Diamond Age Approaching? 750
CosmicDreams writes "The CRN (Center for Responsible Nanotechnology) reports that nanofactories (like the ones that were installed in every home in Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age) will arrive "almost certainly within 20 years". In short they claim that molecular nanotechnology manufacturing will solve many of the world's problems, catalyze a technologic revolution, and start the greatest arms race we've ever seen. They conclude the risks are so great that we should discuss how to deal with this technology so that we don't kill each other when it arrives."
We need to pass laws and treaties NOW. (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the great promises of nanotech are mini-attack bots which can eliminate cancer cells, viruses, germs, etc etc. What, though, will happen when someone comes up with a way to attack cells based on the DNA within? Racial cleansing, removal of unworthies from the pool. It may not happen but it very well could if they don't come up with global policies and laws. (even then...)
Yeah, that's likely far in the future but 50 years ago a desktop computer was impossible.
Re:We need to pass laws and treaties NOW. (Score:5, Funny)
No... you just needed a really big (and strong) desk.
Re:We need to pass laws and treaties NOW. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now look at the world, paying per-computer licenses for binaries you're not permitted to modify.
Copyright and patents are being applied to software the way farmers might use copyright to prevent "Food Replicators" from solving world hunger.
Stallman was the only guy that got it all those years ago. Nanotech will need someone of his character if we're to see any actual benefit from this technology.
Re:We need to pass laws and treaties NOW. (Score:5, Interesting)
> sell black-market perfect copies of everything
I prefer to imagine a time when geeks (and others) will share perfect copies of everything. This could be done via breaking the law, or by sharing perfect copies of our own replacements for the Things that people want/need: Free Things.
This Thing comes with permission to use, study & adapt to your needs, share with others, and distributed modified copies.
Re:We need to pass laws and treaties NOW. (Score:3, Funny)
Not gonna happen. (Score:5, Interesting)
Anything man CAN do, man WILL do. Regardless of if rules are in the way.
Even if we had such a thing as global laws (which ain't gonna happen anytime soon, either), the difference is that nanotech engineering would just be performed by outlaws instead of official scientists. Anything that carries a reward will get done, by somebody, somewhere. The greater the potential reward, the more people will be attempting it.
Whether it is legal is secondary to many enough people that it won't really matter whether it is.
I wonder if it'll eventually come to this - (Score:5, Interesting)
The human body will turn into the next battleground, and nano-armies will be the ones fighting on it.
After all, if bio-terrorism is going in that direction, someone will develop counter-measures.
Whole armies fighting between the pores of your skin and in your tissues - weird!
Re:I wonder if it'll eventually come to this - (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I wonder if it'll eventually come to this - (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe not at first, but eventually, yes.
Just compare the very first computers with what we have now.
Maybe back when computers started, a problem (system crash or somesuch) would come along every 1000 machine-cycels or so, and have to be straightened out by an operator.
Now, computers perform billions of machine-cycles reliably.
Of course, the number has gotten bigger,
Re:Not gonna happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes you think it wouldn't be abused by those who make the laws?
Re:Not gonna happen. (Score:5, Funny)
How true. Just look at goatse.
Ineffective laws and treaties (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not. But I can virtually guarantee that lots of ineffective ones will happen, and probably very soon. My guess is that these will not succeed in preventing outlaws, "rogue" nations, and "terrorists" from obtaining this technology, but what they will do is prevent it from ever falling into the hands of the real enemy, the average joe consumer. This will have the effect of continuing to protect the elite from the people, while enhancing the threat of violence, thus providing an excuse for ever tighter means of control.
Isn't our society fun?
If the future arrives...that is (Score:2)
Take my word for it...as we gradually run out of oil [economist.com], (and we will reach the halfway mark sometime between 2015-2030 according to that article), the rising costs, scarcity and worries will spark many more serious wars than the current one (of which oil is the root cause, I believe) a long time before the "final crunch".
It remains to be seen if we will have a fut
Re:We need to pass laws and treaties NOW. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We need to pass laws and treaties NOW. (Score:5, Insightful)
Today people think the phrase "if guns were outlawed only outlaws would have guns" is silly. While it certainly is trite, there is a lot of truth behind it.
It doesn't matter where you stand on the issue of gun control, only a fool would think that a total ban on firearms would result in their total elimination. Every nation in the world, regardless of their gun control laws, has criminals possessing guns.
The purpose of gun control is not to eliminate firearm possession, but to eliminate legal ownership of firearms. To some this may sound like nonsense, but it does provide for some small amount of social engineering, if that's the goal.
The point is that when nanotech arrives no one is going to be able to put that efrit back in the bottle. You might be able to outlaw it, but you won't eliminate it.
