Nanotechnology: Lessig, Sherman and Drexler Speak 114
An anonymous reader writes "Reporting from The Foresight Institute's "Vision Weekend", Glenn Reynolds (aka Instapundit) discusses the future of nanotechnology and the politics behind it. Also featuring a video interview of Lessig, Sherman and nanotech pioneer Eric Drexler."
Still a viable field (Score:5, Informative)
1. A list of nanotechnology companies in general [nanotech-now.com]
2. In Canada, alot is being spent on R&D for nanotechnology: Nanotechnology R&D Initiatives in Canada [ic.gc.ca]
3. And they are crazy about it in Asia (many PDF reports) [atip.org]
Since the topic of SPAM was recently at hand, I wonder long it will be before we start getting: "***enlarge your penis*** Rapid PENIS ENLARGEMENT through the use of amazing NANOTECHNOLOGY advances "***enlarge your penis*** "
Re:Still a viable field (Score:4, Insightful)
Glenn is obviously a smart guy, but he's there as a futurism enthusiast, not an expert. I get the feeling he's been taken in by people using the real accomplishments of others to justify their own unrealistic hype.
Re:Still a viable field (Score:2)
Prior art! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Prior art! (Score:1)
good analysis (Score:3, Interesting)
I was also there (Score:4, Funny)
Re:bah (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:bah (Score:3, Interesting)
There are reputable scientists who argue against the most agressive nanotech postulates, but even they don't claim we won't build molecular systems that can produce copies of themselves in the forseeable future. They're just arguing that it will be restricted to producing a class of molecules rather than almost any possible molecule. In other words, from the consumer's point of vi
Ah I can see it now (Score:5, Funny)
scientists and possibility (Score:5, Informative)
many scientists ... want to undermine fears of advanced nanotechnology by simply taking the subject off the table. You'd think, though, that at least some of these people would beware of Arthur C. Clarke's observation that when a distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right, but when he says that something is impossible, he is often wrong.
Unless the scientists are advancing agendas that have nothing to do with science... for example, when a "Creation Scientist" maintains that it is "possible" the Earth is only thousands of years old, or a scientist in the pay of industry maintains that it is "possible" that emissions have no effect on global warming.
Actually, Arthur C. Clarke's axiom still holds true, because none of the above examples are "distinguished" scientists.
Nano's fatal flaw... (Score:1)
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Re:Nano's fatal flaw... (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, the existence of mature nanotechnology may enable strong AI, allowing at least the ability to brute-force AI by copying the human brain molecule for molecule and perhaps modify it to allow machine interaction and who-knows-what.
Re:scientists and possibility (Score:2)
Re:scientists and possibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:scientists and possibility (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:scientists and possibility (Score:2)
No, that's medievalism. Empiricism trumps theory. If someone creates a perpetual motion machine, we'll just have to revise the law(s) of thermodynamics.
Denouncing anyone who questions the role of emissions in of global warming strikes me as utter medievalism.
I think those who are being denounced are not just "anyone" but those who specifically are being paid to say that.
I don't denounce certain communist sects for saying that climate chan
Re:scientists and possibility (Score:2, Interesting)
The Standard Model (Big Bang) has been used to make a variety of testable predictions, which have panned out. Ditto for evolution. This is the essence of the scientific method: Observe a phenomenon. Formulate a theory to explain it. Use this theory to predict things you don't know. Check these things out to see if your theory holds up. Repeat. Real Scientists are very reluctant to say "This is the truth", rather they will say, "this theory has repeatedly demonstrated good predictive abilit
Re:scientists and possibility (Score:2)
"Joe the giant turtle barfed up the universe last week. He can vomit anything."
Awesome theory. You really need to put together one of those kooky coalitions that try to convince school boards to add their "theories" to the science curriculum.
Re:scientists and possibility (Score:2)
oh, you mean like where 90% of the universe's mass has gone? [slashdot.org] :)
Re:scientists and possibility (Score:1)
Actually I was thinking the mean temperature of cosmic background radiation.
The standard model is certainly not perfect or complete. There are various bits of evidence that are problematic for it, and a wide variety of add on theories to explain them, some of which are a bit too contorted IMHO. People are more reluctant than I think they should be to attempt full-scale alternatives to the standard model, but this is simply because it works for such a preponderance of evidence.
