Comments on: Time estimates for nano developments 2008-2021

By: Rachel

Rachel — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:00:12 +0000

Interesting article by Ray Kurzweil with empirical showing the timelines for Nanotech development.

See articles below – look for:
The Law of Accelerating Returns by Ray Kurzweil

http://www.searchnanotech.net/NanoTechArticles.aspx

By: haldean

haldean — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 08:07:50 +0000

Troll Alert. Please, don’t waste your time replying to Abatstone. He has no interest in debate, he has no interest in opposing points of view. His only agenda is to feed his own diseased, over inflated ego. He has been doing precisely the same thing at Betterhumans.com for a long, long time.

By: David Lucas

David Lucas — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 06:39:16 +0000

I think it’s funny that the original article predicts that these things come into existence in a 13-year time range and pessimist ADBatstone predicts the same 13-year time frame, but starting 79 years later. Hell, I plan to be around for both.

Here’s my opinion: the peaking of global oil has the potential to seriously slow research and global dissemination of information. I believe the dates of these developments depend more on our ability to find a suitable ‘replacement’ for oil before its price strangles economies rather than governments and citizens distrusting of nanoscience in general.

Also, the first predicted date of 2008 for nano-agents for analysis inside cells- I disagree. I have a fairly good idea that it will be the latter portion of this year. Of course, the ‘analysis’ at first will tell us basically what at-home pregnancy tests tell us now, that is, yay or nay, but it is a start.

By: Christine Peterson

Christine Peterson — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 00:19:06 +0000

It’s perfectly fine to have your own opinion on this, ADBatstone, but I say to you again, are you willing to put your health where your mouth is, and pledge not to use these technologies if they arrive early? If you are 100% certain, as you indicate, there should be no problem with this. If you aren’t, then you should be making less vehement statements. —Christine

By: ADBatstone

ADBatstone — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 02:00:09 +0000

“The political realities combined with the necessary health/efficacy studies of Nano solutions will undoubtedly delay their use by the masses.”

Exactly.

We will not see “nanomachines in the body” until after 2100.

From where we stand, advanced nanotechnology is at this moment, science-fiction vaporware. Nanobots and other speculative nanotechnologies won’t exist this century. After so many years of hearing about it, people are just NOT convinced. It’s all horse.

By: Nanoman

Nanoman — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 04:38:00 +0000

Thank you for the replies.

I am going to be hosting a Nanotechnology discussion forum this coming Friday at around 11 and 12 PM Eastern Standard time, on Pal Talk, a live discussion chat forum.

You can download paltalk for free at http://www.paltalk.com
The nanotech discussion will be in the Social Issues section.

By: Robert Bradbury

Robert Bradbury — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:50:21 +0000

What could EOC II say that hasn’t already been said in EOC, Unbounding the Future, Nanosystems, various published and in process volumes of Nanomedicine, Mind Children, The Singularity is Near, and more than a few science fiction novels (Stephenson, Bear, Egan, Nagata, Stross, Williams, etc.) that take nanotechnology quite seriously?

It seems that there is already *more* literature out there than people can read/study. Either people understand biology and understand that molecular nanotechnology *is* feasible (and its things like the lack of large numbers of nanoscale designs and robust parallel assembly methodologies that are missing) or they don’t.

Robert

By: michael vassar

michael vassar — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 06:53:53 +0000

I remember hearing about EOC II 6 years ago and thinking it was desperatedly needed. If there is funding for such a project I would be happy to take it on.

By: Christine Peterson

Christine Peterson — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 01:18:26 +0000

To Nanoman: For a recap of Eric Drexler’s recent work, see his talks at our October conference, and also his personal website at e-drexler.com.

Regarding Engines of Creation II: I have not heard that Eric is planning this. I would like to try my hand at such a book, and have been trying to get to it for years, but would need to be relieved of other duties here at Foresight in order to have time. –Christine

By: Robert Bradbury

Robert Bradbury — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:19:36 +0000

The study contains quite a bit of interesting information. Most important may in fact be the discussion of areas where there was a significant amount of disagreement on when certain advances would become reality. One does not know whether the naysayers were the people who were informed or uninformed in specific areas. Thus there is no way of judging if the opinions are based upon knowledge with respect to how easy or hard specific developments may be.