Review:Nano: The Emerging Science of Nanotechnology 23
| Nano: The Emerging Science of Nanotechnology | |
| author | Ed Regis |
| pages | 340 |
| publisher | Little, Brown and Company |
| rating | 8/10 |
| reviewer | Cliff Lampe |
| ISBN | |
| summary | Nice narrative about everyone's favorite fringe... |
The Scenario
Ed Regis, in this 1996 offering, makes the comparison between the believers of the advent of Nanotechnology and cults. K. Eric Drexler plays the role of charismatic leader, there is a belief in an utopian Breakthrough and a nearly blind faith in the correctness of their vision. The Nano faithful look at each other as if they are in on a grand joke of some sort. What Regis attempts to do with his book is to convince the non-Believing among us. By painting a human face on the technology through a description of Drexler himself, Regis converts by making this seem like a story of humanity rather than technology. It's much the same technique that Matthew used to convince people of the validity of Christianity in an earlier text on a novel idea.
Chances are that you are already in one of two camps. If you are already a Believer, you know that the inevitable march of molecular nanotechnology is knocking on the door. If you are a Doubter, it sounds like a load of steaming hooie that this drastic a change of technology could happen in our lifetime.
Whether you are a Believer or a Doubter, Regis is trying to speak to you with this engaging and readable book. By outlining the history of atom level research, and creating a parallel story related to Drexler's advocacy of the technology, Regis is able to blend a human story with a description of nanotech that is more engaging than Engines of Creation and less techy than Nanosystems.
What's Bad?
There is definitely a paeanistic edge to this book. Regis takes some pain to paint Drexler in the most positive light possible. He even seems to minimize Feynman's contributions, painting the physicist as a curmudgeon to prove that while he may have mentioned the idea twenty ideas ago, it took Drexler to get the ball rolling on manipulating matter on the molecular level.
While Regis does a good job of analyzing fuller aspects of the implications of nanotechnology, especially in the latter half of the book, he often doesn't go far enough in his analysis of these effects. "Slant" by Greg Bear is a better picture of the World After if you are interested in the topic. One last caveat is that the three year time period since publication of the book has seen some exciting changes in the field which are of course not covered therein.
What's Good?
This book has a lot going for it. The narrative voice is engaging and makes for an easy read. Regis also does a good job of balancing a plausible description of the technology with succinct scientific descriptions, avoiding some of the super techno speak of previous books on nanotechnology that threatened to cross the eyes of the simple geek. Also, it does a good job of addressing how the technology has been surprising in it's progress, moving less quickly than expected at some points and more quickly at others.
So What's In It For Me?
You get an entertaining read that, while biased, presents a view of nanotechnology that is vastly more satisfying than the smattering of magazine articles or usenet posts that have described the development of the technology so far. It's also a good book if you are a Believer dwelling amongst the unfaithful, to describe what precisely it is that gets you so excited to your friends and loved ones. I had my spouse read excerpts to prove that I wasn't coming up with this crap on my own.
The other thing you hopefully get from this book, especially if you are a Believer, is a renewed sense of vigor and excitement about the possibilities of this technology. Personally, as a Believer I came back with a strong sense of the future, and of the role this emerging technology will play in it.
Other important links...
Check out the Foresight Institute and tell 'em Hemos sent ya.Buy this fine text at Amazon
It goes down stairs, alone or in pairs (Score:1)
Of course, for awhile everything will be fine. We will be marching along, making great advances with these neat little machines.
I'm just a bit afraid of what will happen when idiots or zealots start trying to do Bad Things with them. It is definitely a possibility. Maybe by the time this stuff starts really coming out, people will be smarter.
I think I am a believer, but I don't think anything TOO revolutionary will happen for awhile, but when it does.... Bam!
Good book. Could be better (Score:1)
He tries to play down the cultishness of the nano crowd, but falls prey to it himself from time to time. He intoduces the idea of a utility fog without flinching. The utility fog would be a 3D grid of nano-machines that hung in the air like a fog. They would them coagulate into anything a nearby 'user' might want. Nano-scale machines and computers are believable. Utility fog, however, is a concept to far on the fringe of practicality to include in a book meant to be an introduction to nanotechnology (or more accurately, a gospel of nanotech).
