Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Starboy · 04-25-2003, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

It will take more than medical science to make us immortal. We would have to live in a very much safer world than we have today.

Starboy

Elvithriel · 04-25-2003, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

Well that depends how old you are, I'm convince I will see this stuff in my life-time.

Then we have the singularity, which we could get into if you like.

Kosh · 04-25-2003, 07:51 PM

I think you guys missed the point of his article. To put it an analogy, we will never be able to do X, because doing X requires us to turn screws smaller than a #1 phillips, which is the absolute smallest bit we can ever have.

Elvithriel · 04-25-2003, 08:02 PM

Kosh, you have proved my point. When we get to the stage when a paradigm runs out of steam, a new paradigm comes around to keep the exponential growth going.

That's the way it's been since life started on this planet and if it stops anytime soon I would be very surprised.

Elvithriel · 04-25-2003, 11:50 PM

Kosh, I also found a letter by Eric Drexler to Richard Smalley (who wrote that article you posted).

Quote:

Prof. Smalley:

I have written this open letter to correct your public misrepresentation of my work.

As you know, I introduced the term "nanotechnology" in the mid-1980s to describe advanced capabilities based on molecular assemblers: proposed devices able to guide chemical reactions by positioning reactive molecules with atomic precision. Since "nanotechnology" is now used label diverse current activities, I have attempted to minimize confusion by relabelling the longer term goal "molecular manufacturing". The consequences of molecular manufacturing are widely understood to be enormous, posing opportunities and dangers of first-rank importance to the long-term security of the United States and the world. Theoretical studies of its implementation and capabilities are therefore of more than academic interest, and are akin to pre-Sputnik studies of spaceflight, or to pre-Manhattan-Project calculations regarding nuclear chain reactions.

You have attempted to dismiss my work in this field by misrepresenting it. From what I hear of a press conference at the recent NNI conference, you continue to do so. In particular, you have described molecular assemblers as having multiple "fingers" that manipulate individual atoms and suffer from so-called "fat finger" and "sticky finger" problems, and you have dismissed their feasibility on this basis [1]. I find this puzzling because, like enzymes and ribosomes, proposed assemblers neither have nor need these "Smalley fingers" [2]. The task of positioning reactive molecules simply doesn't require them.

I have a twenty year history of technical publications in this area [3 - 12] and consistently describe systems quite unlike the straw man you attack. My proposal is, and always has been, to guide the chemical synthesis of complex structures by mechanically positioning reactive molecules, not by manipulating individual atoms. This proposal has been defended successfully again and again, in journal articles, in my MIT doctoral thesis, and before scientific audiences around the world. It rests on well-established physical principles.

The impossibility of "Smalley fingers" has raised no concern in the research community because these fingers solve no problems and thus appear in no proposals. Your reliance on this straw-man attack might lead a thoughtful observer to suspect that no one has identified a valid criticism of my work. For this I should, perhaps, thank you.

You apparently fear that my warnings of long-term dangers [13] will hinder funding of current research, stating that "We should not let this fuzzy-minded nightmare dream scare us away from nanotechnology....NNI should go forward" [14]. However, I have from the beginning argued that the potential for abuse of advanced nanotechnologies makes vigorous research by the U.S and its allies imperative [13]. Many have found these arguments persuasive. In an open discussion, I believe they will prevail. In contrast, your attempt to calm the public through false claims of impossibility will inevitably fail, placing your colleagues at risk of a destructive backlash.

Your misdirected arguments have needlessly confused public discussion of genuine long-term security concerns. If you value the accuracy of information used in decisions of importance to national and global security, I urge you to seek some way to help set the record straight. Endorsing calls for an independent scientific review of molecular manufacturing concepts [15] would be constructive.

A scientist whose research I respect has observed that "when a scientist says something is possible, they're probably underestimating how long it will take. But if they say it's impossible, they're probably wrong." The scientist quoted is, of course, yourself [16].

K. Eric Drexler Chairman, Foresight Institute

----------------------------

1. Smalley, R. E. (2001) Of chemistry, love and nanobots - How soon will we see the nanometer-scale robots envisaged by K. Eric Drexler and other molecular nanotechologists? The simple answer is never. Scientific American, September, 68-69. http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~smalleyg/rick's%20publications/SA285-76.pdf

2. Drexler, K. E., D. Forrest, R. A. Freitas Jr., J. S. Hall, N. Jacobstein, T. McKendree, R. Merkle, C. Peterson (2001) A Debate About Assemblers. http://www.imm.org/SciAmDebate2/smalley.html.

3. Drexler, K. E. (1981) Molecular engineering: An approach to the development of general capabilities for molecular manipulation. Proc. Natnl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.. 78:5275-5278. http://www.imm.org/PNAS.html

4. Drexler, K. E. (1987) Nanomachinery: Atomically precise gears and bearings. IEEE Micro Robots and Teleoperators Workshop. Hyannis, Massachusetts: IEEE.

5. Drexler, K. E., and J. S. Foster. (1990) Synthetic tips. Nature. 343:600.

6. Drexler, K. E. (1991) Molecular tip arrays for molecular imaging and nanofabrication. Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology-B. 9:1394-1397.

