoughtexperiment but never really took the threads serious. It was more that they enjoyed it as a theoretical construct. But this stuff scares the shit out of me. I would love to see it arrive since it is really the only way construction should be done, but on the other hand THIS could be the reason for the "Where is anybody?" theory that asks why all intelligent alien civilisations might be silent. Not Nuclear Weapons...
why is it always a tradeoff between good and bad?
It's true. While the Stephenson Diamond Age was an interesting idea, I think the William Gibson conception of these devices is far more likely - that nanotech becomes the next Weapon of Mass Destruction. The technology will be closely guarded, used only by the wealthy and elite, and (as long as we can prevent it), never, even for one fatal instant, let out into the world.
I predict, 20 years from now, if we have nanotechnology as these authors envision it, you'll have a better chance of seeing a consumer hydrogen bomb than seeing consumer nanotech.
Which is not to say you won't have nanotech-manufactured things... just that you won't be manufacturing them.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
And DeBeers ends its apalling treatment of workers.
...by the year 2000 we'll have flying cars and whole cities on the moon."
While this may be comming in our future, I think 20 years is a little optimistic. People have difficulty predicting technology 2 years in advance, much less 20.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yeah, and nuclear energy will make electricity "too cheap to meter" and people will be zipping around in flying cars by the year 2000. Am I the only one get gets sick and tired of the fantastical future promises of technology?
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
You beat me to the punch...
/. audience feels that the RIAA and MPAA are overlooking new business models that could possibly make them MORE money, but are currently stuck in their current business models and trying to preserve them. Nonetheless, I expect just about the entire corporate sector to fight 'replicator technology' that can abolish scarcity of goods. (What do we manufacture? We manufacture SCARCITY, so we can keep charging a high price for it!)
(Forever Peace reference later)
Obviously, just about *every* established corporation has as much skin in preventing 'replicators' as the RIAA and MPAA do in preventing net exchange of media content.
This is a loaded question, in that the
In "The Forever Peace" the US government went to the lengths of setting off a small nuke on US soil at the nanotech lab. They wanted the public to FEAR nanotech-assembly, and think it was DANGEROUS, and what better way than to associate it with a nuke. That fear then allowed them to set up tightly controlled nanotech-assembly centers where you could buy goods at a controlled price. The 'engine of abundance' was itself made feared and scarce.
In another book, title forgotten, aliens give us replicators that can also replicate themselves. Almost too late, someone realizes that the aliens weren't doing us any favors, they were trying to destroy our economy. Fortunately our hero realizeds that in an economy of abundant copies, the original work is King, and leads the way in creating an economy of artistry surrounded by abundance.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
This technology will not be allowed to get out, as it will break the entire structure of capitalism. It is not just the ability to make cars etc, imagine the ability to duplicate the duplication machine.......
If just one machine gets into private hands, then the cat is out of the bag.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Let's make sure the "plans" for all our new cars and plasma TVs are in XML.
Then, would it be more expensive to replicate a harddisk containing those plans in XML, or the actual car or TV itself?
It boggles the mind.
They said the same thing about personal jet packs and flying cars. I don't have my personal jet-pack yet and haven't seen many flying cars around....
Well, yeah, duh. All of these weapons are terrible. And it is quite possible that the species will be just fine, sure. But tell that to all the people who have been killed by the weapons you mentioned. The potential to create ever more effective means of violence is an effect of technology which we should not ever overlook.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
The The first advanced nanotech conference is about to occur and Eric Drexler is going to be steward ushering it in. I wish I could afford to go, you are welcome to donate, heh I'm allowed to panhandle as I live in a place called hippyland amongst dirty hippies that do it to me (that makes this right, heh). I will be reading Drexler's book Engines of Creation as soon as I am home long enough to get the damn fedex in this 2 fedex truck town.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Every natural diamond has some flaws.. I don't remember the exact details now but I read an article on it awhile back which stated under close examination (microscope) a man made diamond is too perfect. Thats how they tell them apart.
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
They do have methods of detecting CVD processed diamonds, they are too pure to be natural.
- These characters were randomly selected.
The suicide switch is probably easy. Just expose the machines to flourine gas, the most chemically corrosive substance in existance.
Or high concentrations of radiation. Transmute the component atoms so that the structure is disrupted.
But the flourine is probably cheaper, both environmentally and politically.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
I want my nanostuff to stay as is: organic with a ridiculously short half-life compared to those current and future inorganic thingies. I really don't like the prospect of having a nano junk yard inside my body.
...My favorite sentence, found halfway down this page:
:-D
A large spacecraft design must account for fluid dynamics, aerodynamics, vibration and resonance on many time scales, avionics and other control, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, combustion dynamics, hydraulics, cryogenics, and biomedical issues. (Thanks to an anonymous poster on Slashdot for pointing this out.) (Emphasis mine.)
If they're using Slashdot as a source for information, how can we possibly take them seriously?
"The plural of anecdote is not data" -- Bruce Schneier
To paraphrase Zoolander: "How are we supposed to use it if our fingers are too big for the buttons!"
Also, will I have to have a microscope so people can see that I'm using a Mac?
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
The right nanotechnology could be self replicating, and lethal. Imagine a biological or chemical weapon that is 100% lethal and can identify and target it's victims. Then you have the right idea.
Increasing kill ratios without having to commit troops to a battlefield is extremely seductive to those in power. Creating a weapons delivery system that can be dropped in an enemy area and begin sending out millions of tiny assasins within hours is indeed frightening. Assign a few thousand nanotodes to each victim. Their job is to simply inject a molecular abount of Ricin. Just one molecule each. The amount of product the factory/delivery system needs to carry is minimal because every molecule reaches it's target. No area-wide spraying is needed. The system could devestate an entire army or city within hours. There would be no residual radiation, no explosion to announce it's arrival, and the nanos could simply be switched off after the slaughter is done.
Imagine two nations fighting with these weapons. Or imagine a self-replicating version that gets out of control. If you thought the A-Bomb was bad, imagine what these could do. From an ethical point of view, I think this is a good conversation to be having now. In 20 years, we have no idea where this technology could be, or what DARPA will make it capable of.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
I dropped my entire life savings into Jupiter mining rights - now I am totally screwed! http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2270.html
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
The origin of the raw materials and power is very specifically discussed in Diamond Age. Every home has a line into the "Feed" which is described as molecular conveyor belt that delivers raw materials (elements) in a steady stream to the Matter Compiler. The Feed also contains a high voltage line (granted, Mr. Stephenson does not talk about what kind of power plant is on the other end, but really now...)
The Feed terminates in The Source, which has an above ground component like an artificial forest (many fractally branching limbs) to pull atoms from the air, as well as an underwater component described as an artificial coral reef, which pulls material from the sea water.
Neil Stephenson went to great pains to spell all this out. Methinks you need to read the book a bit more closely...
The right nanotechnology could be self replicating, and lethal. Imagine a biological or chemical weapon that is 100% lethal and can identify and target it's victims. Then you have the right idea.
Increasing kill ratios without having to commit troops to a battlefield is extremely seductive to those in power. Creating a weapons delivery system that can be dropped in an enemy area and begin sending out millions of tiny assasins within hours is indeed frightening. Assign a few thousand nanotodes to each victim. Their job is to simply inject a molecular amount of Ricin, just one molecule each. The amount of product the factory/delivery system needs to carry is minimal because every molecule reaches it's target. No area-wide spraying is needed. The system could devestate an entire army or city within hours. There would be no residual radiation, no explosion to announce it's arrival, and the nanos could simply be switched off after the slaughter is done.
Imagine two nations fighting with these weapons. Or imagine a self-replicating version that gets out of control. If you thought the A-Bomb was bad, imagine what these could do. From an ethical point of view, I think this is a good conversation to be having now. In 20 years, we have no idea where this technology could be, or what DARPA will make it capable of.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
DeBeers had a method for finding manafactured diamonds... it worked on the sub-atomic level, at that scale its indistingushable from a natrually formed on to the naked eye
A tad OT, but I'll respond anyway...
"So what?"
I have no interest whatsoever in supporting the DeBeers cartel. I care about results, not "Some oppressed African child died to get this small rock to me". If vapor deposition of carbon can make a diamond cheaper than child labor, good. Screw DeBeers.
Of course, it really amuses me that people buy diamonds at all (for non-industrial purposes). "I love you, here, have a small clear chunk of rock. Without destroying it, you can't really tell it apart from anyof a hundred other kinds of small clear rock, but this paper says it costs more". You want to make her happy, spend "two months' salary" as a downpayment on a parcel of land, and give her a pebble from that set into a ring. More meaningful, more useful, and you can't lose it down the sink.
The equating of "very expensive rock" with "love" has always stumped me. I'd have to rate it as one of the greatest PR scams ever pulled... Better even than the classic frontier snake-oil salesmen. At least some of their products worked, if purely by accident (ie, cinchona bark extract, aka quinine, for malaria).
As someone who's wrapping up his first course on nanoscience, I say: Bwahahahahahaha!
Come on! Sure, nanotech is here already...but to be honest, nanotech has been around for millenia. That is, if we're talking about manufactering on a nanoscale level.
Fast forwards to now, and we're doing some more refined nanotech: like making tiny gears. We're really only in the pre-industrial revolution stage of nanotech to the level the Diamond age describes. We're decades, if not centuries away from actual !autonomous! nanomachines ('cos to be honest, you could count the tip of an atomic force microscope as a nanomachine...problem being that the rest of the apparatus takes up part of a room and isn't to be miniturised any time soon).
Anyway, the blurb ('cos I didn't even bother to RTFA) is at best waaayy too optimistic, and at worst bad science.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
That's it!
[combs Saddam's beard]
We found the 18 microscopic warheads! Tricky Saddam! Disguusing them as lice! Thanks for the comb suggestion; would have never thought of it!
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Sure, and that means that the probablity of destroying ourselves must not be very high. But the thing about destroying yourself is, it only has to happen once. To say that something is improbable just means that you would expect it to take longer to happen. We have certainly demonstrated that it is not impossible, therefore by the laws of probability, it is almost certain to happen sooner or later, it is only a matter of time. "Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory." -- Richard Feynmann
The Big Bang was incredibly improbable too, by most estimates, same with the emergence of life, but it only has to happen once. More species have gone extinct than have survived.
"Laff-a while you can-a, Monkey-Boy!" -- Lord John Worfin
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Assembly lines of nanomachines on IC-like substrates, supplied with external power, though, may actually be a useful manufacturing technology for small things.
I'm more worried about synthetic biology. So far, bioengineering has been a very crude trial and error process. Direct design of viruses and enzymes, let alone bigger organisms, doesn't work yet. But there's steady progress, and no reason it shouldn't work. That's going to mean designer diseases.
If the Diamond Age comes to fruition, I imagine that our expansion into space would take a whole new look.
Imagine, if you will, teams of people around the world contributing either CAD/CAM files that painstakingly reproduce technical drawings and assembly instructions for things like Saturn V rockets OR teams that design simplified heavy rockets that take advantage of nano reinforcement to make strong launchers with few moving parts.
