Humm…I'm new here, but I've been researching nanotech from a non-college grad, non-scientist, non-specialist veiw point, so while I'd probably catagorize myself as an above average intellegence reader, I'm probably close to being your target audience.

That being the case, here are my comments. Please bear in mind they are my opinions, and as such, may not be shared by everyone. I tend to be open minded and rather liberal compared to most of the people I talk to. And I rarely bother to consider religious beliefs in discussions on technology, because they tend to cloud the issues.

Nanoshock (was: Engines of Creation 2001)
title/subtitle ideas are welcome

Honestly, I'd say EoC 200X may be a better choice. Nanoshock sounds entirely too much like a tabloid headline. If your intent is to get the Jerry Springer crowd to read it… which honestly may not be a bad idea… I'd say stay away from a flashy title.

Goal: to be as reassuring as possible while honestly presenting coming
powerful changes in technology, focusing on nanotechnology

Mrs. Peterson, there is no way to be reassuring *and* honest about nanotech. If you want reassuring, you can't be honest about it, and vice versa.

I've tried having conversations with people on nanotech, and it tends to be akin to a religious debate. "It's playing god" or worse. I've actually had one person tell me that nanotech wouldn't happen because Gene Rodenberry didn't write about it.

I want to see nanotech benefit everyone, not just the rich or the government, or the intellectual; but the common person has been filled with the horror of "Virtuosity", or similar movies, that show nanotech in a bad light. To see nanotech succeed for everyone, you've got to find a means of being honest, even above being reassuring, while still showing the advantages of nanotech.

That's not going to be easy, because many of the things I've noticed you and Mr. Drexler seem concerned with preventing are things that many many people will see as advantages. This may simply be my interpretations of "Unbounding" and "EoC" and other articles I've read, but it does seem to be the case. You need to see what people really want, then tell them how it can be accomplished.

And you'll need to avoid the concept of "proper use." The law of unintended consequences ensures there will always be ways technology can be used that differs from it's creators intention. And never forget that one mans evil is another mans good.

Chapter 1: Technological Change, good and bad
Examples of both kinds
Trying to stop technological change has unexpected side effects
(abortion ban, drug ban, cloning ban). Some bans are worth doing
anyway (murder ban)

This is something I've actually written a few essays on, which is where I came up with the Law of Unintended Consequences. I have no idea if it's a concept that I read somewhere and adopted or just a phrase I thought sounded good, but my pesonal interpretation has always been this:

Any technology will have effects and uses beyond those envisioned by the creator.

I firmly believe if Alexander Graham Bell had forseen what the telephone would become, he would have destroyed his invention, and spent the rest of his life hunting down and discouraging anyone else who tried to create it.

Why? Because the technology hasn't been put to the uses he envisoned. It's been put to them… and then some. The human race used it, and found new way to use it, and created technologies that use it, until you can't live without it anymore. It's essential to life as we know it. Our economy depends on telephones. Our kids would sugically attach them to their ears if they could. Business itself would cease without phones.

Is it a good thing? Do you enjoy telemarketers calling you during dinner? Do you like having the phone ring at all hours of the day and night?

Is it a bad thing? Do you like being able to call up the internet? Do you like being able to talk to your friends without having to drive over to see them?

Technology is. It is neither good nor bad, it simply exists. There is no such thing as good technological changes, or bad ones, they just exist. My opinions of whether it's good or bad are just that, opinions.

For every technological change, I can give you positives and negatives. Do the positives outweigh the negatives? That's a matter of opinion, not fact. It can be debated from here to the heat death of the universe, and it will still only be an opinion.

Nanotechnology is a science. It has been portrayed as a science and at every turn it has been defended as a science. That being the case, a discussion of good and bad is pointless. Science deals with facts. Anything else is a article of faith. And like any other form of technology, ethical or moral debate over its uses is not only pointless, but dangerous. Regardless of what you may or may not want, their will be others out there who do. It's always best to work for the best case, but plan for the worst.

It's predicting what the worst may be that's hard. And you have to think logically, not emotionally. The grey goo is a real danger, but is cloning? Not in a moral or ethical sese, but in fact? Morals and ethics can't be considerations in the development of Nanotech or it will blind people to what both the possible is, and what the dangers are.

Don't get me wrong, please. From what I've read, you and Mr. Drexler both are people I'd consider extremely trustworthy upstanding people, but not everyone is, and it is those people you MUST think like to develop effective defenses.

And if I sound like I'm preaching to the chorus, my apologies, but I felt I must state my posistion on this. There are several things Mr. Drexler has indicated he veiws as undesireable that I believe many people will see as prime selling points for supporting Nanotech research.

Chapter 2: Nanotechnology

By this chapter heading, I'm assuming this will be an overview of nanotechnology, definitions, and clarification of exactly what Molecular Nanotechnology and mechanosynthesis is. As such, it's fairly straight forward. No need to comment.

Chapter 3: Life Extension, biotech, human modification
Concerns about biotech are temporary

Here's where you get into one of the first areas I think you and I may veiw radically differently. If I am wrong, please forgive me, but statements made by Mr Drexler in EoC lead me to think he is against modifications beyond very minimal points.