Re:We need to pass laws and treaties NOW. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no reason to create new laws when existing ones apply.
Re:We need to pass laws and treaties NOW. (Score:5, Insightful)
That would imply that NOT using nanotech is OK.
Court: Did you kill all those poor people with hindsight?
Evil dictator: I did, I hate them
Court: DID YOU USE NANOTECH?
Evil dictator: No, of course not, that's against the LAW!
Court: OK, you are free to go
I mean, really... EACH AND EVERY piece of technology will be used to kill people.
And if it isn't in the first place, someone will find a creative and interesting way to use it to kill people...
people are very creative when it comes to killing other people... sad, really
Re:We need to pass laws and treaties NOW. (Score:2)
Hmmm...this has so many nasty implications...
Re:We need to pass laws and treaties NOW. (Score:2)
Score: -1, Disturbing...
Re:We need to pass laws and treaties NOW. (Score:2)
Re:We need to pass laws and treaties NOW. (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you're looking at the long term, why not just target reproductive cells when the person also carries a good gene? Sure, you'll take an extra generation or two to eliminate the bad gene, but the pain of doing so will be reduced.
Of course, we'll want to keep a database of all eliminated genes just in case we find that we really did need them. Though when the killer plague strikes that only spares those with bad eyesight, it will be too late.
Re:We need to pass laws and treaties NOW. (Score:3, Interesting)
Amused to Death (Score:3, Interesting)
It doesn't have to be that way though
Well, no, it doesn't, but the problem is, it can be, and almost certainly will be.
I've already talked about the religious and evolutionary perspectives, so let me talk about the political perspective. I would think this would be obvi
Sometimes I doubt... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sometimes I doubt... (Score:5, Insightful)
The chance of a global nuclear war occuring is much less than it was during the 80's because of pro-active action, not by saying "those bombs will eventually be integrated into society"
Re:Sometimes I doubt... (Score:2, Insightful)
One thing is certain. You can sit a representative of every nation on the planet down, and let them talk about it until they're blue in the face, or until they "agree" to some peaceful future.
Within 5 years, that agreement will have either been violated openly, or in secret, or the group of representatives you started with now exclude a whole range of new "players".
We've proven this over and over again, with nuclear weapons,
Re:Sometimes I doubt... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nanotech doesn't either. Almost all forms of life have something called an "immune system" that is very effective at getting rid of unwanted microorganisms.
Re:Sometimes I doubt... (Score:4, Interesting)
Immune systems work because viruses have an evolutionary barrier to get to anywhere the immune systems won't work (i.e., a "half metal" virus can't mutate into being; such a thing may be possible but the gulf to get there is too wide; evolution is powerful but kooky and definately not omnipotent, it does have limits and in many ways, people overestimate as much as they underestimate). Nanotech will have no such restrictions. A self-replicating plague of some kind would still be limited by what kind of elements we have in our bodies, but there's enough iron and a few other metals to make enough nano-bots to kill us... and the nanobots have all day, metaphorically speaking, because the immune system will never even see them, let alone attack them, so they can kill cells at their leisure.
Not to mention the biological judo a deliberately designed killer could apply, recruiting the body's own immune system to help.
Re:Sometimes I doubt... (Score:2)
Okay, Agent Smith...
hehe
Re:Sometimes I doubt... (Score:5, Funny)
Dinosaur two: Yes, it's great!
Dinosaur one: It's like, we're the best! You can't beat us!
Dinosaur two: Yes! Like, we're the tops! Go dinos!
Dinosaur one: Go dinos!!
Dinosaur two: Yes! Go dinos!! Go go go!!!
Dinosaur one: Look at that pretty light in the sky!
Dinosaur two: Oh yes. Pretty! And growing.
Re:Sometimes I doubt... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sometimes I doubt... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, some occurences of natural immunity to the HIV has been observed in a group of Kenyan prostitutes. It is thought this immunity is caused by repetitive exposure to various strains of the virus, but once this exposure stops the persons become HIV-positive.
More info on http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/619316.stm or search Google for "HIV immunity prostitutes".
