I think the one issue that we are over looking education. How do you make informed decisions about a technology that is very difficult to understand? How does an elected official decide regulation on a nanotech device that can destroy tumor cells but could be used as a weapon if its software was changed (hypothetical)? Any regulation taking place would have to be by well informed officials (ie. ones who understands molecular biology, physics, genetics, etc.) Then again MNT's complexity is what begs for regulation, due to it's capabilities. it's a condendrum, one i keep wondering how we'll figure out.

The fact that nanotech is already getting so much publicity at such an early stage leads me to believe that regulation will no doubt occur in a timely fashion. Congress is already looking at genetics-based anti-bias hiring regulations (see CareerJournal .co m article). The salient issue is whether "nano legislation" will be driven by knowledgeable insights or panic. Congressmen won't understand the detailed issues or be able to automatically separate fact from fiction, but hopefully they will be guided more by people like Drexler or consultants at MITRE than by USA Today. My impression is that this is a major reason why Foresight was founded.

I doubt that judicial governance will become a major force without initial laws put into place by Congress. The higher courts tend to be pretty careful with division-of-power issues and lawmaking is clearly in the hands of the legislature.

I also cannot understand what I've read of Bill Joy's stance towards nanotech. There will be people working on it in friendly and non-friendly countries. Human beings are unpredictable and uncontrollable. How can one defend against nanotech if you've rejected the technology in your own research labs? History has shown us that peace can only be ensured by the ability to defend yourself.

Most of the discussion on the influence of government on nanotech has involved the likelihood of effective legislation. The government has other tools, for instance, the courts. Granted that Congress has an Industrial Age response time. (I would say Agrarian Age, but that would be mean and mostly untrue.) The executive branch can react with (close to) Information Age responsiveness in an emergency. (More often we get the pseudo-response of spin control.)

The judiciary is where we are turning for decisions in these days of "increasing pace of change". According to futurist Jim Dator, "Judicial Governance" is becoming increasingly important as the legislative apparatus can't keep up.

I'd like to hear some discussion on government influence from this direction.

"It's dead because you all should know by now that NO ONE can control…"

Well if NO ONE can control Nanotech how it is it that it is made? Beacause someone can control it. So who? Well whoever makes it of course. And that's going to be whoever has the most advanced, visionary techniques, ideas, and whoever has the MONEY. At this point it appears to me that the money is in Gov. Sure, maybe after it matures your prediction of Economical Anarchy will be realized, but right NOW, in the early stages of this tech, the truth is that Government has the Money, and though it doesn't directly have the vision, it definitely has the power to hire those who DO. So I think that GOV. has more of a position than anyone at this time to at least help regulate the new Tech. But with regards to what happens after the initial R&D, well that's the real issue I think.

After a while no form of government that exists today will be able to sufficiently safeguard us from ourselves, so what really matters is that we create that form of Government.

The real discovery of new Tech isn't the new tech, but how we create new ways to govern it, because without effective governing the new Tech is useless or worse.. And I can tell you right now, I think the biggest change that comes from Nanotechnology will be in how we create Governments that work.

It's dead because you all should know by now that NO ONE can control Nanotechnolog (not even the government) – how can regulations be placed on a technology as revolutionary as Nanotech, when the government is failing miserably with the regulations on the old, outdated technology? Simply put, the government has no power over Nanotechnology and never will, simply because the technology WILL destroy all governments and all forms of litigation before it even knows what hit it.

I look down upon the people who think that Nanotechnoloy is going to bring them lots of money, power, and status – because that scenario is NOT going to be a part of the future at all. Instead, Nanotech is going to create a world based on complete Anarchy where the only wealth to be obtained is 'knowledge'.

The old world is dying – and I do not see how ANYONE could desire to keep it alive.