Once the designs have been reviewed and tested, I imagine that either hobbyist or impromptu launch sites would start sprouting up and eventually people would start lobbing payloads into orbit. During this time, I'm sure there would be a frantic effort by the government to either outlaw or control the technology, but eventually it might reach a point where a committed individual might:
1. Design a modular living space
2. Go out to some island.
3. Pour a nano-construction farm out onto the beach
4. Sit back and wait for it to finish building a launch pad and Saturn-V or Energia class booster out of materials nano-mined from the ground.
5. Check the CRC on the structure or whatever it is a nano-inspection system would do.
6. Have it fueled by a system that breaks down the seawater into fuel and oxidizer.
7. Have it launch part 1 of his new home into orbit.
8. Rinse, repeat steps 4-8 until all components are in orbit (and docked, why not?)
9. Make one last man-rated launcher and put him/herself along with family up to dock with their new digs and take off.
If the main cost is the design time, there are certainly enough space-minded engineers and contributors out there to write up working specs and enough people to validate the designs. As the technology advances, the simulation of the constructs will become more accurate. If the construction cost is minimal, then the sky is quite literally the limit.
There will always be "rogue nations." To North Korea, we're the rogue nation. To us, it's North Korea. I think we're right, but whatever.
Both of us will weaponize nanotech, treaties or no.
What we have to do ASAP, is develop countermeasures. There *will* be a nanotech arms race. Otherwise, "rogue nations" will realize the age-old desire to reduce their enemies to bloody soup. The arms race is ok, so long as the defense keeps up against the offense, and we can get a nice, heady detente.
Unless this advocacy group has some really convincing argument, I don't see how they can say, "It's going to be like Diamond Age, except that for us, treaties will work." Explain why treaties will work. Neal Stephenson already explained why they wouldn't. I liked his argument.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
All this talk of nanofactories, and I don't get it. They say that free-roaming nanites are a bad idea, but I think they'd be great. Imagine if roads used nanites to repair themselves! That would be great.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Well, we dont actualy know about nanotech yet, somaybe only one. But nukes are qualitatively unlike the other items on that list. Everything through machine guns allow a person acting on individuals in his vicinity, to kill them faster, more effectivley, and in larger numbers. But only local to the person pulling the trigger,and only selectively by pointing the thing at the person being killed. Nukes (and their accompanying technology) can be launched at and utterly destroy effectively an entire country. In fact, some years back, I used the estimate of 50,000 functional nukes in the world's inventory at that time, and figured that you could (in principle) hit a triangular grid covering the entire northern hemisphere land mass, and put nukes about 30 miles apart. We've only been living with these things for coming up on 60 years now. Still awfully early to say they wont live up to their terrible promise.
The Earth Simulator in less than a cubic mm? Well, at least Windows won't take so darn long to crash anymore.
There's only one factor that will keep any of this from happening as envisioned: patents. The moment a company develops a coherent development process for molecular manufacturing, you can count on the fact they'll apply for a gazillion patents regarding its every facet.
Finally I can assimilate this planet
The Society for the Responsible Use of Flying Cars. I haven't been able to come up with much yet, because I don't actually have a flying car yet, but I think it should definitely run on garbage, cause we've got too much of that.
WWJD? JWRTFA!
Fine. We have universal constructors, but we still need to know how to program those machines to do what we want. Will we really know in 10 years how to properly pin point a race / group and be able to execute the biggest genocide ever? Will we know how to use it to make a mighty nuke? It is obviously important to think about those things but knowing how to use a hammer and a saw does not make you a home builder.
Mr. Fusion
Keep Austin Weird!
Actually, from what I've heard, by most estimates it is actually much higher. Stable equilibrium is easy to achieve with only two powers. But as early as the late nineties, the Pentagon was reporting that something like 23 countries had or were developing weapons of mass distruction. (Coincidence? I think not!)
I think the idea that we are safe from nuclear war because the cold war is over is pure myth.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
So nanofactories will replace corporate factories and this is _bad_ to the current power structure so government won't let it happen so we're doomed to be slaves to the heartless System.
I have an idea. Forget about the nanofactories for now. Go to the hardware store and purchase some basic tools. Saw, hammer, the like. Find some suitable dried wood, old fences are a good supply (get permissions first!) Buy a book on woodworking. Try a few projects.
And never buy another stick of furniture. See who cares. Other than family and friends nobody will care. And you'll have fun.
And this: Buy a sewing machine, pick up broadcloth on the cheap. Make clothes. Other than family and friends nobody will care. You'll have fun.
Learn to cook. Learn to repair engines. Learn to garden. Learn to teach your children. Walk. Ride a bike.
You are small, compared to a corporation and a government you are nano-scale. Your life is tiny, your labors are tiny, your production is tiny, your marketing reach is zero to none. You are a factory, but on the nano-scale. Make what you need yourself, say good-bye to Nike, and fall from sight.
And you won't give a thought to what happens with nanofactories 20 or 30 or 80 years from now, because you will _be_ a nanofactory.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
All it takes is one person to get ahold of the technology to be dangerous, and nanotechnology looks like it's going to be a lot more feasible to acquire than nuclear weapons.
Some say North Korea has already been developing a biological weapon to attack genetic structures in white people. The scientist working on it has mysteriously disappeared. Details here.
An unintelligent nano-conveyor belt is a far cry from little nano-bots that run around intelligently assembling a product at the molecular level. I think the basic misconception of nano-technology is that it is all about tiny robots running around doing pre-programmed tasks. When it is really just "very small technology." Another thing people dont' understand is that we already have nano-technology in use, but it isn't nearly as glamorous as people would think.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
There are few new technologies that can't be turned into a weapon or used "for evil". Mankind won't take the "don't go there" line, so we might as well start planning.
This technology will never be in the hands of CONSUMERS. I am sure it will be invented, but it will be tightly controlled and only government and corporations will actually have the devices. There is too much potential for social upheaval if the average joe had one of these in his home.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Nano-machines ge whiz we already got those. Heck even miniature factories so small you cant even see them. They make molecular tolls that can repproduce and complete millions of complex reactions ever minute. We call them cells.
The reason we are having so much trouble making " the nano-machines of star trek" besides the obvious requirements of know how, is that simply put inorganic materials are not very easy to workwith at that scale. You can produce some every interesting properties to be true. But i do feel that autonamouse robots and nano factories will not be practical. However, mother nature has been doing this with protein for quite some time. I seriously dbout that we will ever have these cancer destroyer nano bots, but a cancer targeted artificial protein may not be too far off.
As to nano-factories these will be bacterial in nature id expect. We have them now. Many people don't realize that diabetics take human insulin derives from such bio-factories today. This E. coli made insulin is in all respect human insulin in any amount desired with no disease contamination and made form a simply food source. This is the nano future i see. Just replace insulin with various custom industrial enzymes to say make plastic or whatever.
*A quick dip in the gene pool really softens rough dry scales.
What about "Blood Music"?
The problem in the world today in not that there aren't enough laws; the problem is much more of an ideological one. It's what we're facing with Al-Qaida; how do you stop a group that believes that they have been commanded by their god to kill and destroy? While everyone else is living happy and fulfilled middle-class lives, there's always going to be the disgruntled group that's digging their bomb shelter in the desert and plotting the destruction of the world.
The question is, Are we as an entire race ready to embrace the new world described in the article?
Actually, we already achieved leisure time. It's called a hunter-gatherer society. Most indigenous hunter-gatherers only do three or four hours a day of what we would call work. The idea of not having leisure time is relatively new, i.e., only about ten thousand years old or so.
I should put down my crack pipe
Definitely! And pick up a bong! ;-)
My site: Free Nature Pictures
"Whatever happens, happens."
-Spike Spiegel
I hate ignorance and I do think that nanotech does need to be brought up on the socio-political radar. But I'm not worried about it. At least not right now. There's plenty of time left to do the right thing.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
I guess the real question is will these nanoassemblers be able to run Duke Nukem Forever or will Linux Developers be able to write software for my flying car? Anyone else wanna place bets on which company releases the first DMM (digital molecular management) scheme? Enquiring minds want to know.
As described above, a fabricator is a small machine that can create precise shapes out of molecules, assemble those shapes into machines, and ultimately duplicate itself when supplied with the necessary broadcast instruction stream.
10 call sub_createfabricator
20 goto 10
>run
Think of all the mischief we can (and have) come up with computers and the Internet. Imagination and coffee is our only real limitation at this point. When nanotech translates this capability to the physical world, things are going to get bumpy.
You Slashdotters are all alike, you think its about the diamond. The diamond has nothing to do with it. It is about the GARAUNTEE due to the size of the diamond and it's rarity that you are willing to either 1) spend large amounts of hard earned cash or 2) go work like a slave in a diamond mine somewhere to impress your woman.
When diamonds are cheap you will instead have to appear with something else rare expensive. For example, an intricate(for looks) ring made of Lutetium(for the garauntee)
You just don't get it... What good is a diamond (in jewlery) other than its price? Sure its sparkly and all that, but that isn't why women wear them. It is a way to show others that some guy loves them. It is a symbol, and it wouldn't mean anything if it was cheap. The whole point is that it costs a lot. It shows that you made a sacrifice for her. You could have spent that money on yourself, but you didn't.
I would never ever buy a piece of synthetic diamond jewlery unless it cost as much as a natural one. The last thing you should ever do is cheapen love by trying to buy a symbol of it at a discount.
If you can't afford a natural diamond, then don't buy one at all (a fake symbol is worse than no symbol at all). If she is so shallow that she won't love you with out gifts, then you shouldn't be wasting your time with her anyway.
That said, synthetic diamonds are awesome because of the industrial applications that they have.
Even the Asgard had problems with the replicators....
That you dont need to pass additional laws on issues that have already been adddressed in the past..
But it wont ever happen, or they would be out of a job..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Much of this nanotech will overlap with biosciences patents, as biomechanical structures get emulated, discovered/invented, patented, and deployed in commercially strategic ways. The compensation for use of this tech will be horrendously complicated, and its inclusion in products (or design frameworks) will be subject to all kinds of IP battles. What is good for you and me, society, the biosphere, and the mineral planet, will be secondary to these concerns, since people will be jockeying to be the next B.Gates.
If ever there was a concern about analogies to closed API's and the bugginess produced by these kinds of closed-source strategies, it's here, where the molecular engines can make drastic and disastrous changes, that we need to pay attention to opening things up.
Access is the core issue. I suspect that software to model this stuff is the first place to start. Easy for me to say, I'm not a programmer!
Damn those pesky terrorists
I believe it was Einstein who said "I don't know what weapons world war three will be fought with but, world war four will be fought with sticks and stones."
UNIX/Linux Consulting
To be precise, those in power will embrace it and use the fear it creates to enahnce their control of people. What will never happen is that this technology will never be available to the general public. Because of the danger it represents, the fist will be tightened that much more.
Fortunately, "the more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." --Princess Lea
My site: Free Nature Pictures
At midnight, the world goes boom.