"almost certainly within 20 years" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"almost certainly within 20 years" (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"almost certainly within 20 years" (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"almost certainly within 20 years" (Score:3, Informative)
More info (Score:5, Interesting)
"The Space Shuttle took less than ten years to design and build, from 1972 to 1981. The atomic bomb took only three years, from 1942 to 1945. Both of these programs involved more new science research and more development of new technologies and techniques than an assembler program would likely require. As analyzed above, they probably cost more too. The main question in estimating a timeline for fabricator development, then, is when it will be technically and politically feasible. There are probably five or more nations, and perhaps several large companies, that could finance a molecular fabricator effort starting in this decade. The technical feasibility depends on the enabling technologies. Even a single present-day technology, dip-pen nanolithography, may be able to fabricate an entire proto-fabricator with sufficient effort. At this point, we have not seen anything to make us believe that a five-year $10 billion fabricator project, starting today, would be infeasible, though we don't yet know enough to estimate its chance of success. Five years from now, we expect that a five-year project will be obviously feasible, and its cost may be well under $5 billion."
source [crnano.org]
Journal [slashdot.org]
nice sensationalism (Score:4, Insightful)
50 B.C. - What a terrible weapon the catapult is!
600 A.D. - What a terrible weapon the crossbow is!
1550 A.D. - What a terrible weapon the cannon is!
1865 A.D. - What a terrible weapon the machine gun is!
1945 A.D. - What a terrible weapon nuclear weapons are!
2004 A.D. - What a terrible weapon nanotechnology is!
we have been hearing the same stuff since the beginning of history.
Im sure we will be JUST FINE.
Re:nice sensationalism (Score:5, Funny)
Re:nice sensationalism (Score:5, Insightful)
So it will never be true? By that logic because a weatherman incorectly predicts rain for 3 days, if on the 4th day he predicts it again it's a 100% guarantee it won't happen?
This technology if successful will transform humanity, and we should try to achieve it. But to insist that we should just proceed without thinking about the consequences on the basis that "well that crossbow didn't destroy us" is a little naive.
Re:nice sensationalism (Score:3, Funny)
No, by the 4th day, everyone will have realized he had no credibility and stopped watching his channel.
Re:nice sensationalism (Score:5, Funny)
And at every step it gets a little more boring.
Oooooh! Nanotech bio-killer grey goo replicator buuuuugs! Yeah, yeah, whatever, you just release 'em into the wild and you don't have to do anything other than sit on your fat ass and watch CNN for the rest of the day. Nukes? Sure, they look real pretty, but they don't scale well - you run out of people pretty quick, and then what do you do? A machine gun's pretty neat, but would get boring after the first couple of hours, plus it'd give your some horrible repetitive strain injuries to deal with. A cannon sounds like fun, but I'd be deaf and hating it within a week.
But a catapult... Oh, man, have you seen those things? Flingin' a cow or a VW beetle 500 feet away? Man, I don't think I'd ever get tired of that!
As a society, we've lost our soul. All the emphasis on shiny graphics and not enough emphasis on gameplay.
In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
All in about 20 years, by which you will well have forgotten this press release.
Nothing to see here, move along.
And this is dangerous because of why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Can't Wait! (Score:4, Funny)
Awesome! There is nothing better than a watching limbs battle it for supremecy on a mile oval!
Although I may be more excited about the detached ankle crawl obsticle course.
The Sky is falling! the Sky is falling!! (Score:5, Interesting)
WMDs (Score:5, Funny)
grey goo (Score:2, Interesting)
The next age (Score:5, Funny)
and where does the energy come from? (Score:5, Insightful)
-The whole world is going to hell and I'm driving the bus...
Re:and where does the energy come from? (Score:5, Informative)
In a related story... (Score:3, Insightful)
Burbank, CA - The CRP (Center for Responsible Predictions) reports that articles
about nanotechnology (especially ones that mention Neil Stephenson and/or Eric Drexler)
will "almost certainly" contain over-optimistic estimates of the arrival of nanoassemblers.
In short, these claims will be far enough in the future to protect the prognosticators
from immediate ridicule, while still appearing chillingly close.
Related story: A Conveyor Belt for the Nano-Age (Score:4, Informative)
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab [lbl.gov] has come up with a proof of concept nanotech conveyor belt. When an electrical current is applied, a carbon nanotube acts as a conveyor with Iridium atoms. They are moved up and down the tube without losing a single one. Read more here [lbl.gov].
A step closure to that assembler. :D
Misconceptions about nano-technology (Score:4, Insightful)
-matthew
Software Assembler? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've always wondered... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I've always wondered... (Score:3, Insightful)
this just in - (Score:2, Insightful)
Really though, everything is going to cause the end of the world within 20 years these days. Did you know 15% of the world's methane comes from cow farts? And that methane is one of the worst greenhouse gases? And as Al Gore said back in the early 70's, we'll be dead by the late 90's if we don't
Questions About the Source (Score:2)
"What is your source of funding?
Got any ideas?? Seriously..."
That noted I can't wait to install Linux on my new matter compiler and go to work on some serious hardware using my pirate material templates.
Re:Questions About the Source (Score:2)
If they've got open-source genetic sequences [mit.edu], why not material templates and physical product designs?