All in all, I'd say read the book. But be prepared for a one sided argument on the viability and applicability of the technology.
does this mean? (Score:1)
Kansas is going bye-bye (Score:1)
Sorry, had to. Is it even correct?
Movie in a totally different class than Star Wars, yet still unperfect mainstream sci-fi. Too bad nanobots can only be heros and aides in Anime.
Re:Question (Score:2)
Preaching to the Converted (Score:1)
Why a 1999 review of a 1996 book? (Score:1)
Not to complain: It's a well-done review, to be sure. But why now--has the book recently been reprinted or something? If we're going to review books that have been out for a while, we could also go back to Drexler's Engines of Creation.
Re: (Score:1)
Nanotech and dreams of the future (Score:1)
The review however says that you are probably a believe or not, and I wish to raise some of the concerns/issues I had with "Engines
First of all I firmly believe in nanotechnology. As far as I am concerned it will happen and it will happen soon. What I don't believe is that having nanotech will automatically open all of the doors that the nanotech gurus think it will.
In order to build something (or program something else to do it) you have to understand it. Using nanotech to build things is not a problem, because we understand rocket engines, cars, houses, etc.
The problem comes when we start to consider building things like brains, medical bots, etc. They by their nature are extremely complex entities that will take more than just basic nanotech to understand.
My other big issue is the assumption that we can manage the risks of nanotech. We will have nanotech, but I don't think we are ready for it. Drexler and others assume that we will be able to create nanotech to defend ourselves against hostile nano, but as crackers have proven time and time again, truely secure systems are rare (and usually only occur when the system is isolated).
Because of this, nanotech can lead our bodies (and if you believe Drexler our minds) open to attack from any nano cracker who is insane or power hungry. Many people express the hope that by the time nanotech progesses to that stage, we will have evolved as a species, but this is (sadly) a long shot. There will (most likely) continue to be deranged individuals. There will always be people who have agendas which are not in the best intrest of certain other people. Because of this, nanotech will cause problems, our hope will have to be that we can build defense faster than others can build offence, and that kind of arms race can end in either destruction or a stalemate.
Hopefully those who first create nanotech will be wise enough to help us establish the stalemate.
EvoBoost (Score:1)
The car was not created, it evolved. The computer is still evolving. Science and technology are all about evolvement through inventions becoming standards.
Nanobots are made by other nanobots. Only way to create the first egg (chicken?) is to bootstrap a programmable molecular factory by a ladder. First steps are half biological, half chemical. It gets hazier in the next generations. I guess we won't be able to distinct bacteria and nanobots after some time.
Time, duration, lag, of evolvement in itself is irrelevant - full development might take anything from 20 to 200 years. The steps will be taken as they evolve, long as the scientific infrastructure (universities, labs) sustain.
There's a bunch of changes/risks lurking:
* malforming through
- poor factory control
- mutation
- external distraction
* malfunction leading to
- overreplication
- destruction/malformation of close environment
- loss of control
Risks should be handled with
* self coherence checks
* self disposal at any error
etc?
Assume we'll be able to construct
* programmable nanobot factory
* information exchange between nano- and human-sized level
* connect to, control and listen to nanodevices
* brain connection leading to mindinternetwork
Think how a world will be where you can grow a remote physical device anywhere you can send data to.
Wonder when we'll be able to grow wings? Remote bodies?
In the meanwhile, we have overpopulation, pollution, wars and famine. Oh, and religious zealots in Kansas and
Recompile your mind regularly.
Re:It goes down stairs, alone or in pairs (Score:1)
OTOH, ephemeralization has so far been a primarily beneficial factor. Perhaps that will continue.
Decent, outdated book (Score:1)
Overall an enjoyable read, but not the best source of information available.
Rapid advances, medicine and sociology (Score:1)
As to social issues: there's a wild card that people aren't talking about much yet. Artificial intelligence will be a major influence on the way we run society. Surveillance will get a lot easier. Propaganda (advertising) will become more powerful. If the AIs become a lot smarter than we are, they may even comprehend us enough to do social engineering. Will they be working for our benefit? How could we tell? Nanotech by itself won't give us superhuman AI, but it will give us computers that can simulate every neuron in our brains a million times faster. That's a good place to start.
Chris
Entropy (Score:1)
How long before one of these things takes a freaky and turns the entire biosphere into copies of itself?