The Doomsday Clock, probably the major herald of nuclear danger, was set between 3 and 6 minutes 'till midnight for most of the 80s. It was judiciously set back as far as 17 minutes 'till midnight in the 90s.
And now, with recent world events, the clock was again set to 7 minutes 'till midnight on Feb 27, 2002.
Here is how/when/why the board of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists decides to change the minutes to midnight.
A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.
Yea yea yea. Heard it all before.
I bet I'm driving a gas powered car in 2025 and STILL eating crappy fast food.
i guess i should just stop working on my pcb router.
(flexible electronics seems like a better reason)
True, resources will be the key. But imagine this scenario:
Everyone has a replicator, thus no one needs to work as everything can be made. Except you need to have something of value to trade for the natural resources to make items in the first place. Well if you can't work what is it you can do which has value? Design new inventions? Sell the rights to the design?
First off most people will probably not be able to invent anything of value.
Second, those companies which own the resources now have a captive economy, but precious little to exchange their resources for.
Third, imagine your typical upper-class citizen who is likely to have his net wealth tied up in corporate stocks. What would his reaction be to the sudden revelation that GM (which he owns) is now irrelevant because I can make my own car at home cheaper than GM can? Apply this to almost all manufacturing companies....
Suddenly the percieved value of these companies is zero, and the typical supply and demand model has almost ceased to function.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
It's almost impossible to tell how,or indeed if, this technology will come to market. If devices like these become common the only property that will have value will be "intellectual property", vanity items (made the "old fashioned" way because its, better, cooler, more personal, etc.) and things that can't, at the given level of technology, be duplicated (mostly living items?).
If companies think the Internet is an intellectual property nightmare, just wait until people can print out their own Mikado Moose (TM) hat for less than a penny instead of buying the one at the Disteny (TM) store at the mall for $10.99.
And the controversy over a device that can assemble items on a molecular level would be TRIVIAL compared to the first device that analyzes and COPIES items on a molecular level.
20 years won't be nearly enough time for all the lawsuits to work out. The internet took companies by surprise but I think there are enough that will see this threat coming to start the lawsuits before the final devices are on people's desks.
Insert pithy comment here.
I mean two machines. Now I can give the second
to anyone I please and they can do the same.
Thus the orignial maker makes no profit or
almost none unless he cripples the orignial
machine so it will not copy itself.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
No, it's not. But I can virtually guarantee that lots of ineffective ones will happen, and probably very soon. My guess is that these will not succeed in preventing outlaws, "rogue" nations, and "terrorists" from obtaining this technology, but what they will do is prevent it from ever falling into the hands of the real enemy, the average joe consumer. This will have the effect of continuing to protect the elite from the people, while enhancing the threat of violence, thus providing an excuse for ever tighter means of control.
Isn't our society fun?
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Nanos require such a small amount of energy to accomplish their tasks, I can think of a number of interesting alternatives. A small bit of silicon and they can be solar powered. The right composition, and they could use heat as a thermocouple or have a single atom of plutonium. Better yet, you could combine the weapon and power source. a few thousand particles of plutonium attached to your skin, or delivered just below the skin would be more than enough to kill you within 12 hours of exposure. The only requirement is that the power source be small. There are plenty of options.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
Reading the website it is fairly obvious that the makers do not know much about nanotech. However their language reminds me of Scientology. Who are these people? Did anyone check them out? Why are they on slashdot?
Gravity Dreams on Amazon by L.E. Modesitt.
It isn't a great book, but i enjoy it for the ideas/thoughts it provokes.
Be careful though, as some of the amazon reviewers note, it can drag quite a bit.
(Karma = auto -1)
Recently a study of the harm caused to fish by nanoparticles was reported. I remember that "grey goo" was moderately harmful. Does anyone remember where this appeared?
From what I understand diamonds weren't much thought of until DeBeers started a campaign in the (1920's?) telling everyone how great they are and that they are the symbol of love. It's been a huge marketing machine ever since.
~S
People pay OUT THE ASS for furnature while owning trees. Craftsmanship, design and ingenuity do not get ZAPPED by new technology. Poeple will still pay a reasonable price to compile a COKE because they like the taste of the secret recipe.
Need more proof? Your neighbor who owns the BMW has no idea where cars come from. She might even think hers comes from the same buildng as your Volvo. But she pays for a new one every 2 years because she likes the driving experience much better.
I've rarely heard anyone take this attitude except when they don't have a wife/girlfriend. I have one, so I speak from experience here... You do funny things for love, even if they don't make a huge amount of sense, but you don't regret it if you really love them.
And besides, a smart guy doesn't spend two months' salary on a ring, because if he's smart he'll be earning more than that and if he's smart he won't marry a prissy girl that wants a huge rock on her finger. You just gotta think and do a little research before you plunk down money like that, and it will always be more significant and a better reminder to the woman than a chunk of land.
What will suck is when you can nano-manufacture all of this for cheap and it will be worth nothing, and then you won't be able to give the girlfriend ANYTHING appreciable to prove you'll sacrifice for her. =)
--Amon Hannessy (described by Utah Phillips as "a Catholic anarchist, pacifist, draft-dodger in two world wars, tax refuser, vegetarian, one-man revolution in America...")
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Even theoretically. There was a discussion about it a few months back, linked to from here. The same questions have conveniently been completely glossed over by organizations such as this one.
There's a big difference between a few nanomechanical machines and being able to magically wield the power of quantum mechanics to cause non-spontaneous, non-thermodynamically stable interactions to occur at the drop of the hat.
Don't want to sound like too much of a scoundrel but there is no point in self deception. I find myself reading this and thinking "Where's my cut?" IF all of this actually happens it appears that my real estate investments are worth exactly the land they sit on and nothing else. Retirement accounts? Scrap paper. This seems to be one of the things that makes a few companies extremely rich and everyone else equally at the survival level.
Where should one invest with nanotech coming? Even on the outside predictions I will be alive when this happens.
It is not enough to succeed, others must fail. - Gore Vidal
Wow, that's some scary stuff. Of course, you've hit the nail on the head yourself: the reason Eugenics is a bad idea is precisely the issue of who gets to decide what stays. Besides, who are you to say that sociopaths don't have a right to live?
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Well, it's a good thing they don't need money cuz I read publications like POPULAR SCIENCE and have a perty good idea how often predictions like these come true. Oh, wait, maybe by contributing to these guys, WE WILL ALL BE SAVED!!!! not.
Boy, am I getting cynical in my old age. Cragen.
In short they claim that molecular nanotechnology manufacturing will solve many of the world's problems . . . and start the greatest arms race we've ever seen.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing or a good thing, just a reality. It's already happened militarily. The US is the only country in the world with non-VTOL aircraft carriers, and there are 12 active. Noone else has them because they are SO expensive. The US has fielded remotely controlled devices that are vastly superior to anything any else has used, and will field robotic army equipment long before anyone else gets around to it. Like it or not, we've seen that there IS no arms race -- US military equipment is vastly superior to anything anyone else has.
Likewise nanofactories in the US will plunge the 3rd world into a depression, because the need for cheap labor from overseas will evaporate, and with it drys up the outsourcing of production jobs. I'm not defending sweatshop labor, but that wages that were being sent outside the US to pay for overseas labor, will not longer leave the country. Many people live on the minimalistic wages that the US pays abroad. No longer. And the US will be producing cheap nano-made materials long before anyone else. Only the US will have the wealth to create nanofactories on a mass market scale. Those ultra-cheap goods will crush the markets they compete in. Tariffs will protect some markets, but there will be no race. Nanotechnology will INCREASE the disparity between the haves and have-nots.
But there won't be any race.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
Married and happy here, I spent half a paycheck (which is 1/4 of a month) on my wife's ring and we're at least 3.4 times as happy as any other couple in the office except the guy who spent 3 months worth of paychecks on his wife's ring who's getting close to a divorce because they sleep around on each other.
Who's the wiser? Do I care?
No.
Eh, I take that attitude, and my fiancee is wearing a $40 garnet-in-silver-setting (it's a claddaugh, very nice) that we picked out together.
She, needless to say, takes that attitude too. She values my time (and sacrifice thereof) a lot more than she values my money.
"America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
Nanotech, by it's original defintion is *not* merely "very small technology". It is nano assemblers.
The "nanotech" that you see in trade rags would not have been conciddered nanotech 10, maybe even 5 years ago. But now, everyone doing nanometer scale physical chemistry is calling their stuff "nanotech".
Why are they abusing the term? Because it makes their research sound much cooler than it is. That means more recognition and more funding.
By the original definition, the nano conveyer belt is not nanotech, though it is a lot closer than most of what gets called nanotech today.
"Twenty miles . . . twenty miles . . . twenty miles."
"My poor Krell . . . after a thousand centuries of shining sanity that could hardly imagine what was happening to them."
Then watch the original pilot of Star Trek, and realize how much of a rip-off it is of Forbidden Planet.
Is it a violation of Godwin's law to call the moderators Nazis? ;-) Actually, I agree with the parent. Sure, this possiblity should be discussed, and the parent of this whole thread did discuss it by raising the possibility. However, it is a possibility that sane people would only discuss in order to dismiss it quickly and hopefully perminantly. Considering it seriously is your right, of course, but I for one wouldn't mod it up.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
If we just keep trying, eventually we will get that ultimate weapon right.
Just because we havn't gotten it right yet doesn't mean we never will!
Insert clever sig here.
It seems almost certain that the necessary hardware for computing complexity on the order of arranging molecular structures on a macroscale will be present in twenty years, but developing the necessary software for such an endeavor may very well prove to be an insurmountable challenge in the near term. That is, unless you believe we'll develop an AI that can do it all for us by then.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
Hey I want a million dollars, but I'm not going to murder anyone to get it.
There are so many things wrong about the scenario you just painted. "Unless, of course, you're saying that you don't WANT longer, healthier, happier lives..." What, because extermination of "undesireables" by nanobots is the only way to get there? You *do* realise that this is almost the exact same reasoning that the Nazis used to condone their death camps?
Okay so you give the single caveat "I'm not suggesting going for it...I'm just asking people to look at the end result objectively, and suggest any alternate methods to get from here to there." with the implicit assumption that there's really no other way?
But assuming I take your post at face value I'll suggest that we're already working towards the end result of longer lifespans, and healthier, happier lives through low and high tech means. Nanotech will be another tool at our disposal to help towards that goal. Perhaps robots to repair tissue and DNA and thereby extend life and maintain healthiness. Happiness is a state of mind and less dependant on health, wealth and IQ than most people give credit. That said, happiness might be marginally increased by extra health, but there's no "happiness gene" so cleansing the gene pool of "undesireables" isn't really going to help there. Just as many smart people will do things that frustrate you, or that you disagree with and "impinge" on your happiness. Will your killer nanobots kill people you disagree with and make you unhappy?