This is where I see true benefit beginning to happen.
Cool! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Cool! (Score:2)
Copyright? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can almost imagine a future a where we could have unlimited resources, but the necessary machines are forced by law to be user hostile monsters extorting fees from the user anytime something they make comes close to a perpetually copyrighted object.
Or will people finally realize that when the means of production are endless, human means of invention drive themselves?
Re:Copyright? (Score:2, Insightful)
There will always be those who try to limit, and those who try to make things limitless.
Re:Copyright? (Score:3, Insightful)
They certainly don't... (Score:2)
Ben Bova's scenario (Score:3, Informative)
The Forbidden Diamond Planet (Score:3, Offtopic)
Dr. Edward Morbius: In times long past, this planet was the home of a mighty, noble race of beings who called themselves the Krel. Ethically and technologically they were a million years ahead of humankind, for in unlocking the meaning of nature they had conquered even their baser selves, and when in the course of eons they had abolished sickness and insanity, crime and all injustice, they turned, still in high benevolence, upwards towards space. Then, having reached the heights, this all-but-divine race disappeared in a single night, and nothing was preserved above ground.
(I'd hate to give away the ending, but it's extremely relevant to this story! Rent it and see for yourself!)
Various groups are responding... (Score:5, Funny)
Politicians: Yay. More legislative work means we'll forever be yammering about stuff.
Missionaries: Yay. End world hunger. I can go home and stop building bridges.
Eco-groupies: Boo. This will destroy the environment.
Engineers: Screw the consequences, I want ot play with one! Less talk, more tech!
Your Rights Online Whiners: We have to pass laws NOW about this technology. Because there's nothing like an archiac law for a technology we can't understand the ramifications of until it's been used for many years.
Console Junkies: Wha...? Can this wait? I'm almost through to the boss...
Babies: YES! With this power I alone will rul - WAAAAAAAAIMHUNGRYAAAAAAAA!
-Adam
never happen.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why?
Because of the tremendous shift in social power such a device would create. If you think the MPAA and RIAA are bad, imagine the stance of the entire corporate world to these devices being in the hands of consumers.
Not to mention the fear this ability would create within government circles.
P2P (Score:5, Interesting)
If you think its been bad with the RIAA and MPAA going after people, wait until you see GE, GM, Daimler-Chrysler, pharma companies, etc. start to take action when people are duplicating their products for a fraction of the cost without them getting a single cent for it.
I personally think this is great, as it would put many things within reach of people who would never have had a chance of ever being able to afford those things, but the ethical issues are the same as they are today, only perhaps escalated due to the increased value of the things you could duplicate.
Diamond life? Thanks a lot Cmdr (Score:3, Funny)
Diamond life, lover boy.
We move in space with minimum waste and maximum joy.
He's a smooth opewata,
smooth opewata,
smooth opewata,
smooth opewata.
The Post-Industrial Revolution (Score:5, Interesting)
The article talks about how a suitcase of equipment could create a village-sized industrial revolution. But this technology is, at least potentially, post-industrial. That is to say, it can be used on the small scale, making advanced technology available in a way which is independent of big corporations and large-scale manufacturing facilities. This is a huge thing.
If it is allowed to develop along these lines, it will mean the restructuring of our entire society, in a way which I and many others have been waiting and hoping for for some time now. It will mean we can have our cake and eat it too: we get all the benefits of advanced technology, without all the horrible detriments of the hegemony of megacorps. Whohoo!
Unfortunately, I doubt this will be allowed to happen, at least not at first. Here's a prediction: as soon as this becomes imminant, we will see the massive implementation of extremely restrictive measures to control it. These will be adopted in the name of security, but incidentally they will also have the effect of making it virtually impossible to use this technology independently, without relying on megacorporate support. This will probably mean continued widespread poverty in the third world, but we will accept it out of fear.
But at least the potential will be there.
On a completely unrelated note: most human-scale products would consist almost entirely of empty space
Actually, to be precise, everything consists almost entirely of empty space. "The solid parts of this rock, the neutrons, quarks, protons and electrons, compose only one quadrillianth of its total volume... you could pulverize that mountain and sift through it like breadcrumbs for the rest of your natural life, and you would never, ever, find... this!" --Buccaroo Banzai.
Energy requirements, among other things... (Score:5, Informative)
Aside from that, I can't say I'm overly impressed by the source of the article. The CRN FAQ [crnano.org] doesn't inspire much confidence. The two directors have a single undergrad degree between them. I appreciate their enthusiasm in promoting the discussion of nanotechnology and its implications, but I think I'd take it a bit more seriously from a more credible source.
It was an interesting read, but sounded more like wishful thinking from a sci-fi fan than from someone who has a grasp of all the issues that factor into such a huge leap forward for technology.