The standard model has some
Re:scientists and possibility (Score:2)
we've come up with some pretty rediculous side theories because we're so married to the big bang theory. super strings was one of my favourite wack theories.
i think we simply don't understand enough about gravity yet.
another example of where our mathematical models are failing us, imho, is when we discover plan
Re:scientists and possibility (Score:1)
I actually figured you were just playing devils advocate; but once my ire is up about creationism, I find it hard to stop.
Superstrings, hyper inflation, etc. sure are popular with people who know more physics than me, but to a semi-layman, they look a lot like the standard model is getting a bit long in the tooth.
I actually buy the gas giants though. My limited intuition tells me gas giants should be predominant in a galaxy being formed by uh, slowly condensing gas. In any case, enormous gas giants are
Re:scientists and possibility (Score:1)
You want us to take his word for it after he faked all that fossil evidence? I don't think so.
Science does not prove anything in the lab. It can't and doesn't attempt to. Science attempts to explain evidence and make predictions. The lab is for gathering evidence, and testing predictions. Evidence can be gathered for or against evolution. It can make predictions that
Re:scientists and possibility (Score:2)
...Likewise, a "Creation Scientist" as you put it, is merely using scientific methods to preach his view on where everything comes from every bit as much as the "Evolution Scientist" is using those same methods. And since there is no way to test either hypothesis through the scientific method, it's all still just conjecture, scientifically speaking.
Are you trying to claim that the Earth may ACTUALL
Re:scientists and possibility (Score:1)
What doubters need to understand about evolution is that it is not the basis of what we know about biology, but the inevitable consequence of fundamental genetics -- about which we have plenty of proof -- and the mathematics of population growth.
So long as you accept that organisms are subject to mutations, and that these mutations can be inherited -- two things that cannot be denied without throwing out pretty much all basic biology, not to mention the everyday evidence of your own eyes -- evolution must
Re:scientists and possibility (Score:1)
Dude, believe whatever you want. But if you call believing whatever you want in the absence of evidence science, you should reasonably be expect to be treated like a moron.
Your question "What caused life to begin?" is a tough one, but it is not what the theory of evolution is about, evolution is about what comes after that. Indeed, the answer to your question, along with any other answer in science, cannot be pro
Something for nothing? (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I believe they may be putting the cart ahead of the donkey, considering the need of resources for the bots. That is, unless you don't mind nanobots eating your kids and reconstituting them into Nanobot Green. ;)
Re:Something for nothing? (Score:2)
This is true -- you still need something to start from, but really you could conveivably skip so many steps in production that it would seem like a literal something-from-nothing.
Look at anything on your desk and consider how many steps were taken to manufacture it. I have a box of rais
Re:Something for nothing? (Score:3, Insightful)
It would certainly spell the end of economics as we know it. Socialist utopia, here we come. Have you read many of Asimov's works pertaining to the topic?
Re:Something for nothing? (Score:1)
Re:Something for nothing? (Score:2)
Actually, with the way copyright and patent law is going these days, I wouldn't be surprised if the big firms could indeed keep their hands on the fruits of their labour indefinitely, which is a shame.
I could imagine a particularly wise and benevolent government forcing it into the public domain, and after all, this is the year 2250 (whenever) we're talking about, and perhaps benevolent government will have finally emerged by then.
Re:Something for nothing? (Score:1)
Eventually, energy and raw materials would be 'limited' (in a sense of plentitude not even concievable today) resources.
Re:Something for nothing? (Score:2)
But since basic material needs will become so cheap, people won't need to earn so much. Many will no longer need to be "wage slaves" to businesses. This will set the stage for tipping the balance of power away from co
Re:Something for nothing? (Score:2)
Site seems slow, or it could just be me. (Score:5, Informative)
The good news is that interest in nanotechnology doesn't seem to have suffered as much as it might have in light of the economic woe that has swept Silicon Valley. Though I saw a lot of "space available" and "for lease" signs as I drove around Palo Alto, attendance at the conference was only slightly below last year's.