Returning to my original analogy, let's say you want a million dollars. You can get it in ethical ways (work, save, invest) or unethical ways (rob a bank, defraud widows, murder your spouse for insurance, etc.) and generally the unethical ways pay more in the short run. But we can get the same results of a million dollars or smarter, healthier, long-lived, happy people either way. The ethical ways just require patience. Besides, given your post, do you *really* want to take the chance that your killer nanobots will consider you smart enought to deserve to live?
I'm pretty sure the atomic nuclei and electrons of synthetic and real diamonds are the same...
Perhaps you meant at the atomic level.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
The whole point is that it costs a lot. It shows that you made a sacrifice for her.
Exactly... So why go for something useless to both people?
I "get" the idea of self-sacrifice, thus my suggestion of buying her land. Or even something useful, like a collection of her 1000 favorite DVDs. Or a car.
Perhaps the part I don't "get" involves having an SO who would rather have a $10k rock than just about anything else. I have a quite happy long-term relationship (despite the implications of another respondant), and neither she, nor any of my previous SOs would have wanted something very expensive but useless. If they had, somehow I doubt I would have found them interesting in the first place (so I admit I may have a selection bias in my sample).
Put another way... Sure, I'd blow a few grand on a trinket for my SO. But what does it say about her if she'd actually want me to do so? "Can't buy love", and all...
The 20th century was incredible. We acquired the ability to produce food and goods to satisfy the needs of everyone on earth, though we did not make them available to everyone.
We have had two major power struggles during the 20th century. At the beginning, production was 'difficult', so those who could produce were able to 'call the shots'. WW II was a war of production and it was wonn by the side that was able to produce the most bombs and bullets.
Since then, productivity has continued to improve. Production is no longer the 'hard part'. The challenge during the past few decades has been to convince people to buy. Hence marketing has become king. Between 3rd world labor and automation, production costs have fallen dramatically. For most products, the major costs are Marketing & Distribution and R&D.
But the smart folks have recognized that the 21st century will be even more unsettling than the 20th century. Computer controlled extraction of natural resources and production (including nanotechnology) can drive manufacturing costs to almost zero. (Go read 'A for Anything' , by Damon Knight) With the Internet, we will be able to distribute the knowledge of how to produce. This will eliminate most of the challenges associated with distribution (since it will be possible to do most production locally, so there will be little money to be made there either, unless artificial controls and impediments are implemented.
This is why there's such a fight for intellectual property rights. Only by controlling the knowledge of how and what to produce can power be maintained by those who value it. By the middle of the 21st century, the major cost of any material item will be the 'intellectual property' charge.
With production automated, almost everyone who is employed will be working in service jobs by 2050. And then it gets more interesting.
As AI research progresses, we will be able to build robots capable of doing service jobs. The health care crisis will be 'solved' during the second half of the 21st century. Robots will replace, not only orderlies and nurses, but physicians and surgeons, too. The cost of producing these robots will be minimal. The valuable commodity will be the knowledge of how to program them to do what you want them to do.
By the end of the 21st century, creativity -- the creation of intellectual property -- will be the only currently known role that will still be the domain of us humans. And the control of that creativity is what is being fought for now.
That's the power struggle going on now. It's just started.
One more thing. By the end of the 21st century, molecular genetics will have progressed to the point where most people will be able to live almost forever. Imagine living forever in a world where production and services basically cost nothing. The only thing of value will be control of the intellectual property behind it all. Imagine a world where material items sell for a dollar each and services are provided for ten cents an hour. It could be paradise if you have the money to pay for what you want. But if you don't, how do you compete against such prices?
The challenge as we approach the 22nd century will be to rethink the issues of access. How will we reward innovation while making it possible for most people to survive and live reasonably good lives?
Because, if most people cannot pay for those goods and services, there will be a revolution. If that revolution succeeds, those who were on top will be gone. If the revolution fails, the whole economic system will collapse from lack of customers.
Hang onto your hat. It's going to be a wild ride.
From: http://www.ProjectsDoneRight.com/pdr/pdrPapersIP.a sp
The equating of "very expensive rock" with "love" has always stumped me. I'd have to rate it as one of the greatest PR scams ever pulled...
Actually, that's about right. DeBeers' version of the "diamond age" is an impressive feat of marketing combined with agressive market control. It wasn't really that long ago that the "diamonds are a girl's best friend" meme was instilled in large portions of world culture.
But DeBeers' is hardly the only one who supports an entire industry with marketing tactics. For a real head-shaping check out "The Merchants of Cool" . A rather eye-opening tutorial on modern marketing tactics, and the whole progam is available online now...
Well, I am a "pussy I love everyone person", and I would consider many of the most courageous people in history to fall into that category as well. Don't get me wrong, MMaster, I agree completely with everything you said, I just don't like that one meme.
As such a pussy, I would like to interject a religious perspective. The principle of Universal Love is the hallmark of all true religion, and exists in nearly every major religion on the planet. Loving everyone is not cowardly or weak, it is actually one of the most difficult and dangerous things you can do. Look where it got most of its main exponents.
From this perspective, killing people is just not okay for any reason whatsoever. All humankind is worthy of your love and respect and should be treated as such. Any other perspective leads eventually to abomination.
I would also like to add an evolutionary perspective, as well. From that point of view, the problem with Eugenics is that we simply do not have enough data or intelligence to decide which traits are desirable and which are not. "Survival of the fittest" is either false or tautological. "Fitness" is simply the ability to survive. It is entirely possible that some trait you consider "weak" will turn out to be vital to the survival of the species some time in the future. If you eliminate it from the gene pool, you may unwittingly cause our extinction. Genetic diversity is a good thing, it leads to a healthy and adaptive population as a whole, even if it means that there will be some individuals which some would consider weak.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
The equating of "very expensive rock" with "love" has always stumped me. I'd have to rate it as one of the greatest PR scams ever pulled.
Agreed. Although, like a sibling post said, if I guy gave me a lower-quality fake (like cubic zirconia) diamond ring then I'd be a tad insulted. Not because it's not a diamond, but because it's a fake diamond, which symbolically doesn't speak well for the engagement. That being said, some of the manufactured diamonds I've heard about lately that are virtually indistinguisable from mined diamonds would be perfectly fine for me. They may be man-made, but those sound like "real" diamonds to me. Who cares if they're made in a lab? Who cares if they're cheaper? I don't need a guy to break himself trying to buy me an engagement ring. If he really wants to get me a diamond and he can save a ton of money by buying a man-made one, then go for it. Though, truth to be told, I'd rather not have a diamond. The tradition is artificial, diamond's aren't nearly as rare as the companies would have us believe, and frankly, there are lots of other gems out there that I think are far prettier. I'm a fan of color myself. One of my aunts has a sapphire engagement ring. Another one has an unpolished emerald (it looks like jade). I think those are tons prettier than my mom's plain ol' diamond (but I ain't tellin' her that...)
Guys, if your gal's educated and fairly inteligent she'll probably have no problem if you give her something other than a diamond. (Note the word "probably"... I can only speak for myself and if you don't wanna take that risk of royally pissing her off, I don't blame you. ;) )
Dinosaurs couldn't build shelters...
Dinosaurs couldn't generate power from Uranium...
Or so they would have us believe...
Back in 1999 the Foresight Institute released the first version of the Foresight Guidelines on Molecular Nanotechnology. . These guidelines, interestingly enough, ended up in the US Congresses' recent (2003) bill on Molecular manufacturing / nanontechnology studies.
One point that the F.I. makes that often gets missed in discussion of nano: molecular nanotechnology != self-replicating machines. As Eric Drexler writes: "Much has been made of a concern I raised in 1986, under the name "gray goo" -- a hypothetical scenario involving runaway replicators. Building fully self-replicating machines would be difficult, however, and building machines that could replicate without external help would be more difficult still. Current work in the field shows that it will be easier and more efficient to develop molecular manufacturing without building any self-replicating machines at all."
One measure of the existence or success of a field is the jobs available in it: jobs certainly exist in 2004. By 2014 it should be really interesting. Another measure is "does the field have its equivalent of Slashdot?" Yup, Nanodot.
The F.I.'s website has much good material: FAQs, Reviews of nano for the technical or non-technical reader, reviews of policy issues and more. In their policy section they discuss how to avoid high-tech terrorism: it involves more nano, not less. Another of their essays talks about 6 lessons from 9/11 that should be applied to molecular nanotechnology:
DeBeers is a monoploy that artificially inflates prices and creates an artifical scarcity. Simple as that. And now that these materials have a tech purpose in computer machinery, the monoply is inevitably doomed. They missed the boat on syntehic diamonds and are going to get creamed. Even if they can't sell em to ppl at the same price as natural diamonds (which are a lot more common than DeBeers wants you to think) the tech market will keep them in business and DeBeers will be crushed. Why pay $1,000,000 for a natural diamond when you can get an equal that not only you can't tell the difference with but may even look better for a mere $100?
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
I "get" the idea of self-sacrifice, thus my suggestion of buying her land. Or even something useful, like a collection of her 1000 favorite DVDs. Or a car.
There's something about having a tangible thing on your hand that you can wave around at people to say "look, I'm engaged!" It's a lot harder to bring a collection of 1000 DVDs to your parents house in order to show them you're gonna get hitched. ;)
I did like the "mounting a rock from the land you bought" idea, though. That's unique and cool, along with being tangible. :)
...sounds like the beginning of the communist revolution as he truly invisioned it...not forced by men, but simply the result of improving tech.
but both of those IMO are different for a couple of reasons.
Both the MPAA and RIAA deal in what is essentially information, which although produced in a phyiscal form lends itself to be copied and mass produced cheaply and easily. IMO we have the current movie/music problem precisely because they did not anticipate the growth of technology that would enable these things to happen.
Consumer goods on the other hand are not easy to replicate. You may argue that mass produced consumer goods can be made cheaply, but they cannot be copied by me at home at the present time. This ability would render the current centralized system of production obsolete and put most working class people out of a job.
Not to mention making most corporations worthless, and their stockholders poor. Now if you as a monied individual see a technology as disruptive as this one, what are you going to do? Scream at your congress-critter who (more than likely also has money and investments) has a vested interest in keeping you happy. Thus restrictions on the technology to approved corporations and government centers only.
I can only hope that the same short sightedness will apply to an invention such as this. I do not think it will happen though short of a major change in our economic and political system.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
How 'bout your undieing love, affection, loyalty, honesty, and devotion?
If she thinks a lump of crystalized dinosaur poop on her finger is somehow proof of all that, maybe spending the money on a competent councilor would be better use.
It sounds less like doing "funny things for love," and more like doing funny things to appear the consumerism of a border-line princess.
The previous poster was right on. Starting out your relationship in debt because she wants a rock is just plain silly. Spend the money on making a stable home to live in.
And for the record, I've had the same female companion for three years. No dino poop required to prove my love.
And really... If Slashdot'ers think Microsoft/RIAA/MPAA/etc. are evil corporate empires, you should spend a little time researching the atrocities perpetrated by the diamond cartels. They're not very nice people!
Diamond age approaching?
Yes, there are even commercial ventures.Ok, tongue out of my cheek now.