And this is different how...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are they implying that we don't kill each other now with current technologies? Or are they saying that the technology alone will turn average homo sapiens into blood thirsty murderers?
Where's all the dicussion about how this technology could reduce current stress?
Our economy, and wealth, is currently based on a system of scarcity. When you can take raw molecules and arbitraily combine them into useful/necessary/life saving objects then scarcity dissipates. Many, if not most, of today's conflicts revolve around scarcity or perceived scarcity.
I say bring it on. The consequences will sort themselves out as they always have upon previous technology.
Think about how many in the previous world viewed modern health care as cheating darwinism/survival of the fittest and that the resulting overpopulation of lesser fitted humans would be catastrophic. Can you say now whether they were right or wrong? Can you believe they would have made the correct choice if they could have caused researchers to halt experiments on such common materials as antibiotics?
-Adam
Deal with it the same way we always do. (Score:2)
Then we won't use it unless safety is built in.
I've been saying this for years... (Score:5, Interesting)
why is it always a tradeoff between good and bad?
"And in related news... (Score:3, Insightful)
While this may be comming in our future, I think 20 years is a little optimistic. People have difficulty predicting technology 2 years in advance, much less 20.
*yawn* (Score:5, Insightful)
-matthew
The first nanotech conference and Eric Drexler (Score:3, Informative)
A Deeper Look at the Article's Site Reveals... (Score:5, Funny)
A large spacecraft design must account for fluid dynamics, aerodynamics, vibration and resonance on many time scales, avionics and other control, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, combustion dynamics, hydraulics, cryogenics, and biomedical issues. (Thanks to an anonymous poster on Slashdot for pointing this out.) (Emphasis mine.)
If they're using Slashdot as a source for information, how can we possibly take them seriously?
Why have this conversation now? Mod UP please (Score:4, Interesting)
Increasing kill ratios without having to commit troops to a battlefield is extremely seductive to those in power. Creating a weapons delivery system that can be dropped in an enemy area and begin sending out millions of tiny assasins within hours is indeed frightening. Assign a few thousand nanotodes to each victim. Their job is to simply inject a molecular amount of Ricin, just one molecule each. The amount of product the factory/delivery system needs to carry is minimal because every molecule reaches it's target. No area-wide spraying is needed. The system could devestate an entire army or city within hours. There would be no residual radiation, no explosion to announce it's arrival, and the nanos could simply be switched off after the slaughter is done.
Imagine two nations fighting with these weapons. Or imagine a self-replicating version that gets out of control. If you thought the A-Bomb was bad, imagine what these could do. From an ethical point of view, I think this is a good conversation to be having now. In 20 years, we have no idea where this technology could be, or what DARPA will make it capable of.
Free-floating nanotech? Probably not (Score:3, Insightful)
Assembly lines of nanomachines on IC-like substrates, supplied with external power, though, may actually be a useful manufacturing technology for small things.
I'm more worried about synthetic biology. So far, bioengineering has been a very crude trial and error process. Direct design of viruses and enzymes, let alone bigger organisms, doesn't work yet. But there's steady progress, and no reason it shouldn't work. That's going to mean designer diseases.
Open source hardware and space (Score:5, Interesting)
Imagine, if you will, teams of people around the world contributing either CAD/CAM files that painstakingly reproduce technical drawings and assembly instructions for things like Saturn V rockets OR teams that design simplified heavy rockets that take advantage of nano reinforcement to make strong launchers with few moving parts.
Once the designs have been reviewed and tested, I imagine that either hobbyist or impromptu launch sites would start sprouting up and eventually people would start lobbing payloads into orbit. During this time, I'm sure there would be a frantic effort by the government to either outlaw or control the technology, but eventually it might reach a point where a committed individual might:
1. Design a modular living space
2. Go out to some island.
3. Pour a nano-construction farm out onto the beach
4. Sit back and wait for it to finish building a launch pad and Saturn-V or Energia class booster out of materials nano-mined from the ground.
5. Check the CRC on the structure or whatever it is a nano-inspection system would do.
6. Have it fueled by a system that breaks down the seawater into fuel and oxidizer.
7. Have it launch part 1 of his new home into orbit.
8. Rinse, repeat steps 4-8 until all components are in orbit (and docked, why not?)
9. Make one last man-rated launcher and put him/herself along with family up to dock with their new digs and take off.
If the main cost is the design time, there are certainly enough space-minded engineers and contributors out there to write up working specs and enough people to validate the designs. As the technology advances, the simulation of the constructs will become more accurate. If the construction cost is minimal, then the sky is quite literally the limit.
