From: autodesk!robertj@uunet.uu.net (Rob Jellinghaus)
Newsgroups: sci.nanotech
Subject: Re: Rere:Snowballing tomk
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:54:24 GMT
Organization: Autodesk Inc., Sausalito CA, USA


Tom, have you read _Engines of Creation_ or _Unbounding the Future_?
Much of what I'm about to say is said more eloquently in those books.
Anyone on sci.nanotech who hasn't read them is missing a fundamental
base of knowledge about what nanotech advocates are claiming and why.

In article <Sep.8.16.32.21.1992.1046@planchet.rutgers.edu> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>In article <Aug.31.23.11.27.1992.29492@planchet.rutgers.edu> shearson!snark!pmetzger@uunet.uu.net (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>>You seem to forget another point; even an immature nanotechnology will
>>likely radically alter our lifespans.
>
>And how do you arrive at this idea Perry? Aren't you somehow sticking
>medical science advances in there with nanotechnological advances?
>(Sort of "And a Miracle Occurs" middle part?)

Many advances in medical science have come about because of improved
technology.  CAT and MRI would be impossible without computers, even
though computers have nothing to do _per se_ with medical science.
There is no miracle.  If we have tools which can perform surgery at
the molecular level--tools for which there would be much demand, once
nanotechnology makes it possible to manufacture them--the range of
possible treatments and procedures will be enormously expanded.

>>And for those of us who don't like the idea of being caught dying just
>>a few decades away from nanotechnology, there is always cryonics...
>
>What about cryonics?

There is a sizable subset of the nanotech community that believes that
advanced nanotech (i.e. nanotech that may take many decades to
develop) will be able to repair widespread, extensive neurological
damage...  the sort of damage that results from cryonic preservation.
The natural implication is that if you believe nanotechnology is
possible, and if you believe it will be developed eventually (because
of all the payoffs, both near-term and long-term), then it is quite
conceivable that nanotech could improve your chances of being
reanimated after cryonic treatment.

>>Given the fact that you can construct more assemblers with self
>>reproduction, why should we be restricted to so few assemblers?
>
>If you can't construct a single self replicating machine right now
>how do you presume to invent such a machine.

What sense does this make?  In 1900, I could easily have said, "If you
can't construct a single spacecraft right now how do you presume to
invent such a machine."  Technological history is filled with truly
new inventions.

>This has never worked in the past and now we are
>going to have it happen in an entirely new technology.

Many people in the last few days have pointed out that nanotechnology,
defined as "control of the structure of matter at a molecular level,"
is NOT an "entirely new technology".  Rather, it is at the center of
molecular mechanics, biotechnology, computational chemistry, and a
host of other eminently real-world technologies.

>Show me ANYTHING that could be considered a demonstration of the idea.

What kind of demonstration do you want?  Any biotech company--using
modified biological molecular machinery to produce useful products--
is an example.  Any artificial life program--running artificial
organisms which can improve their fitness through artificial evolution
--is another.

>OK, I'll bite. HOW will better assemblers make faster and better
>computers? You are again simply making an immense leap of faith.
>Compared to this Joan of Arc was a piker.

The limiting factors in computer speeds are threefold: cycle time,
amount of processors, and cost of manufacturing.  Molecular nano-
technology could naturally be applied to produce smaller circuit
elements, reducing cycle time.  Likewise, molecular-scale processors
would be far more ocmpact, increasing the amount of processing power
per unit of space.  And assembler technology could make it much less
expensive to construct such computers.  None of these are leaps of
faith in the slightest.

>I'm trying to goad people into coming up with practical _now_
>ideas. Not dreams about what nanotech could conceivably become.
>No one can predict the future with certainty.

You are goading in the wrong place, then.  The real research which
will lead to nanotechnology is being done inside corporate labs and
biotech startups the world over, by people who are much too busy
writing papers and creating new tools to spend much time with sci.
nanotech.  There are journals devoted to molecular-scale technology
and nanotechnology... if you want practical ideas, look there first.
sci.nanotech is for informal discussion of these ideas, not for
formal research publications.

And without dreaming of what's possible, how can you know which way
to go?  Foresight is one of the most vital qualities we can possess,
if we hope to survive the future.

--
Rob Jellinghaus                | "Next time you see a lie being spread or
Autodesk, Inc.                 |  a bad decision being made out of sheer
Internet: robertj@Autodesk.COM |  ignorance, pause, and think of hypertext."
AMIX: RJELLINGHAUS             |    -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_