I am frankly tired of hearing nanotech predictions from the following kinds of people:
The people who are truly qualified don't weigh in very often, in part because they realize how silly it is to make such predictions.
Dinosaurs can't invent and build thousands of nuclear weapons.
Dinosaurs can't invent designer viruses.
Dinosaurs can't invent invisible machines.
Dinosaurs can't commit genocide.
All they would need is a Carbon-based nanomachine that self replicates. Drop it in country, and guess what? All carbon based items, people, livestock, food, etc. dissolve. The only question IMO is WHEN not IF someone develops it.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
yes but that relies on a human...not a machine to do it. no mass production there. and you can always add impurities to CVD to simulate natural ones.
about the same time that I start commuting to work in my flying jet car.
Consider the idea of information and the impact computers have on the spread and sale of information. For example : Music is basically just information. Untill recently, the cost of accurately duplicating and transmitting information was expensive enough to prevent people from pirating music - but as powerful computers are now ubiquitous, it costs almost nothing to look at some information and duplicate with 100% accuracy. So, in short, It's really easy to look at someone else's song, make a copy of it, and then you've now go two copies of the same song. Cany anyone see the same thing happening with nanotechnology? Because as the price for nano-assemblers drops, anything you can imagine will simply be boiled down into two different components: 1) Information 2) Energy Consider this: If I told you the exact type of every molecule in my toothbrush, and how those molecules were located with respect to each other (If I gave you all the information about my toothbrush) and then you supplied the necessary energy to arrange your own atoms, you could have a toothbrush exactly like mine! Would you then have 'pirated' the toothbrush? I don't think this idea is so far off in the future, because that's exactly what happens with music piracy right now - you let someone else look at your information, and they use their own device to capture and utilize the information. Can you imagine proprietary food ? McDonalds corporation designs, atom by atom, a tasty hamburger - and then sells the plans for creating such a hamburger to people who then put the plans into their nano-assemblers? If this happens, you can bet we'll start to see 'open source' products - perhaps the GCB-project (GNU-Cheeseburger) team will release an update today - I heard the new relase includes pickles! I definately think it's going to happen.
My blog
The chance of a thermonuclear war is less now because large groups of society view the world differently than they did in the '80s .
If you want to see evidence, look at business culture in 1986 versus today. I doubt a CEO in 1986 even knew what the word integrity meant.
Now, the public clamours that CEO's conduct business with integrity.
More evidence is the fact that there was great discussion in the United States as to whether we should respond with aggression to the events of 9/11 . In the 80's it would have been a different story.
Laugh at my ignorance while I learn Rails - a Real ne
Er, if you read the rest of my comment, that's exactly what I said. I agree with you. You agree with me. So why are we arguing?
My site: Free Nature Pictures
A report from the "Center for Responsible Nanotechnology" that is then compared by the poster to a sci-fi book. Oh yeah I'm worried now. Where's my space ark when I need it?!? Everybody get their Reynold's Wrap out.
Sometime later she was considering purchasing a diamond necklace and earring set to wear with an evening gown. I gathered some information on diamond mining and the diamond trade and simply asked her to read it before she bought anything. She read it and decided she no longer wanted to purchase any diamonds.
Most people with a social conscience agree once they learn what goes on to get a diamond in to a Zales.
Buy the President
If you can't afford a natural diamond, then don't buy one at all (a fake symbol is worse than no symbol at all)...
Send me your work phone # and I'll give you a call... you know, with Mother's Day and all I thought I'd go waste some more money on something that has no utility. Yep, I'm convinced that the boost to that special woman's self esteem is worth the cost in tears and blood that the diamond cartels extract from those children in the mines.
Ok, a serious post.
Ken Macleod has done some GREAT and fantastic writing on how societies could develop once absolute perfect nano tech comes along, in his books it is called "smartmatter" where it can take any matter, and manipulate it to other matter.
You should really take a look at his work. Within the same universe in his fall revolution series, he shows three completely different cultures based on nano tech.
One is a completely capitolist anarchist society, full communism, and a "post human" society where people upload themselves into nano bot constructs called macros that they then use to live out hundreds of years of subjective time in minutes of objective time.
It was great reading and really painted a poor future for the world before the societies settled down.
But Ken Macleod is a socialist bastage anyway, but it makes good reading.
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
fdsfdsfdsfds
'The CRN (Center for Responsible Nanotechnology) reports that nanofactories will arrive "almost certainly within 20 years"'
Sure, sure, "20 years". I'm still waiting for my rocket car they've been promising will be available "almost certainly within 20 years" for the past half-century.
New ways to abuse old laws are growing MUCH faster than new legislation can keep up. It's a libertarian's dream come true. Simple, not too horrifying examples are mini-videotapes being used without consent, e-mail SPAM, and internet information stealing/abuse.
I predict that it will become more obvious in the next year or two that way in which we pass legislation will have to change. Perhaps state legislatures will split up issues or borrow each other's laws more readily. The federal legislature may need to "delegate" to, or at least pay more attention to, state legislatures.
when ever a pro-nano tech article hit the FP, I would always get modded down for saying how bad nanotech is and how we will all be dead 20 years after it is made popular.
I guess I was just bringing down the high of the nono dorks.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Ken Macleod is a socialist bastage anyway
Really? His politics always struck me as tilted more towards anarcho-syndicalism.
Singularity is Rapture For Nerds
Da Blog
OTOH I, for one, am looking forward to the coming age of nanotech. It means I can build that backyard rocket I have been planning and leave all you losers arguing over this ball of mud...
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
This sounds like the same "definitely within the next 20 years" that STILL has me waiting for the flying car I was promised back in the 1950s.
:wq
LOL, that's great, can I quote you on that? ;-)
Please, don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of freedom of speech, and a strong interpretation thereof. I'm not trying to censor you, I just disagree with you. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
but who gave them to us? our governments?
Funny, we were just talking about this last night. Personally, I'm of the "endowed by their Creator" school of thought on this one, but of course you are free to disagree, that's the great thing about having rights.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
I see what you are getting at, but it depends on the woman. 1000 DVDs isn't necessarily useful either. What is a movie after all? Some thing you watch for entertainment right? Well maybe some women get more entertainment out of looking at a shiny diamond on their finger than a movie on a tv.
While we are on the subject, I agree that any self-sacrificing gift is worth while, but the point is that it should be a sacrifice. Buying jewlery that costs next to nothing because it is synthetic isn't much of a sacrifice, which is what I was trying to get at.
As for the $10K rock comment: It is just like anything else, who wouldn't want to have the best? Does a geek go out and buy the latest most expensive computer because it has the highest value, or because it grants the highest braging rights? I would guess that it is the latter. The more expensive the diamond, the more a woman can lord it over their friends (in the same good natured way that geeks lord their computer specs over their friends).
Sure, I'd blow a few grand on a trinket for my SO.
The point is that it isn't just a trinket to everyone. Why does it have to have utility to be a desireable possession?
But what does it say about her if she'd actually want me to do so?
It isn't about buying her what she wants. It is about giving a gift she doesn't expect. There should be no strings attached. Women shouldn't beg for jewlery or it doesn't mean anything anyway (it isn't very much of a gift if you have to be told to give it).
OTOH, I'd say that love that needs a symbol is already cheap.
I was unemployed when I got engaged, so N months' salary would've made a pretty poor showing. (Hey, wait...that means I spent infinitely many months' salary, right? Darn, I'm good!)
(In case you read this, dear... more than chocolate.)
Hey, me too! What a coincidence!
What will suck is when you can nano-manufacture all of this for cheap and it will be worth nothing, and then you won't be able to give the girlfriend ANYTHING appreciable to prove you'll sacrifice for her. =)
Holy shit. Here's another one. How about a fucking house? Or a car? Or a nice Alaskan cruise? Or how about giving up your poker night? There are a thousand things you could do to prove your willingness to sacrifice, it doesn't have to be some stupid worthless fucking piece of compressed carbon that glitters in the sunlight.
You just gotta think and do a little research before you plunk down money like that, and it will always be more significant and a better reminder to the woman than a chunk of land.
Really? What's her name?
In 1986 I saw ~my~ first Space Shuttle launch. It was my 12th birthday - January 28th. Now THAT's an awful thing to do to a kid (not to mention 7 astronauts).
Quite probably. ;-)
My site: Free Nature Pictures
If she is so shallow that she won't love you with out gifts, then you shouldn't be wasting your time with her anyway.
If you need to buy her a ring in the first place, chances are that she is very shallow as it is. DeBeers has done more despicable(?) shit than a care to mention. Just do a google. If this technology puts DeBeers out, fine. On the plus side we can now make cans of Dew and Cheesy Poofs right next to our PC!
http://samtron.cjb.net
They may be man-made, but those sound like "real" diamonds to me
they don't just sound like real diamonds, they ARE real diamonds! made from the same atomic material. there was a good show on the history channel about them. debeers is running a new campaign trying very hard to tack the word "synthetic" on to these man made diamonds so people will think they are fake. and also saying something like that "love is forever so how can you give your loved one a diamond made yesterday"
i think this was from an article i read that some of these man made were shown to a professional diamond appraiser, at first he could not tell them apart from real diamonds. he finally said that he thinks he figured out how to tell the difference, he said "they are too perfect" he said the man made diamonds had so few flaws compared to a normal diamond
if your gal's educated and fairly inteligent she'll probably have no problem if you give her something other than a diamond.
Especially if she does some historical research and discovers that prior to DeBeer's marketing campaigns in the late Victorian Era, most people exchanged fancy birth stone jewellry as engagement tokens. DeBeers invented the "Diamonds Are Forever" and ran with this ideology for over a century.
I note that around the same time Coca Cola refactored Kris Kringle, named him Santa Claus, and kitted him out in their advertising logo colours. And we think *our* society is permeated by advertising!
Da Blog
You know that not all diamonds come from Africa don't you? I bought my girlfriend a diamond solitare from a mine in Canada. I didn't check into the working conditions there, but I would guess that Canada doesn't go in for child labor.
As for the salesman comment... Maybe you have never tried to give a woman a gift that has no utility (particularly if it isn't even a special occasion), but I can tell you that it is a very easy way to brighten her day.
DeBeers is a monoploy that artificially inflates prices and creates an artifical scarcity.
so you are saying it is like OPEC
They had a lot to say, a lot of bold claims to make, a lot of doomsday predictions as well as predictions of paradise. The only thing they didn't include was supporting facts and information.
The meme of "limited" nuclear warfare is extremely dangerous. What about all those former soviet missiles which are on obsolete trigger systems? Do you trust them not to go off in the case of a "limited" nuclear strike? Don't fool yourself, we're still on very thin ice, and probably will be for the forseeable future. Not that I'm worried, life is a risky business under any circumstances, that's just part of the game. But it's good to be aware of the risks you face.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
You probably read this article from Wired.
There is no way on earth that there will be a general purpose 'fabricator' within twenty years. I'm not saying that I wouldn't like one - it's just not physically realistic!
