Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Responsible Nanotechnology Interview

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the afraid-of-skynet dept.

cynical writes "WorldChanging has a lengthy interview with Chris Phoenix and Mike Treder of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, a non-profit group helping to make sure molecular manufacturing is developed as safely as possible. In the article they talk about their policy task force (which includes folks like Ray Kurzweil, David Brin, and Jaron Lanier), the risks and benefits of nanofactories, and why open source is so important to the responsible development of nanotechnology."

5 of 65 comments (clear)

  1. Intellectual property by quokkapox · · Score: 3, Interesting
    IP must be protected at all costs; we cannot have people manufacturing patented and copyrighted molecules on their desktops like we have people irresponsibly trading copyrighted intellectual property (books, movies, and music) today.

    Discuss. :)

    --
    it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
    1. Re:Intellectual property by GroeFaZ · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is very possible that desktop manufacturing will - in the beginning at least - cause the same problems as P2P downloading does today, including so-called "pirating" of designs, because all atomically precise blueprints can be shared just like an .mp3 file today. The only difference will be the dimensions: While P2P "only" affected the music, software and movie industry, desktop manufacturing will affect almost every branch of industry that produces physical products. I think the results of this cannot be underestimated. It will bring the equivalent of free/open source to the physical world and thus to everyone who can download it, and there will be editors to modify them at one's discretion. Just like today, there will be broad attempts to vilify the free alternatives, but just like in software today, people will not be willing to pay for a spoon design if there's a perfectly working spoon design available (and with less bugs at that :) any more than they would pay money to get a calculator program.

      Add to that the possibility of desktop feedstock refining: just throw in the old stuff to break it down and get something new out of its atoms, and you get a veritable revolution at your hands.

      The alternatives are clear: Designs are restricted at the manufacturer's will, programing the nanofactory is illegal under the DMCA, and feedstock is sold by the hp principle: give away the factory, earn money through the proprietary feedstock cartridges. Pay for every time you assemble a product, even if you paid for its design already. DRM galore.

      Which is it going to be?

      --
      The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
  2. Safe nanotech? Nah by PhakeDC · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There always will be malicious use for nanotech by notorious governments and private firms, no amount of "responsible" scientists will change human behaviour. I'd suggest reading Prey by Michael Crichton to comprehend the true extent and ease with which certain people could develop serious threats using nanotech. Not to say all is doomed when nanotech hits mainstream, I'm bracing myself for at least a few nasty surprises along the way.

  3. Re:Oh joy open source grey goo! by GroeFaZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know you were kidding, but let me just point out that the "grey goo by accident" concept is outdated and not very probable. In fact, its "inventor", Eric Drexler, wrote a paper why his earlier warnings in Engines of Creation will not apply. Basically, the argument is that in nanofactories, the assemblers are not floating freely, but are tied up in rigid and designed patterns to make assembly most efficient. Because such a fixed design is more efficient then self-organising floating assemblers, there is no economic incentive to do floating assemblers and thus no danger of grea goo by accident. Intent might be another story of course.

    --
    The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
  4. Richard Smally V. Eric Drexler by MaxiumMahem · · Score: 2, Interesting
    As a chemist, it sometimes gets to me when Engineers and Computer Scientists take extrapolations from our macro-scale world, and then translate them down to the nano-scale, without recognising how terribly diffrent the two are. Mechanosythisis and machinephase matter are simply silly concepts on the nano-scale. Atoms and molecules are not nice stable things which will sit still and alow you to pluck them from one position to another. No, they are constantly moving and bouncing into one another at high speeds, changing their shape, and undergoing small reaction constantly.

    Richard Smally, who shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his co-discovery of the Buckyball once tried to point this out to Eric Drexler in a published series of articles., but the nano-enthusiast will not be disauded, no matter how well versed in the subjet matter their opponents.

    As for "responsible nanotechnology." Nature has already crated her own version of "grey goo" which we would be hard pressed to copy. That is the simple bacteria. While the cover the Earth, we are in no more danger of them starting to grow out of control and devowering all our resources then we are the nano-technologists every getting machine-phase matter working.