Not a defender of Drexler mechanosynthesis-just trying to point out the clairty of his vision. If you work with Smalley, can you say what his vision is in broad strokes? Fabulous person and scientist, but the NNI roadmap-energy, bio, materials, spans organic/inorganic chem, quantum physics for moletronics, bits of mol bio and MEMS and seems to lack unity.
I think the real problem is not the potential risks but lack of real vision. Most scientists consider Drexler n co to be out of their minds, but at least they have a single unifying theme-a molecular assembler. The mainstream nano community has failed to come up with anything similar. Smalley of Rice thinks nano will solve the world's energy needs. A laudable goal but harly a roadmap or vision. Mikhail Rocco's offerings are trippy (brain-ti-brain communicators, etc) and aren't the type to garner public support. Politicians need a simple, clear vision of "nano will make you life better by..." to take to their constituents
You've highlighted the key issue. Which skills have value? The main point if the IT revolution is to enable the individual. This results in higher productivity and flatter organizations. One person can do the work of ten. One manager can communicate with any segment of the business to generate new products. Anybody turning a wrench does not merit options/ownership in this model.
Couple this with the effects of globalization, and the value of the majority of employees depreciates. Globalization effectively says that the emperor has no clothes, and that the benefits of unions, protectionism, etc are larely illusions. The markets shift low value work-initally call centers, but eventually accounting, engineering, etc -to the nearly infinite pool of global cheap labor. Value shifts into the hands of the management team, who actually drive the business, regardless of their performance.
Fighting globalization is a pointless fight. The ugly answer is that the only people who will command substantial salaires are management and innovators. So, either start your own business, create compelling value by generating IP, or if you're not talented enough to do either, position yourself as an integral part of a small, innovative organization. Anything else is a losing battle. I don't think the majority of Americans are nimble enough to embrace this, but the disparity between our wages and the rest of the world requires it. 20 years from now, the only people who will have respectable incomes will own a fraction of thier business. Only people generating IP or actually driving the bus will be able to demand options.
Slashdot Mirror
Not a defender of Drexler mechanosynthesis-just trying to point out the clairty of his vision. If you work with Smalley, can you say what his vision is in broad strokes? Fabulous person and scientist, but the NNI roadmap-energy, bio, materials, spans organic/inorganic chem, quantum physics for moletronics, bits of mol bio and MEMS and seems to lack unity.
I think the real problem is not the potential risks but lack of real vision. Most scientists consider Drexler n co to be out of their minds, but at least they have a single unifying theme-a molecular assembler. The mainstream nano community has failed to come up with anything similar. Smalley of Rice thinks nano will solve the world's energy needs. A laudable goal but harly a roadmap or vision. Mikhail Rocco's offerings are trippy (brain-ti-brain communicators, etc) and aren't the type to garner public support. Politicians need a simple, clear vision of "nano will make you life better by ..." to take to their constituents
You've highlighted the key issue. Which skills have value? The main point if the IT revolution is to enable the individual. This results in higher productivity and flatter organizations. One person can do the work of ten. One manager can communicate with any segment of the business to generate new products. Anybody turning a wrench does not merit options/ownership in this model. Couple this with the effects of globalization, and the value of the majority of employees depreciates. Globalization effectively says that the emperor has no clothes, and that the benefits of unions, protectionism, etc are larely illusions. The markets shift low value work-initally call centers, but eventually accounting, engineering, etc -to the nearly infinite pool of global cheap labor. Value shifts into the hands of the management team, who actually drive the business, regardless of their performance. Fighting globalization is a pointless fight. The ugly answer is that the only people who will command substantial salaires are management and innovators. So, either start your own business, create compelling value by generating IP, or if you're not talented enough to do either, position yourself as an integral part of a small, innovative organization. Anything else is a losing battle. I don't think the majority of Americans are nimble enough to embrace this, but the disparity between our wages and the rest of the world requires it. 20 years from now, the only people who will have respectable incomes will own a fraction of thier business. Only people generating IP or actually driving the bus will be able to demand options.