Elvithriel

They are based on the calculations of Ray Kurzweil and the of law of accellerating returns as he calls it.

That example was just of the future of nanotechnology, not of assemblers and molecular nanotechnolgy.

Elvithriel

Here's a video that will introduce you to the concept.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/v...ay_bizweek.ram

Whoops... I noticed I said molecular nanotechnology will be workable in 20-30 years. I should have said 40-50 years. Sorry.

tribalbeeyatch

Or have your fetus die in your womb because its fetal hemoglobin can't compete...

Elvithriel

I don't have a womb. The fetus would be genetically engineered anyway.

Kosh

Why nonotechnology won't work

fando

I have to agree somewhat with the just posted article. The physics of nanoscales might preclude Drexlerian robots a la Neil Stephenson and we might ultimately be limited to 'sculpting' tiny, but static structures via electron bean lithography, chemical reaction, ultra-refined granulation, and similar techniques. So far, these processes are state of the art and there has been no real progress in the development of abiological nanomachines. I'd expect robots of that scale to be somewhat biological and almost cell-sized to cope with the environment. In other words, future nanomachines are going to be for the most part bioengineered lifeforms. Don't expect red blood cells to be replaced by robotic machines that are scaled down versions of modern robotics.

Elvithriel

Interesting... So basically he is using what we can't do today and problems we can't yet solve, as a way to describe what we can't do in the future and can't ever solve.

fando

We can't travel faster than light now. Will we ever?

Granted, the view in the article is kind of conservative and hesitant and there really is no reason to believe that we won't be able to construct complex robots atom by atom in the far, far future, but in the near term we can make reasonable predictions based on current frontier research and development. It is my prediction that we'll have bioengineered lifeforms of that scale long before there are autonomous von Neumann robots building our cities as in Gibson's Idoru. Once fission and fusion were discovered, it didn't take much to predict the atomic bomb. But the preditctions of nuclear energy as a solve-everything deux ex machina turned out to be a bit too speculative when the poisonous nature of radioactivity emerged as a challenging and considerable constraint. In this case, we might have wonky physics serving as the constraint to Drexler's highest hopes. Still, that is not to discourage Feynman's vision that there is plenty of room at the bottom to tinker with. We'll just have to tinker in a different paradigm, like genetically, or even some other not yet discovered system.

Elvithriel

Far, far, future?

You didn't watch my video about exponential growth of technology did you? (The important part starts at around 08:00 in the video)

fando

Yeah, I guess exponential growth might throw the meaning of far, far future off a bit. I'll call near future within my lifetime.

My roommate believes we'll have immortality within our lifetimes, and he's investing. That's not too unwise given the growth trends in science these days.