There was less Extropian-style enthusiasm about the long-term prospects that nanotechnology might lead to near-immortality, and more talk about near-term developments and venture capital. And I guess that's the biggest shift in the field. When talk about nanotechnology was new, the long-term prospects dominated. They're still important, and people are still talking about them (who doesn't want to live a long time - er, besides Leon Kass, that is?) but the big buzz was over startups that are promising to deliver interesting new nanodevices within the year. Venture capitalists were talking about nanotechnology-related products that they're backing, and there was more discussion of products that can be brought to market in the near term. (One fallout of the dotcom bubble's bursting is that the venture-capital community seems very interested these days in companies that will produce customer revenue sooner rather than later)
People were also interested in the politics of nanotechnology, politics that are taking place both within the scientific community and within the greater polity. Within the scientific community, the "nanotech isn't possible" argument, which seemed dead a couple of years ago, seems to have enjoyed a modest resurgence. This isn't because any new experimental evidence has appeared; but rather, most people seem to think, because many scientists - fearful of criticism by Luddites and technophobes - want to undermine fears of advanced nanotechnology by simply taking the subject off the table. This probably won't work, for reasons that I outlined in last week's column, but it's a natural instinct, I suppose. You'd think, though, that at least some of these people would beware of Arthur C. Clarke's observation that when a distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right, but when he says that something is impossible, he is often wrong.
The larger world is taking notice, too. That's both a good thing and a bad thing. The good thing is that some - like Professor Lawrence Lessig of Stanford Law School - want to help "inoculate" nanotechnology against excessive legal interference, something that was the subject of Lessig's talk at the conference.
And some policymakers like Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), who attended the conference in its entirety, are taking nanotechnology rather more seriously than, say, Prince Charles. Sherman has drafted legislation calling for the National Academy of Sciences to study the impact of nanotechnology and wants to see far more attention paid to issues of economic, social, and political impact.
One Sherman-offered amendment to the current nanotechnology bill, HR766, called for 5% of nanotechnology funding to be set aside for such studies. That one didn't get adopted. But another, which was unanimously adopted, calls for a National Academy of Sciences study on the possible regulation of self-replicating machines, the release of such machines in natural environments, the distribution of molecular manufacturing development, the development of defensive technologies, and the use of nanotechnology to extend the capabilities of the human brain. (Sherman solicits your advice, and says you can email him at Brad.Sherman@mail.house.gov - with the subject line "Science" - if you like.)
The military aspects of nanotechnology have gotten more attention: In a speech last week, President Bush emphasized the role of technology in American military success, and noted that we are seeing wea
Usefull? (Score:3, Insightful)
I found the links from the replies more informative. Thanks fellas.
Re:Usefull? (Score:1)
As for the ventures, true that. But in the past 2 years, they've actually shortened their timelines on proposals and ROI calculations. Real impacts seen with real projects getting crunched. More so than any of the other years I've experienced. To the point of the original article, it doesn't appear this guy took any notes. Isn't it a federal mandate that geeks carry a pen and pad in their pocket protector, at all times?
Nanodangers. (Score:5, Interesting)
For Instance, take any sort of nanomachine that affects a human body. Nanomachines are very small and very hard to make. Our body is made of many, many cells. To kill, or change, or even repair a signifigant number of those cells, you need an obscene number of nanomachines. Without self-replicating nanos, you're going to be using alot more resources to make the nanos than it will take to achieve the same ends through other means.
Most of the current Nanotech seems to be centered around production methods of non-nano devices, sensors of different sorts, computing, and biotechnology. (Biotech being it's own can of worms and a very different matter from nanotech, indeed.)
Self-Replication (Score:2)
I would have to disagree that self-replicating nano is beyond our mortal grasp. We've already done it with robots of normal size (./article couple months back) as well as what IMHO is the more important developm
Re:Nanodangers. (Score:1, Insightful)
It doesn't work especially well, though. Due to the fundamental nature of biochemical (i.e., nanotechnological) reactions, errors in transcription are commonplace. This is good for life, but bad for technology. If you engineered a nanobot (i.e., bacteria) to do a specific task, that nanobot would soon mutate into something less useful. It's simply unavoidable. It's like entropy.