The founders of this little group have no technical background in this field at all. Through sheer chutzpah, they've declared themselves to be authorities on nanotechnology because they've read popular treatments like those by Drexler. I'm really sick of people with no real scientific credibility becoming pundits merely by being loud.
Unless you actually understand the technology, you can't assess it reasonably! . How hard is this to figure out?!
If you need to buy her a ring in the first place, chances are that she is very shallow as it is.
That is the whole point... Who said anything about needing to buy her a ring? Any woman who dates me gets to know that she will be well taken care of, and giving jewlery is a way to show that. I would never give jewlery to a woman who asked me for it.
If you hate DeBeers so much, jewlery doesn't have to have diamonds.
I have read a lot of comments (atfa = and the fucking article). I can't seem to find discussion about what kind of stuff that can be built. Can they (nano-bots) for example create a balloon full of water? Living stuff?( I already have a girlfriend) Enlighten me!!!
Sounds like the second half of Venus Equilateral, by George O. Smith, except that as I remember it, the device was invented by human engineers from parts found in an alien archeological dig on Mars. The economy part of it is the same as you describe.
I have a couple of questions:
1. Who is backing the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology? Where does their money come from? Scientists? Scientists that work for big pharma? Scientists that work for biotech firms?
2. For all the people who have posted things like: "People have been saying that X invention would kill everyone for years, but it hasn't happened", just remember -- they only have to be right once. Might they not be right this time?
Enrico Fermi was the one who proposed that we haven't discovered extraterrestrial "life" or "intelligence" (or been discovered and contacted by it) because any advanced extraterrestrial society would have already killed itself off before advancing to the point where extraterrestrial travel is possible (Fermi's Paradox is what this is called, although my explanation is pretty inelegant).
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
Or at least 30-times-better than most of the crap they're charging 30-times-as-much to get into these days...
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
It is significantly harder to change one element to another than it is to rearrange atoms of elements you have into a particular order.
To make diamond from plants (for example), you just have to break some chemical bonds to get at the carbon and then make some new chemical bonds to get the right crystal structure. Getting the right structure for diamond usually means very high pressure.
This is relatively easy compared to changing atoms from one element to another. To do that, you have to have at least a neutron source (probably a nuclear reactor). This only works for the simplest of transformations. Past that, you have to start bombarding one atom with another at very high speeds and hoping you can get the decomposition you want. However, both processes are so energetically expensive that in general it would be cheaper to buy naturally occurring raw material.
I pray to my diety that these nanofactories do not get conntcted to any type of computer network. If they are, you just KNOW that there will be some kind of virus or worm that will attack these nanofactories and have them create any kind of nastiness.
If this comes to pass, the next computer virus could very well kill you.
I can see the virus threat warning...
========
W64.nanodeath
Discovered on: April 2, 2044
W64.nanodeath is a mass-mailing worm that attempts to spread using mail and file-sharing networks. The worm also opens a backdoor on an infected computer.
When the worm runs, it activates all network attached Microsoft NanoFactory(TM) systems in the local area network. The affected Microsoft NanoFactory systems will randomly produce MicroSoft MicroMachines(TM) designed to do one of the following:
* Destroy human flesh
* Destroy bone matter
* Destroy human brain tissue
* Produce plush penguin toys
Also Known As: Die.MSUsers.Die, Long.Live.Linux
Type: Worm
Infection Length: varies
Systems Affected: Windows 2020, Windows 2016, Windows 2013, Windows 2010.
Systems Not Affected: Everything Else
TZ
Wouldn't that be at the molecular level? Isn't that the level where the crystal becomes apparent? I mean, at the atomic level it would just be carbon, and at the sub-atomic level, it wouldn't be distinguishable from, say, rock salt.
Proverbs 21:19
Come on now, this is /. People here just pretend to know about science.
What's the first thing you do with your commander?
Nanolathe solar collectors.
Nanotech itself, after boostrapping, solves its own energy problem.
We managed to escape from Feudalism, didn't we? Western civilizations also emerged from under the yoke of an opressive Church. More recently, slave-owning agriculturalists were replaced with immigrant-employing industrialists. World War I marked the collapse of old Imperial powers.
It might take a long time, many people mayl die, but eventually things will change again. Advocating regression is no better a vision for the world than what today's fundamentalists offer. Pandora's box cannot be closed.
===---===
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
imagine if microsoft is in charge of programming our little nanobots: they'll be infected with worms and viruses. compromised bots will come and erase our brains instead of our hard drives. when they crash, they will construct a giant BSOD in the sky and block out the sun.
I sure as heck wouldn't buy my girlfriend a lab created one. All of the many peices of jewlery I bought her were natural.
I see very little "natural" in forcing children to dig stones out of hot underground mines. If I had the option to buy satisfactory lab diamonds I would. However, despite many promises, these are not currently available in suitable quantity or sizes. Lucky for devoted diamond buyers there are Canadian-certified non-DeBeers diamonds. I am currently unaware of any large-scale slavery operations in Canada...
Da Blog
Any woman who dates me gets to know that she will be well taken care of, and giving jewlery is a way to show that.
If this is true, why not just give her a big wad of cash and let her buy what she wants?
Holy Shit.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
I want a legion of nanobots patrolling my mouth, cleaning my teeth and gums. I want nanobots in my hair, always keeping it the proper length and style. I want a nanobot skin which keeps mosquitos and nasty bacteria out, yet lets air and other good things in. I want the skin to adapt to sunlight for UV protection and/or a perfect tan. Then I want them inside, doing various cleanup and repair jobs. Would that make me a cyborg?
A little late in the post already, but here is the link to Google's cached version since the site is Slashdotted.
Here!
I was talking about other gem stones.
Point taken. I am interested, however, in how to make a distinction ebtween "natural" and "artificial" in the context of gemstones. As mined, "natural" stones are the product of a vast, artificial mining apparatus that requires enormous investments of human, financial, and energy capital. And even when extracted, these stones look like, well, stones. It takes many thousands of hours of labour and some fearsome technology, distribution networks, and financial engineering to transform these dull stones in shiny gemstones.
If that isn't artificial then I don't know what is. It's possible there might be *less* middlemen and production inputs involved in the production of a lab-grown "artificial" gemstone.
Da Blog
I guess if I didn't respect her that would be an equivalent solution. This is as bad as giving a gift certificate to someone on their birthday/christmas/whatever. It shows you care, but that you didn't know them well enough to have picked out something they would really enjoy.
A wad of cash just shows that you have no imagination. I would be totally insulted if I got cash as a gift from my SO. This is supposed to be the person who knows you the best.
There are two problems with consumer manufacturing (nano or not):
...and the designs for the fab itself is NOT very likely to be on that list.
1) creating and selling the fabricators is not a business model. Once you get a few seeded out there, people will just make copies of the fabs themselves, and sell them to others, until the market is so saturated that people just give them away.
2) Regardless of whether today's police state has faded, the potential of the common people to make their own weapons, be they blades, guns, explosives, or other chemical dangers will be too much for government to tolerate.
The solution that I think will likely be deployed is a "Trusted Manufacturing" or "Trusted Fabrication" architecture much like we already see today with "Trusted Computing" and Digital Rights Management systems.
You will not be able to own a fab - you'll rent it, like your cable box, or your music CDs (*cough*) today. Tampering with someone else's property is obviously illegal (not that it will stop everyone - see below). Furthermore, the fabs will only be permitted to produce goods whose designs are whitelisted - ie, digitally signed - as "approved" by either the manufacturer, some industry consortium, or some government agency whose job it will be to thoroughly review designs to insure they are "safe" from abuses 1) or 2) above.
Unlike current TC designs like the TCPA, there will be no "taking ownership", where consumers will be able to choose whom to trust or not trust about what signed software/products to run/produce. That decision will be pre-decided when you get the fab, and you won't be permitted to change it "for public safety".
Not that the law will stop everyone. Someone will find holes in the system, and they will break it. One of the first things they will do will be to make an unrestricted fab, which will make the rest. They'll spread, underground, to anyone willing to take whatever risks are inherent in having one. Considering that the perceived dangers of possessing an unrestricted desktop fab are MUCH higher than the perceived dangers of having an unrestricted media player, I think it's likely that the legal consequences of being discovered with one will be harsher, potentially branding perpetrators as "terrorists" despite having intentions equivalent to wanting to play your own DVDs on your own Linux box in a world full of copyright piracy.
As usal, coporate/governemnt restrictions on consumer products won't be uncircumventable, but they will keep circumvention out of public life. On balance, I think such a state of affairs to help to make the transition more manageable - both for the good things, and the bad.
I hate to brake it to everyone but computers make it easier for crimminals, fire helps and cars and guns and just about every technology that exists makes it easier to commit crime...yet the crime rate has been declining for the past 1000 years same with the poverty rate same with the death by war rate....why would nanao tech be any different???....I mean why are we worried about nanotech but not about DVD proliferation? Is there something special about this tech then any other tech that requires us to dramaticly change all laws and moral codes...i think not
Well OPEC doesn't have a monopoly, but anymore neither does DeBeers. Russian and Austrelian diamonds are really making a dent, DeBeers is down to around %50 of the world market. In fact they are, as we type, negotiating with the US to settle their monopoly case. Currently their executives are not allowed into the US.
A blog about stuff.
There's an organization similar to that in existance now. It's called the American criminal justice system.
<sarcasm>
You'll notice how our murder rate has dropped to practically zero now that we have people whose duty it is to find, capture, try, convict, and execute the murderers.
</sarcasm>
here's a link to something similar but its not the right yearmolecules are analysed with subatomic particles arent they?
Oh, good, it's about time we got those nanotech factories in our homes. I plan to use mine to build that flying car...
'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
My girlfriend is completely the opposite, but that's ok too.
When I get her a gift, the only factor that determines her enjoyment is it's shinyness.
So I got her a $25 rhinestone copy of J-Lo's engagement ring for her birthday (along with a few other things) and she went *nuts*. She wears that thing everywhere. It's like she's retarded.
And cute. Cute and retarded. About shiny things, at least. Most of the time she's smart and rude.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Actually, I did. I found it rather disturbing. Oh, don't get me wrong, there were good bits, like the allegory of the cave, but in general I thought it was elitist, repressive, and dangerous. It actually reminded me a lot of "Brave New World", or at least an ancient Greek version thereof. "Ever heard of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle? ... Morons!" --Vizzini (actually, I thought Socrates (if he existed, outside Plato's imagination) and Aristotle were brilliant, just didn't like the "Republic")
Eugenics is absolutely necessary to the survival of the human race.