Treaties shmeaties. (Score:4, Interesting)
Both of us will weaponize nanotech, treaties or no.
What we have to do ASAP, is develop countermeasures. There *will* be a nanotech arms race. Otherwise, "rogue nations" will realize the age-old desire to reduce their enemies to bloody soup. The arms race is ok, so long as the defense keeps up against the offense, and we can get a nice, heady detente.
Unless this advocacy group has some really convincing argument, I don't see how they can say, "It's going to be like Diamond Age, except that for us, treaties will work." Explain why treaties will work. Neal Stephenson already explained why they wouldn't. I liked his argument.
making something useful out of nothing special (Score:5, Insightful)
I have an idea. Forget about the nanofactories for now. Go to the hardware store and purchase some basic tools. Saw, hammer, the like. Find some suitable dried wood, old fences are a good supply (get permissions first!) Buy a book on woodworking. Try a few projects.
And never buy another stick of furniture. See who cares. Other than family and friends nobody will care. And you'll have fun.
And this: Buy a sewing machine, pick up broadcloth on the cheap. Make clothes. Other than family and friends nobody will care. You'll have fun.
Learn to cook. Learn to repair engines. Learn to garden. Learn to teach your children. Walk. Ride a bike.
You are small, compared to a corporation and a government you are nano-scale. Your life is tiny, your labors are tiny, your production is tiny, your marketing reach is zero to none. You are a factory, but on the nano-scale. Make what you need yourself, say good-bye to Nike, and fall from sight.
And you won't give a thought to what happens with nanofactories 20 or 30 or 80 years from now, because you will _be_ a nanofactory.
nano IP -- not grey goo -- is the first threat (Score:3, Interesting)
Much of this nanotech will overlap with biosciences patents, as biomechanical structures get emulated, discovered/invented, patented, and deployed in commercially strategic ways. The compensation for use of this tech will be horrendously complicated, and its inclusion in products (or design frameworks) will be subject to all kinds of IP battles. What is good for you and me, society, the biosphere, and the mineral planet, will be secondary to these concerns, since people will be jockeying to be the next B.Gates.
If ever there was a concern about analogies to closed API's and the bugginess produced by these kinds of closed-source strategies, it's here, where the molecular engines can make drastic and disastrous changes, that we need to pay attention to opening things up.
Access is the core issue. I suspect that software to model this stuff is the first place to start. Easy for me to say, I'm not a programmer!
Foresight Institute (and its Guidelines), anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
Back in 1999 the Foresight Institute released the first version of the Foresight Guidelines on Molecular Nanotechnology. [foresight.org]. These guidelines, interestingly enough, ended up in the US Congresses' recent (2003) bill on Molecular manufacturing / nanontechnology studies.
One point that the F.I. makes that often gets missed in discussion of nano: molecular nanotechnology != self-replicating machines. As Eric Drexler writes: "Much has been made of a concern I raised in 1986, under the name "gray goo" -- a hypothetical scenario involving runaway replicators. Building fully self-replicating machines would be difficult, however, and building machines that could replicate without external help would be more difficult still. Current work in the field shows that it will be easier and more efficient to develop molecular manufacturing without building any self-replicating machines at all."
One measure of the existence or success of a field is the jobs available in it: jobs certainly exist in 2004 [workingin-...nology.com]. By 2014 it should be really interesting. Another measure is "does the field have its equivalent of Slashdot?" Yup, Nanodot [nanodot.org].
The F.I.'s website has much good material: FAQs [foresight.org], Reviews of nano for the technical or non-technical reader [foresight.org], reviews of policy issues [foresight.org] and more. In their policy section they discuss how to avoid high-tech terrorism [foresight.org]: it involves more nano, not less. Another of their essays [foresight.org] talks about 6 lessons from 9/11 that should be applied to molecular nanotechnology:
Please, don't network these! (Score:3, Interesting)
If this comes to pass, the next computer virus could very well kill you.
I can see the virus threat warning...
========
W64.nanodeath
Discovered on: April 2, 2044
W64.nanodeath is a mass-mailing worm that attempts to spread using mail and file-sharing networks. The worm also opens a backdoor on an infected computer.
When the worm runs, it activates all network attached Microsoft NanoFactory(TM) systems in the local area network. The affected Microsoft NanoFactory systems will randomly produce MicroSoft MicroMachines(TM) designed to do one of the following:
* Destroy human flesh
* Destroy bone matter
* Destroy human brain tissue
* Produce plush penguin toys
Also Known As: Die.MSUsers.Die, Long.Live.Linux
Type: Worm
Infection Length: varies
Systems Affected: Windows 2020, Windows 2016, Windows 2013, Windows 2010.