For Instance, take any sort of nanoma
Re:Nanodangers. (Score:3, Interesting)
That's true, although I have seen some recent commentary that suggests that nanoparticles might turn out to be harmful. Just as asbestos, an inert fiber, damages the lungs, so other sorts of nanotech waste products like buckyballs might turn out to be biologically harmful.
As far as self-replication, there are two issues. You're right that to get commercially significant numbers of nanotech devices
Re:Nanodangers. (Score:1)
Nano self-replication will work (Score:2)
You sound a bit like the politian in some low budget zombie movie...
For Instance, take any sort of nanomachine that affects a human body. Nanomachines are very small and very hard to make. Our body is made of many, many cells. To kill, or change, or even repair a signifigant num
Re:Nanomachines vs. Biotechnology (Score:2, Interesting)
I should have pointed out that I'm not including biotechnology as part of nanotechnology. Biotech is everything that nanotech is not: Self-Replicating, (for the most part) Easy to produce, and Extremly Dangerous. Don't get me wrong, I think we can achieve great things with Biotech and I think we should proceed with Biotech research as much as we have, if not much more. However, while Biotechnology and Nanotechnology are both suffieciently advanced technologies that deal with things primarily on a
Re:Nanodangers. (Score:3, Interesting)
It's theoretically possible, and in fact probably much easier, to design self-replicating robots (physical von Neumann machines) which are not nanoscale; one proposed application of this is to mine the asteroid belt. A lot of the dangerous possible con
Re:Nanodangers. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: "without self-replicating nanomachines, most of the other really big nano-dangers (and many of the nanodreams) become nigh on imnpossible". My only suggestion would be that you tell that to the SARS virus. (And a virus is not inherently self-repl
Excellent Smithers... (Score:5, Funny)
Good, soon we can conquer all those pesky third world countries in a few days instead of a few weeks.
Re:Excellent Smithers... (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to me that the availability of nanotech would actually completely outmode the current definition of military mastery.
Nuclear weapons accomplished (or are accomplishing) this to a very limited extent, but they're really hard to build and require exotic and hard-to-find elements and impressive amounts of infrastructure.
Nanotech, OTOH, seems like just an advance in manufacturing techniques. Given a properly advanced state of the art, it seems like it would be fairly impossible to limit access it the tech once things got rolling.
So, what we'll have is yet another dramatic inflation of the 9-11 effect, where once again the idea of how many people can be killed by a single determined person rises dramatically. It's been a historical trend over the last few hundred years, but I foresee an increase by a level of magnitude in our near future...
Re:Excellent Smithers... (Score:1)
Drexler r0x0Rz (Score:4, Interesting)
Stuck in a rut, stuck in a rut, stuck in a rut, .. (Score:1)
It's more than a couple of years later now. Next to nothing that he talked about ba
Re:Stuck in a rut, stuck in a rut, stuck in a rut, (Score:2)
As for having absolutely only minor advancements in nanotech, that's just not true. I've read a
Very early still (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Very early still (Score:3, Insightful)
a good thing nano tech will do when (Score:2, Interesting)
I sure hope some one comes up with a nice high effecency solar cell.
Re:a good thing nano tech will do when (Score:2)
Imagine spraying your rooftop with a thin goop, which turns into a layer of solar cells. Just add wires leading to your synchronous power inverter. The deluxe goop would not only make your roof into solar cells, it would convert asphalt based shingles into a leak-proof, self-healing, ultra-st
How about a SourceForge for Ferraris? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not bloody likely. All a company would have to do is design their product to require registration via a serial number for activation purposes, a la Windows XP. Granted, there are cracks aplenty for something like that, so maybe it's not such a hot idea.
Perhaps the nanoassembler would need to receive permission from the company in order to manufacture a consumer device in the first place, like an RSA key or something of that sort. Of course, once the actual assemble commands are isolated by some third-party hardware, one could just copy them and distribute them freely.
Then there's the notion of including some manner of rare precious metal in the design of the product, but that can be acquired by other means, and while expensive, the money to buy it wouldn't go to the company in the first place.
