http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2910 examining transformative technology Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:23:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2910#comment-794524 Dr. Victor Pinks II Sat, 20 Dec 2008 06:01:15 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2910#comment-794524 Dr. Hall’s vision of Nanofuture is provocative. He leads me to wonder why we have not yet reached Nanofuture. In an attempt to answer my own question, I think we need to look harder at the present and stop trying to predict the future of nanotechnology. We’re starting to believe that our dreams are reality - they are just our dreams. 1984 never happened as George Orwell envisioned and Stanley Kubrick's 2001 was light-years off on the level of technology we hope to achieve. Nanofuture may not unfold as we envision. Maybe it’s our way of keeping hope alive when we don't see any solution in our minds eye? Maybe we're just trying to justify our failings and feel good about continuing business as usual? If we keep this up, we may never see our dreams realized. Perhaps we should look more closely at non-traditional solutions that exist today - sitting outside of the traditional channels of discovery? If you were starving, you wouldn't care where your next meal came from - or how it’s served. Maybe we should consider reengineering our system of innovation from top to bottom? How much of the peer review system is self-serving? Perhaps we need to learn a few lessons from the recent economic circus? For starters, most people will take care of their own interests before any social obligations - its human nature. New financial rules are needed to work with reality – to prevent a recurrence of this mayhem. With nanotech, like any innovation, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. But human nature says that scientists like any other people will promote their self-interests before those of society. In the hyper connectivity of our society new knowledge grows. Innovation can come from any direction so we need to be more open with less prejudice. We cannot be aware of what we are not aware of. Take innovation for what it is and worry about its source later. A good place to start would be the financial seeding of many nanotech startups with many small grants. Not a few big ones for ‘the deserving’. Water the whole garden of possibilities and see which seeds show promise because the rules for innovation are changing. Dr. Hall’s vision of Nanofuture is provocative. He leads me to wonder why we have not yet reached Nanofuture. In an attempt to answer my own question, I think we need to look harder at the present and stop trying to predict the future of nanotechnology. We’re starting to believe that our dreams are reality – they are just our dreams. 1984 never happened as George Orwell envisioned and Stanley Kubrick’s 2001 was light-years off on the level of technology we hope to achieve. Nanofuture may not unfold as we envision. Maybe it’s our way of keeping hope alive when we don’t see any solution in our minds eye? Maybe we’re just trying to justify our failings and feel good about continuing business as usual? If we keep this up, we may never see our dreams realized. Perhaps we should look more closely at non-traditional solutions that exist today – sitting outside of the traditional channels of discovery? If you were starving, you wouldn’t care where your next meal came from – or how it’s served. Maybe we should consider reengineering our system of innovation from top to bottom? How much of the peer review system is self-serving? Perhaps we need to learn a few lessons from the recent economic circus? For starters, most people will take care of their own interests before any social obligations – its human nature. New financial rules are needed to work with reality – to prevent a recurrence of this mayhem. With nanotech, like any innovation, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. But human nature says that scientists like any other people will promote their self-interests before those of society. In the hyper connectivity of our society new knowledge grows. Innovation can come from any direction so we need to be more open with less prejudice. We cannot be aware of what we are not aware of. Take innovation for what it is and worry about its source later. A good place to start would be the financial seeding of many nanotech startups with many small grants. Not a few big ones for ‘the deserving’. Water the whole garden of possibilities and see which seeds show promise because the rules for innovation are changing.

]]> http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2910#comment-789299 James G. Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:26:26 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2910#comment-789299 Interesting stuff. This kind of mirrors my own thinking, only I don't think nanorobotics will come a decade after AI. With AI, it will be simple to design and simulate nanorobotics in silico, once that happens people will pull out all stops to make nanorobotics, I'm certain of this. But we'll see soon enough. Interesting stuff. This kind of mirrors my own thinking, only I don’t think nanorobotics will come a decade after AI. With AI, it will be simple to design and simulate nanorobotics in silico, once that happens people will pull out all stops to make nanorobotics, I’m certain of this. But we’ll see soon enough.

]]>