Systems Not Affected: Everything Else
"Trusted Manufacturing" (Score:5, Insightful)
1) creating and selling the fabricators is not a business model. Once you get a few seeded out there, people will just make copies of the fabs themselves, and sell them to others, until the market is so saturated that people just give them away.
2) Regardless of whether today's police state has faded, the potential of the common people to make their own weapons, be they blades, guns, explosives, or other chemical dangers will be too much for government to tolerate.
The solution that I think will likely be deployed is a "Trusted Manufacturing" or "Trusted Fabrication" architecture much like we already see today with "Trusted Computing" and Digital Rights Management systems.
You will not be able to own a fab - you'll rent it, like your cable box, or your music CDs (*cough*) today. Tampering with someone else's property is obviously illegal (not that it will stop everyone - see below). Furthermore, the fabs will only be permitted to produce goods whose designs are whitelisted - ie, digitally signed - as "approved" by either the manufacturer, some industry consortium, or some government agency whose job it will be to thoroughly review designs to insure they are "safe" from abuses 1) or 2) above.
Unlike current TC designs like the TCPA, there will be no "taking ownership", where consumers will be able to choose whom to trust or not trust about what signed software/products to run/produce. That decision will be pre-decided when you get the fab, and you won't be permitted to change it "for public safety".
Not that the law will stop everyone. Someone will find holes in the system, and they will break it. One of the first things they will do will be to make an unrestricted fab, which will make the rest. They'll spread, underground, to anyone willing to take whatever risks are inherent in having one. Considering that the perceived dangers of possessing an unrestricted desktop fab are MUCH higher than the perceived dangers of having an unrestricted media player, I think it's likely that the legal consequences of being discovered with one will be harsher, potentially branding perpetrators as "terrorists" despite having intentions equivalent to wanting to play your own DVDs on your own Linux box in a world full of copyright piracy.
As usal, coporate/governemnt restrictions on consumer products won't be uncircumventable, but they will keep circumvention out of public life. On balance, I think such a state of affairs to help to make the transition more manageable - both for the good things, and the bad.
When? (Score:3, Funny)
So will this be before or after viable fusion reactors?
ain't gonna happen (Score:5, Informative)
These guys make molecular manufacturing sound easy. I'd like to see them try it! None of this is easy, and I would say most of us think molecular manufacturing isn't even possible. The set up described in Drexler's book is not attainable. There are no big names in nanotechnology working on molecular manufacturing, but plenty working on lots of other things.
There is more than enough to be worried about with what is ACTUALLY being done with nanotechnology. It's insulting to those of us in the field, that our research on gas detectors, bio-electronics, nerve regerneration, nanometer transistors, pathogen detectors and drug delivery is deemed so umimportant that it's not even worth talking about. Moreover, there are tremendous issues involved in those projects, which no one is talking about. Any warning about ACTUAL dangers in nanotechnology is being drowned out by ignorant shrills simply seeking the spotlight.
We need a debate on what sensitive explosives sensors are going to do not only for security, but for farmers, scientests and anyone who works around incriminating chemicals. I don't want to be taken in for questioning every time I board a plane. We need to talk about what happens with illegal drugs and steroids when drugs can be delivered to a specific organ and leave the rest of the body largely unaffected. We need to talk about what it really means for education and health when computers are small enough to fit inside the body. The reason I read slashdot is because every once in a while these things come up here. There are plenty of large moral issues literally around the corner, but almost no one is paying attention! Live in the present, it is a fascinating time, and we have many, many unanswered questions.
Debating how to prevent a fictional future arms race depending on a scientific advance many scientests doing the work don't believe will happen in our lifetimes is plain stupid in comparison.
To be fair, I think molecular manufacturing WILL be seen in our lifetime, but it will not be cheap, nor easy, nor fast. Go ahead and calculate how long it will take to make one kilogram of something at 1000000 atoms a second, it's around 1 trillion years. Plain old wet chemistry (aka "bottom up nanotechnology") still has a lot of time and use left. For the first 10 or 20 years molecular manufacturing is around no one will know what to do with it because it will not be this holy grail the media has worked it into. This is based on the history of science, from the steam engine to microscopes capable of atomic resolution. We've always set our sights on these goals, only to be surprised at their implimentation. It's always taken the big breakthroughs a decade or two to get used.
Re:The Neil Diamond Age!!! (Score:2)
You have ruined the morning!
Re:Don't buy diamonds now (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Don't buy diamonds now (Score:5, Insightful)
A tad OT, but I'll respond anyway...
"So what?"
I have no interest whatsoever in supporting the DeBeers cartel. I care about results, not "Some oppressed African child died to get this small rock to me". If vapor deposition of carbon can make a diamond cheaper than child labor, good. Screw DeBeers.