Hmm. Well, there go those ideas. To be honest, I think that nanotech, when it reaches maturity, will unavoidably throw a wrench in our economic system. When people can assemble their own goods for free, it's the designers who have the primary work cut out for them. And that could even turn into an open-source style of system, since if food, clothing, and other essentials can be assembled from only basic raw materials like soil, then the need for money would diminish considerably, and people could design new goods and products as a hobby.
Of course, one person could begin distributing a super-virus that can kill us all. Then again... umm...
---
Re:How about a SourceForge for Ferraris? (Score:2, Interesting)
Hamster
Re:How about a SourceForge for Ferraris? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:How about a SourceForge for Ferraris? (Score:3, Interesting)
They would hate it. And they would be powerless to stop it.
Just like the buggy whip manufacturers were powerless to stop the automobile industry (although they did try to pass laws that required any moving vehicle to have a horse in front of it).
Nanotechnology is going to completely rock our world. In Engines of Creation, [foresight.org] Dre
Clarke's Laws (Score:5, Interesting)
Dumb comment (Score:1)
"There was also a lot of discussion about the way that nanotechnology might affect property rights. If you can make pretty much anything at home, using nanodevices, then information becomes the key input. But how would the auto industry feel about a Napster for Ferraris? "
Hey dude, wake up! If we can make just about anything we need at home from dust, who needs money? If someone steals your Ferrari, make a new one from the dirt in your backyard!
Property
Re:Dumb comment (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, it would be worse for the car industry than file sharing is for the music industry, because you only want one or two cars, but hundreds of songs.
Re:Dumb comment (Score:2)
Re:Dumb comment (Score:1)
Anyhow cars cost about 1000 times more than a CD and 20,0000 more than a song using iTunes 4 so I think it might be a big deal.
Isn't physical stuff technically already "open source" - I think thats why it is protected by patents for a few years...
Re:Dumb comment (Score:3, Interesting)
Not quite. While the chemical properties of any atom are determined by the outer shell of electrons, those are controlled by the number of protons in the nucleus. (You're probably thinking of the recent Programmable Matter: The New Alchemy [slashdot.org])
The only method of bulk transmutation used today is neutron bombardment. Ex: breeding Plutonium 239 from
Re:Dumb comment (Score:2)
Re:Dumb comment (Score:1)
Re:Dumb comment (Score:2)
Nah, just steal one, take it apart, and scan all the parts with a laser scanner.
Self-replicating nanotech WILL exist! (Score:2, Interesting)
Nanobots NO (Score:3, Interesting)
Nanotech and DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
Gilmore argues that the problems we are facing now with information goods - music, movies, games, software - are just the beginning. In a few decades, all products will be in the same situation. Whatever solutions we find now will be the way we handle physical products in the future.
If we can build a world where information goods are plentiful and cheap, that is a good sign that nanotech will bring us a similar bounty of physical goods. On the other hand if we end up with an information market built on scarcity and high prices, nanotech won't bring the world the riches that it could potentially provide.
The ongoing content wars are even more important than they seem. They are putting us on the path that will determine the future economy of the 21st century.
Re:Nanotech and DRM (Score:1)
Re:Nanotech and DRM (Score:3, Funny)
science faction (Score:2, Insightful)
my predicition (Score:4, Funny)
Somewhere in the next 5-10 years the Military will fund a project to use Nanotechnology to protect us from Terrorism. In fact, some of the work raytheon is already doing is just that.
15-20 years out commercial entities will be given access to this technology so that they can make a buck off of it. At this point, the media will begin to rabidly suckle at anything with the prefix "nano" attached to it.
20-25 years from now the economy will surge because everyone and their brother thinks that "the world is really about to change"
25-30 years from now people will notice that their human condition has not, in fact, changed.
30-35 years from now all nanotechnology will be produced overseas, and those involved stateside will have a hard time finding work. At this time, the military will fund a project to utilize quantum strings to defend us against time travelers.
wash, rinse, repeat
Biotech discussion in linked article (Score:1)
Sometimes the way of thinking of those opponents is just incomprehencible for me. Take the following quote, taken from that article:
Spammers + Nanotech (Score:1)
Enjoy your downer for the day.
Who needs nano for that? (Score:1)