7. Drexler K. E., (1991) Molecular Machinery and Manufacturing with Applications to Computation. MIT doctoral thesis.

8. Drexler, K. E. (1992) Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation. New York: John Wiley & Sons. http://www.foresight.org/NanoRev/Boo...#anchor1025139

9. Drexler, K. E. (1992) Molecular Directions in Nanotechnology. Nanotechnology (2:113).

10. Drexler, K. E. (1994) Molecular machines: physical principles and implementation strategies. Annual Review of Biophysics and Biomolecular Structure (23:337-405).

11. Drexler, K. E. (1995) Molecular manufacturing: perspectives on the ultimate limits of fabrication. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London A (353:323-331).

12. Drexler, K. E. (1999) Building molecular machine systems. Trends in Biotechnology, 17: 5-7. http://www.imm.org/Reports/Rep008.html

13. Drexler, K. E. (1986) Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology. New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday. http://www.foresight.org/EOC/index.html

14. Smalley, R. E. (2000) quoted in: W. Schulz, Crafting A National Nanotechnology Effort. Chemical & Engineering News, October 16. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/nanotechnolo...overnment.html

15. Peterson, C. L. Testimony before the Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, 9 April 2003. http://www.house.gov/science/hearing...9/peterson.htm

16. Smalley, R. E. (2000) quoted in N. Thompson, Downsizing: Nanotechnology---Why you should sweat the small stuff . The Washington Monthly Online, October. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea....thompson.html

Kosh · 04-26-2003, 07:30 AM

Well that's cool. Once again, just like with the in depth biblical/theological debates, us laymen are stuck having to rely on the experts and whether they represent things correctly.

Starboy · 04-26-2003, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh
Well that's cool. Once again, just like with the in depth biblical/theological debates, us laymen are stuck having to rely on the experts and whether they represent things correctly.

The layman is not without some recourse here. Look around you for atom manipulating machines that are microscopic in size. The only that I am aware of have not been created by man. Until such time that mankind does produce such a machine or at least all of the parts needed to construct such a machine their possible existence let alone their presumed proliferation is wild speculation.

Starboy

Elvithriel · 04-26-2003, 02:20 PM

"The only that I am aware of have not been created by man"

Yes, they were created by evolution.

I think that the most evolutionary advanced species on the planet and the only one to extend evolution through the technology of one of its own creations, should be able to understand the working of evolutions past experiments.

"Until such time that mankind does produce such a machine or at least all of the parts needed to construct such a machine their possible existence let alone their presumed proliferation is wild speculation."

Well, I am more optimistic then you it seems. I don't think we are going to kill ourselves in the next 20-30 years.

Starboy · 04-26-2003, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elvithriel
Well, I am more optimistic then you it seems. I don't think we are going to kill ourselves in the next 20-30 years.

Please give me more credit than that. I think the sun will rise tomorrow and probably for the next billion years or so. I don't understand how you think there is any connection between the probable existence of another thirty years of human history and a particular technical outcome. So much has been written about nanotechnology that the odds of most of it coming to be are very small. Besides, it�s a moot point. When I see the technical capability demonstrated for building a working machine atom by atom by a mountain of equipment then I will accept that there may be a chance of such abilities being displayed in microscopic machines. The only demonstration I have seen to date is the IBM logo created one gold atom at a time using a TEM. Perhaps there has been more recent progress, but I am not aware of it.

Starboy

Jesse · 04-26-2003, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy
The layman is not without some recourse here. Look around you for atom manipulating machines that are microscopic in size. The only that I am aware of have not been created by man. Until such time that mankind does produce such a machine or at least all of the parts needed to construct such a machine their possible existence let alone their presumed proliferation is wild speculation.

Starboy

I would draw the opposite conclusion--the fact that such things exist in nature shows that the laws of physics don't pose any fundamental obstacles to nanomachines (although I don't know about a 'universal constructor' which could assemble any molecule). It's a bit like how early proponents of heavier-than-air powered flight could take heart that plenty of heavier-than-air animals fly just fine.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-25-2003, 07:51 PM	#23
Kosh Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orions Belt Posts: 3,911	I think you guys missed the point of his article. To put it an analogy, we will never be able to do X, because doing X requires us to turn screws smaller than a #1 phillips, which is the absolute smallest bit we can ever have.

04-25-2003, 08:02 PM	#24
Elvithriel Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 127	Kosh, you have proved my point. When we get to the stage when a paradigm runs out of steam, a new paradigm comes around to keep the exponential growth going. That's the way it's been since life started on this planet and if it stops anytime soon I would be very surprised.

04-26-2003, 07:30 AM	#26
Kosh Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orions Belt Posts: 3,911	Well that's cool. Once again, just like with the in depth biblical/theological debates, us laymen are stuck having to rely on the experts and whether they represent things correctly.

04-26-2003, 02:20 PM	#28
Elvithriel Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 127	"The only that I am aware of have not been created by man" Yes, they were created by evolution. I think that the most evolutionary advanced species on the planet and the only one to extend evolution through the technology of one of its own creations, should be able to understand the working of evolutions past experiments. "Until such time that mankind does produce such a machine or at least all of the parts needed to construct such a machine their possible existence let alone their presumed proliferation is wild speculation." Well, I am more optimistic then you it seems. I don't think we are going to kill ourselves in the next 20-30 years.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.