Of course, it really amuses me that people buy diamonds at all (for non-industrial purposes). "I love you, here, have a small clear chunk of rock. Without destroying it, you can't really tell it apart from anyof a hundred other kinds of small clear rock, but this paper says it costs more". You want to make her happy, spend "two months' salary" as a downpayment on a parcel of land, and give her a pebble from that set into a ring. More meaningful, more useful, and you can't lose it down the sink.
The equating of "very expensive rock" with "love" has always stumped me. I'd have to rate it as one of the greatest PR scams ever pulled... Better even than the classic frontier snake-oil salesmen. At least some of their products worked, if purely by accident (ie, cinchona bark extract, aka quinine, for malaria).
Re:Don't buy diamonds now (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, that's about right. DeBeers' version of the "diamond age" is an impressive feat of marketing combined with agressive market control. It wasn't really that long ago that the "diamonds are a girl's best friend" meme was instilled in large portions of world culture.
But DeBeers' is hardly the only one who supports an entire industry with marketing tactics. For a real head-shaping check out "The Merchants of Cool" [pbs.org]. A rather eye-opening tutorial on modern marketing tactics, and the whole progam is available online now...
Re:Don't buy diamonds now (Score:3, Insightful)
The equating of "very expensive rock" with "love" has always stumped me. I'd have to rate it as one of the greatest PR scams ever pulled.
Agreed. Although, like a sibling post said, if I guy gave me a lower-quality fake (like cubic zirconia) diamond ring then I'd be a tad insulted. Not because it's not a diamond, but because it's a fake diamond, which symbolically doesn't speak well for the engagement. That being said, some of the manufactured diamonds I've heard about lately that are virtually indisti
Re:Don't buy diamonds now (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly... So why go for something useless to both people?
I "get" the idea of self-sacrifice, thus my suggestion of buying her land. Or even something useful, like a collection of her 1000 favorite DVDs. Or a car.
Perhaps the part I don't "get" involves having an SO who would rather have a $10k rock than just about anything else. I have a quite happy long-term relationship (despite the implications of another respondant), and neither she, nor any of my previous SOs would have wanted something very expensive but useless. If they had, somehow I doubt I would have found them interesting in the first place (so I admit I may have a selection bias in my sample).
Put another way... Sure, I'd blow a few grand on a trinket for my SO. But what does it say about her if she'd actually want me to do so? "Can't buy love", and all...
Re:Don't buy diamonds now (Score:3, Interesting)
I "get" the idea of self-sacrifice, thus my suggestion of buying her land. Or even something useful, like a collection of her 1000 favorite DVDs. Or a car.
There's something about having a tangible thing on your hand that you can wave around at people to say "look, I'm engaged!" It's a lot harder to bring a collection of 1000 DVDs to your parents house in order to show them you're gonna get hitched. ;)
I did like the "mounting a rock from the land you bought" idea, though. That's unique and cool, alon
Re:They sound like scientology to me. (Score:4, Informative)
What is a transhuman? A transhuman is a human in transition. We are transhuman to the extent that we seek to become posthuman and take action to prepare for a posthuman future. This involves learning about and making use of new technologies that can increase our capacities and life expectancy, questioning common assumptions, and transforming ourselves ready for the future, rising above outmoded human beliefs and behaviors. [SNIP]
What is transhumanism? Transhumanism was given its first definition and characterization by Dr. Max More (in Extropy The Journal of Transhumanist Thought #6, 1990) "Transhumanism is a class of philosophies that seek to guide us towards a posthuman condition. Transhumanism shares many elements of humanism, including a respect for reason and science, a commitment to progress, and a valuing of human (or transhuman) existence in this life [..]. Transhumanism differs from humanism in recognizing and anticipating the radical alterations in the nature and possibilities of our lives resulting from various sciences and technologies[...]"
What is the Singularity? As defined by Vernor Vinge, 1986: The postulated point or short period in our future when our self-guided evolutionary development accelerates enormously (powered by nanotech, neuroscience, AI, and perhaps uploading) so that nothing beyond that time can reliably be conceived. Vinge also wrote: "The acceleration of technological progress has been the central feature of this century. I argue in this paper that we are on the edge of change comparable to the rise of human life on Earth. The precise cause of this change is the imminent creation by technology of entities with greater than human intelligence." Transhumanists vary considerably in their view of the exact nature and definition of a Singularity, and not all transhumanists accept it as a useful notion. For good information on the Singularity from two advocates of the idea, we suggest you visit Raymond Kurzweil's KurzweilAI.net site and The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence and the work of its fellow, Eliezer Yudkowsky.