I disagree with this completely. I think it threatens the survival of the human race. You see, the thing is, evolution works regardless of circumstances. That which survives, in whatever environment, "natural" or not, is by definition fit to survive. We simply don't have enough information to decide which traits are desirable and which aren't (I will grant you some clear-cut cases, maybe, but there are far more borderline cases). How do you know that, by some quirk of circumstance, it will not someday be vital to our survival as a species that some or even all of us are fat, lazy fools? There is no way you can guarantee this will not happen, unlikely though it may seem. Sometimes the strangest genetic quirks end up coming in handy. The Koala, for instance, bases its entire survival strategy on being fat and lazy. Since there is no way to predict this, it would be foolish to start reducing the genetic diversity of the species artificially in order to create a supposedly more "fit" population.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Of course a Neutron Bomb would be a much cheaper and easier way to destroy a population and leave the infrastructure intact. This type of capability has been around for decades, and hasn't destroyed the world yet. While nano-tech may be dangerous, it is not for the reason you state.
as long as I can run really fast and look through walls like in Deus Ex, I don't care.
Talking about whether or not this is a large threat really only hinges on the degree by which nanotechnology can affect a vast number of people. If in fact nanobots that attack and destroy cells with certain dna coding are possible, then the only question remaining is to what degree they can be effectively deployed over a population. Can they self replicate? Can they advanced over an area effectively? And most importantly can they be neutralized?
I wish I had mod points... lol.
For another interesting take on nanotechnology and our future, read Ben Bova's "Moon Base" and "Moon War"
I'm looking forward to a nanoforge.
I can finally get that flying car that I've been promised since 1947.
"Computer I want some of that nasty looking klingon food... oh and a BMW please."
I love you
you love me
we're all happy family
Then a shot rang out, with a thud he hit the floor
no more purple di-no-saur
I don't specialize in nano-tech, but do read several journals that have gone nano-batty. I can say that while scientists can make interesting nano-structures (tubes, balls etc.) in the lab - they are far from mass manufacturing little robots. We're up against entropy here - its going to be hard to get molecules to form little gears, pumps, claws etc. So far useful nano-tech seems limited to unusually small particles of a solid material (ie. CdSe, GaN) that have interesting properties due to their size.
I'm also not a "bio-technician", but I think bio-tech is the future, and the ultimate nano-technoligy. Nano-bots have existed probably as long as life has on this planet, they're called viruses, prions, bacteria etc. We're figuring out how to modify them to do our bidding - for better or worse. They're the best candidate for grey goo.
I thought it was a good idea
YES! Finally a cure for my acne, and zits everywhere will DIE!
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Well, did you remember telling her that it's a rhinestone copy - or would that be ruining her 'nuttynes' ?
Erikegern
"Tea, Earl Grey"
Table-ized A.I.
"will arrive "almost certainly within 20 years."
So will this be before or after viable fusion reactors?
Yes, she knows perfectly well that it cost $25, and not $4.5 million.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
It doesn't have to be that way though
Well, no, it doesn't, but the problem is, it can be, and almost certainly will be.
I've already talked about the religious and evolutionary perspectives, so let me talk about the political perspective. I would think this would be obvious on its face, but here we go...
The trouble with Eugenics is that it can, has, and almost certainly will again, be manipulated for political purposes. It is inevitable, I think, as long as our society continues on its current course, that it will be. I'm OK with that, actually, I'm prepared for the massive chaos and destruction we're in the process of unleashing on ourselves, and if not, oh well, that's evolution in action. But I intend to go kicking and screaming all the way. Even if resistance is futile, it's still important.
Anyway, what I'm saying is, things like this will inevitably be used to enforce some artificial standard of "normality" on the human population. The reason for this is that increasing industrialization and specialization of labor leads to increasing anomie (Durkheim). Another way of putting this is that people don't like being slaves to a faceless machine. Thus as technology increases, it will obviously be in the best interests of that machine to use technology to mould human nature to make it fit better into our way of life. This will happen, whether we like it or not, regardless of the stories we tell ourselves to reconcile ourselves to it. Mark my words, or in the words of our illustrious Governator, "hear me now and believe me later."
I have the same problem with the way we use prescription drugs. There are commercials on TV now for the use of Zoloft to treat "social anxiety disorder." I'm sure you've seen them. WTF? This used to be called "shyness." It is a character trait, and one which I find rather appealing. Now suddenly it's a disorder, and we are expected to medicate ourselves for it. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Zoloft should be illegal, people have a right to do this to themselves if they want, but I sure as hell wouldn't take it. Instead of admitting that our way of life is fundamentally incompatible with human nature, we are undertaking to simply modify human nature to fit with our way of life. We create these "disorders" by living in insanely overcrowded, mechanical, dehumanizing conditions, then we treat the symptoms with drugs.
The same thing will be done with genetic engineering. Oh, sure, it will start with the clear-cut cases, just as the use of prescription drugs in psychiatry did, things like schitzophrenia, or like surgery did, treating cancer and so forth. But then, before long, you have people going under the knife to get their voice modified so that it sounds younger. Where do you draw the line? The distinction between "good" and "bad" uses of human modification technology is, like all other distinctions, arbitrary. But in a society such as ours, it is enevitable that they will be used to keep us asleep, to keep us under control, to make us conform, so that we will fulfil our role in the machine without question and be happy little slaves.
Have you ever read "A Brave New World"?
Anyway, that's a very quick and dirty version of the argument, there's a lot more to it than that of course, but I think you can get the general idea.
"It's one of those things we wish we could un-invent" -- Nicholas Cage in "The Rock"
"This species has amused itself to death." -- Roger Waters
My site: Free Nature Pictures
From the other side of the coin:
Aztecs - 1519 A.D. - Oh no! The Europeans will destroy us!
Mayans - 900 A.D. - Oh no! This drought will destroy us!
Easter Islanders - 1000 A.D. - Oh no! Deforestation and enviromental degradation will destroy us!
And for all we know - 20,000 B.C. - Oh no! Technology-eating nanobots will destroy us! :)
It's 1996 and mp3's are becomming extremely popular. You can take an audio track and create a near exact copy and share it with the rest of the world. 5-10 years later recording companies start realizing that people prefer the free/available version over the expensive plastic one available at a local retailer.
Now, put your beliefs about IP aside and just focus on how big a problem this is for both sides (consumers and companies).
What happens in 2040 when someone can download a blueprint to a Ferrari, shoot the data to their replicator, and suddenly have an exact duplicate. Sure, the raw resources needed to do this are probably unavailable to most individuals, but what if it was possible. All physical materials/objects would have the same monetary value as air. Would there be any incentive to design new products? Companies would surely die out unless laws were passed, but then the technology would be hampered as digital technology is today.
Excellent series. thanks!
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
The CRN webpage may as well talk about their 'nigerian' friends that need your help.
... and finishes with a link where you can support there great cause.
It goes on and on about how everything will be perfect, fast and solve every problem you can think of
DONT MAKE THOSE BASTARDS RICH OFF OF YOUR STUPIDITY.
It is nothing more than a con job that targets the nerdy.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
really? -1, crazy thanks
This is not 50 years in the future - this is now.
Q.
Insert Signature Here
The power of the technology may cause two competing nations to enter a disruptive and unstable arms race. Weapons and surveillance devices could be made small, cheap, powerful, and very numerous. Cheap manufacturing and duplication of designs could lead to economic upheaval. Overuse of inexpensive products could cause widespread environmental damage.
;)
I can just hear Miguel now - "I'm soooo scared!"
>You'll notice how our murder rate has dropped to practically zero now that we have people whose duty it is to find, capture, try, convict, and execute the murderers.
That's not sarcasm, it's just stupid.
The murder rate has dropped to nearly zero, compared with what it was back when nobody was paid to chase and try and execute sentences on murderers.
If we didn't have a criminal justice system, with the current economy of crowding and desperation, the murder rate would be a couple of orders of magnitude larger than it is. Just as a way of making money.
Such bullshit. The fourth plane was shot down by the U.S. Military and civilians be damned.
I work in nanotechnology, and while it might be possible that in 20 years the world will have gone to hell, I highly dount it will be because of this work that no one is doing. The actual work being done in nanotech, is another matter.
These guys make molecular manufacturing sound easy. I'd like to see them try it! None of this is easy, and I would say most of us think molecular manufacturing isn't even possible. The set up described in Drexler's book is not attainable. There are no big names in nanotechnology working on molecular manufacturing, but plenty working on lots of other things.
There is more than enough to be worried about with what is ACTUALLY being done with nanotechnology. It's insulting to those of us in the field, that our research on gas detectors, bio-electronics, nerve regerneration, nanometer transistors, pathogen detectors and drug delivery is deemed so umimportant that it's not even worth talking about. Moreover, there are tremendous issues involved in those projects, which no one is talking about. Any warning about ACTUAL dangers in nanotechnology is being drowned out by ignorant shrills simply seeking the spotlight.
We need a debate on what sensitive explosives sensors are going to do not only for security, but for farmers, scientests and anyone who works around incriminating chemicals. I don't want to be taken in for questioning every time I board a plane. We need to talk about what happens with illegal drugs and steroids when drugs can be delivered to a specific organ and leave the rest of the body largely unaffected. We need to talk about what it really means for education and health when computers are small enough to fit inside the body. The reason I read slashdot is because every once in a while these things come up here. There are plenty of large moral issues literally around the corner, but almost no one is paying attention! Live in the present, it is a fascinating time, and we have many, many unanswered questions.
Debating how to prevent a fictional future arms race depending on a scientific advance many scientests doing the work don't believe will happen in our lifetimes is plain stupid in comparison.
To be fair, I think molecular manufacturing WILL be seen in our lifetime, but it will not be cheap, nor easy, nor fast. Go ahead and calculate how long it will take to make one kilogram of something at 1000000 atoms a second, it's around 1 trillion years. Plain old wet chemistry (aka "bottom up nanotechnology") still has a lot of time and use left. For the first 10 or 20 years molecular manufacturing is around no one will know what to do with it because it will not be this holy grail the media has worked it into. This is based on the history of science, from the steam engine to microscopes capable of atomic resolution. We've always set our sights on these goals, only to be surprised at their implimentation. It's always taken the big breakthroughs a decade or two to get used.
Sorry, benzapp, my irony detector must have been turned off. Yes, very amusing.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
We would have found the 18 ultra-microcopic nano-nuclear warheads hidden in the Arabian desert, but Clinton's dog ate them.
This is redundant with an AC comment, but I'm going to say it anyway just to emphasize the point.
The end does not justify the means.
This is elementary ethics, any philosophy prof can tell you that. One of the many reasons for this is that it is impossible to predict with certainty what the actual end result will be. History shows that even the best plans generally have unforseen results. The common way to put this is that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Because you cannot predict with certainty what the concequences of an action will be, you must evaluate the ethical worth of an action independently of its intended consequences.
Genocide is wrong on its face. If I need to explain to you why that is, there is not much hope of reaching you anyway. So to undertake genocide, even with the best of intentions, is still wrong, regardless of what you think the result will be. Because the thing is, what if you're wrong, and you kill all these people, and you end up doing more harm than good anyway?
My site: Free Nature Pictures
and possibly politicians?
--My opinion is that diamonds exist for two reasons:
1. Peer pressure / impressing $lady's friends
2. If something happens to $husband, the diamond can be sold (or worst case, pawned) for money - to help $wife/$widow keep going.
--Anyone, feel free to jump in and correct me on this if you have evidence to the contrary, or even a strong opinion.
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
I guess in retrospect it should have been set at its closest during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when Vasily Arkhipov, quite probably the greatest hero who ever lived, singlehandedly saved the world from nuclear destruction. (It's a long article, do a search for his name if you just want this part of the story.)
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Fortunately, there are no "black", "caucasian", or "asian" genes. You may be able to point at someone and name a race, but a machine scanning through DNA would have a hell of a time doing the same thing because of the absurd complexities and inconsistencies of the gene sets involved.
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
Of course they can't. They are extinct. But they could have.;)
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
I was under the impression that there is no such thing as a gene or genes for race etc. so anyone looking to eradicate certain genetic patterns/types would have to be doing the rough equivalent of a genetic google search. Hardly likely to guarantee the eradicators survival either. That said I suppose they may not care.
This post about diamonds put you on my friends list today.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Rather, it seems to me that they are discussing the suddenness of the arrival of a human-scale fabricator, a thought experiment concerning a 'black box' that is quite reasonable to expect in the near future, and the impact such a device would have.
There are several key points being glossed over in the comments, including yours, so maybe I can point them out for your review:
I hope this helps ease the discussion and bring it back around to some semblance of sensibility.
omg teh 666 poasts!!1 run fuor yuor liveS!!!!
Please flee in terror in an orderly manner.
Why the hell does every example of duplication use cars? Why not actually duplicate something useful? Money, Beer, Pringles and Dope spring to mind.
There is a vast difference between assembling atoms into molecules (e.g., carbon into diamond), and transmuting one element into another (e.g., lead into gold).
All current nanotechnological research (of which I am aware) concerns itself with the former, not the latter.
Hence, diamonds are much easier to manufacture than gold.
(see also this post.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
2. If something happens to $husband, the diamond can be sold (or worst case, pawned) for money - to help $wife/$widow keep going.
No it can't....that's the most brilliant part of the whole scam. Diamonds actually have very little resale value. A jewler won't take a second hand diamond. Sure you might find some idiot who'll take it, but it's officially worthless.
Each of these little nano-fellows will be twice as smart as a dog and breed like rabbits.
Some kid will probably make a virus as well.
Armageddon anyone?
Nah. Bring on the electromagnetic pulse!
I suggest you read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins or any other biology book that talks about "handicap theory" (sadly, Dawkins' book only touches on this subject).
Basically, there is some evidence that certain species evolved some traits that reduce their fitness, but are used to demonstrate to females that the individual is so strong otherwise that it managed to survive even with the handicap. Apparently, it worked for some species, even though it looks like it contradicts common sense. It is strangely similar to the diamond scam.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
We have a lot of global laws now, and they're obeyed more than not. A large body of 'common law' based on precedence goes back to Roman times at least, like much of the original law of the sea, and the rules for treatment of diplomats and citizens of foreign nations. Then there's the huge body of multinational and UN treaties, which are part of the global legal structure. Of course, just like in basketball, folks do break the rules and 'cheat'.
The rules of war have been in the news lately, including treatment of prisoners and the responsibility of occupying forces. Saddam Hussein is pretty much the only one who has used chemical warfare recently; only a few uses have occurred since World War I. (In this case 'minor' means something entirely different to a victim than a statistician.)
The basketball analogy is worth reviewing. I have acted as a referee in basketball games. I quickly learned that it was impossible to catch and punish every violation, as violations were almost continuous. The players were not very skilled, and most violations were inadvertant. As a ref, I just resorted to calling the most egregious, and preventing violations from affecting the flow.
The same thing is true at all levels of human endeavour. Those who make the laws are no more likely to abuse them than anyone else. Most don't, a few do. Most multinational corporations expend a lot of effort staying legal; lawbreaker companies are much more likely to be entrepreneurial or single/family owned private companies.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
You mean something based on this ?
Working for necessity's mother.
Actually, with CVDs it's the other way around -- the De Beers system spectrographically detects mineral flaws in natural diamonds.
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Its interesting to look at "future prediction" books written decades ago and see what was correct and what was missed. Early futurists were concerned about machines- robots, personal airplanes and rockets. Didnt quite predict airline travel would become mass market like "greyhound in the sky". Then in the 60s and 70s the future became "human potential": ecology, the new psychology, etc. Then int he 1980s the future became IT everywhere.
You see these images of the future fossilized in the Disney parks, depending on the when the attraction was built, e.g. Tommorrow Land, Carousel of Progress, EPCOT Dome, etc.
This is another misconception that people have of nanotechnology, the machines = made of metal idea. True nanotechnology would be machines on the nano scale, i.e. sizes ranging from protein up to cells. When you're "building" at that scale you're free to use any atoms you like, and a mechanical system does not have to be made of metal. In fact, for machines that intereact with molecules, metal atoms are often the worst choice for building materials. Protein is a machine, DNA is a machine, they both perform preprogrammed functions that amount to more than just chemical reactions, they move and manipulate molecules in ways we would consider robotic, and yet if you put a big magnet up to my skin you won't be sucking all the DNA out of it.
Or EMF. Or microwaves. Or X-Rays.
As to the idea of using magnets or radiation to cleanse people or an area of nanites, it's more complicated than just dousing an area with some form of radiation. The scale of the nanites is the first problem, they won't necessarily be sitting on the surface of things, they can be inside the molecular structure of people, buildings, the earth's surface, etc; making them very hard to find and reach. Additionally while a blast of x-rays or microwaves would in most cases totally erradicate any nanites in an area, the radiation will most likely kill or injure any macro biological life forms as well, i.e. you, me, and our dog sparky. EMF just plain won't work because, once again, while these are in fact machines, they are not machines in the large-scale sense that we are used to, they have no electronics to short-circuit.
And if even one escapes, on a mote of dust in the wind perhaps, it will simply begin to multiply again as soon as that mote lands.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
This is why I hate slashdot... unlike reallife, people are smarter than me
Well maybe she would get just as much entertainment from a piece of glass, then ?
Unless, of course, she's actually a D & D half-dragon and thus receives mental pleasure from counting the value of her hoard. Maybe we all are. That would certainly explain certain aspects of human behaviour...
Sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice is idiotic. You could just as easily fall on your knees before her and start whipping yourself.
Besides, if you can actually afford to spend $10K on a ultimately useless thing spontaneously (without negotiating with her about how it will effect your financial situation - I am assuming you live together with her ? If not, then this is an even stronger point), then it seems to me you aren't making any large sacrifice...
A real geek doesn't go out and buy the most expensive computer available. A real geek goes out and buys whatever component needs upgrading to play the latest game (or whatever he was trying to do), and picks the replacement based on the cost/benefit -ratio. Then he upgrades only that one component, therefore saving money and the hassle of having to reinstall software.
For example, the last machine I bought was a 486SX/25...
A wannabe geek certainly falls on all this, but that's because a wannabe geek is playing with things he doesn't really understand.
Why does it have to cost a fortune to be a desirable possession ? It's excatly similar, whether artificial or "natural".
Jewelry doesn't mean anything. It's just decoration. If you want to give a gift that actually means something, make it yourself or pick something that has some other significance than just having an artificially inflated price. For example, if she likes horses, a little horse statue would work nicely...
Of course, that would involve actual trouble in getting to know her and then finding something nice, as opposed to just writing a cheque.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Unless, of course, she's actually a D & D half-dragon and thus receives mental pleasure from counting the value of her hoard.
That isn't the appeal at all. For her the appeal is being able to look down any time of the day and see a piece of glittering jewlery that reminds her of me. No matter what is happening in her day, it is like I am there with her because she has a symbol of my affection for her. It is a constant reminder that I care.
If you want to give a gift that actually means something, make it yourself or pick something that has some other significance than just having an artificially inflated price. For example, if she likes horses, a little horse statue would work nicely...
A very good point. I know that my girlfriend likes jewlery, so I buy her some from time to time. It isn't like that is the only kind of gift I have ever given her. I make her stuff from time to time too.
Sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice is idiotic.
Very true, but what I am talking about is sacrifice for her. It isn't for the sake of sacrifice. Besides a gift every now and again is hardly a very severe sacrifice (it certianly doesn't compare with "whipping yourself"). It just shows you care, and you are thinking of her.
By the way, the gifts I have recieved from my girlfriend are amazing. I always enjoy seeing what she has picked out for me.
Why does it have to cost a fortune to be a desirable possession ?
It doesn't. But jewlery is romantic partially because of the way the precious stones form over millions of years. Even if it is technically the same as a stone made in a lab it just isn't as neat in my eyes (my girlfriend agrees).
if you can actually afford to spend $10K on a ultimately useless thing spontaneously
I can't afford $10K, and I never have payed anywhere near that for a piece of jewlery. I just still don't think it is ultimately useless. I mean if you are so concerned with it having to have utility you could consider the fact that many peices of jewlery actually gain value over time. You don't hear about alot of people selling them later when they are worth more though. There is a reason for this, and that is that they have sentimental value. Perhaps you think this notion is silly, but I don't.
He talks about this more in some other books - eg 'The Extended Phenotype'.
The canonical example is of course the peacock's tail.
I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
You may think what you will of my argument, or lack thereof. If you examine the original post, you may find some facts, assumptions, and logic buried in there somewhere (although I admit I'm alluding to much of it, via the reference to Durkheim, whom I highly recommend). The logic is like this: increasing specialization of labor leads to increasing anomie, anomie makes people less capable of functioning in society, therefore it is in society's best interest to use technology to artificially decrease anomie, rather than dealing with the cause. Anyway, I don't object to any of that, you are entitled to your opinion.
What I feel compelled to address, though, is this:
Good luck luddite
I am not a luddite. If I were, what the hell would I be doing using a computer to communicate with you, on slashdot no less? This is a common confusion. Some people, like myself, advocate the responsible use of technology. I love technology. I just think we should be very careful how we use it, as it gives us enormous power. I would think this was obvious. However, there are others who are in favor of the rapid implementation of all tech as soon as it comes along, regardless of the effects or concequences of doing so, on the assumption that all tech and all uses of tech are inherently good. Such people often accuse those who advocate responsible use of tech of being luddites, thus dismissing our views, but in fact we are not.
I am all in favor of using tech in ways that are sustainable, that promote human freedom, happiness, and well being, and the good of the planet as a whole. I am opposed to uses of technology which are contrary to these ends, and I think using technology to modify human nature obviously falls into this category.
The reason I see the abuse of this tech, and others, as inevitable, is that our society is structured in such a way that tech will always be used for the advancement of the interests of the machine itself, rather than toward the above ends. It has to do not with the technology itself, but with the nature of our society.
The thing is, the way I see it, we're already living in a dystopia, not because of our technology, but because of the failure of our culture. But that's just my opinion, for whatever it's worth. I'm mostly saying this for the record, so that when the dust settles and the archaologists are picking through the ruins, I will be counted among those who saw it coming and tried to do something about it. Silly, I know, but that's the way it is.
My site: Free Nature Pictures