But I will agree with you that concerns over biotech will be very short lived.

On the subject of human modification, I have this to say: It is not the role of Science to dictate how far modifications should go. Any attempt to set limits on this is completely arbitrary and based on moral or ethical beliefs.

To illustrate. Look online. Take a random sampling of ten million people from different chat rooms, mucks, moos, muds, newsgroups, bulliten boards, etc. Check their online persona verses their real life self.

Many of them won't be "Human" online. They'll be elves, centaurs, Klingons, dragons, cyborgs, etc.

Very many of them, given a chance, would jump at a technology that would allow them to BE what they are online. It's one of the things I see as a major selling point of Virtual Reality.

Nanotech can make that real. For that matter, creative microtech, utilizing MEM social robots could do it.

Is it wrong? Many people might think they're strange, but to the people who would opt for such radical modifications would see it as a godsend.

It's not my place to judge what makes them happy. So long as it doesn't hurt anyone, I could careless what they do. It's no worse than plastic surgery.

But statements Mr. Drexler has made previously in EoC lead me to think that these uses are veiwed as "Misuses".

It's technology… there is no misuse, just a use other than what the creator envisioned.

There's no point to attempting to stop it or even thwart it. People are vain, and asking for altruism rarely works. If you really want to drum up support, appeal to their desires and their vanity. Hollywood alone might give you enough funding if you stressed this aspect of Nanotechnology. Why spend a fortune paying a thousand computer animators or cosmeticians when you can rebuild the actor into any appearance you want?

Bottom line is that reshaping the human body is a feature of nanotech that exists, because we are constructed of atoms. The complete understanding of DNA sequencing is inevitable, and so is a computer program that models what different DNA chains will produce. It is inevitable that the human race will begin restructuring itself, life off Earth pretty much requires it. We will make ourselves tougher, stronger, smarter, and immortal. Changing the body design is insignifigant.

We're eventually going to modify it to the point of leaving organic structures behind forever anyway… it's a fairly pointless debate.

And that's why I think fears about biotech are short lived. I don't think we're going to still be biology based a century from now.

Chapter 4: Space
Who "inherits" the Earth?

There's far more to space than just what to do with the earth when we move out into the universe.

Subjects such as nanotech terraforming, planet construction from asteroid debris feilds, gas giant mining, space habitats, space ships, and even adaptation to life in space should be addressed.

Who inherits the earth is a philosopy question more than a science question.

Chapter 5: Openness, transparency, surveillance
End of violent crime as we know it

Nice dream. Won't happen.

Human nature is too secretive to allow it. For every way you come up with to monitor "everything" some creative person with something to hide will find a way to curcumvent it. You can make it work on some levels, but no where near the levels you propose.

And I want you to think for a second really about violent crime. Do you really think that it'll end? When you're immortal? Regenerative? and if you actually are made nonfunctional, you can be rebuilt?

No. I think violence in such a situation is far *more* likely… not less. Humans are a reckless lot.

Don't believe me, explain extreme sports and football.

No, under those conditions, I think the average human is likely to be more bloodthirsty, not less. And I think the WWF illustrates that all too well…

Chapter 6: Earth's environment
the end of rage and despair
Example: end of oil as fuel

Here's a subject where I have had many arguments… particularly with Greenies.

Here, I'll actually give you what you're probably looking for more than what I've given so far… visions and examples… but I'll warn you, they may be more frightening in ways than reassuring.

Imagine if you will a world where most of the visible signs of humanity are cloaked in green. A city with giant buildings and gardens of plants, flowers and trees. Homes built underground or in trees or on the ground that are as natural and harmonious as their environment. Oceans filled with whales again. Islands where dodos once more roam.

Imagine cities floating on the sea, in the air, in space. Imagine cars that alter their shape to fly through water as easily as the air, or space. Imagine people able to move all over the world in minutes via underground railroads, trans atmospheric planes or other methods. Imagine a world with a green moon, and two green stars in it's sky.

Welcome to a world where nanotech is real.

Houses can be grown from seeds. You plant it and it will release it's first load of nanomachines to collect material. These will be used to create specialized machines to process raw material into walls, floors, ceilings, then begin burrowing down to tap into the local water table and provide water. The central seed will evolve into the houses brain, and main computer. It will co-ordinate millions of micromachines that will cultivate the local plantlife to grow over parts of the house and move the earth that it will use for insulation. They will survey the local landscape and engineer the aboveground portions of the house for minimal environmental intrusion, integrating doors and windows into natural seeming outcrops. Sunflowers, part machine, mostly plant will track the sun and store power for the houses consumption.

Inside the house, a cloud of micromachines such as utility fog will enable the interior to assume any form or dimension, limited only by it's occupants desires. In this mix of virtual and real, the inside of the house could seem far larger than it's outside, so the actual space needed for the occupant need not be outrageous. Entire communities could be pleasant woodlands with elegant pathways where the occupants could walk without fear of being run over, save by hordes of children. Quiet aircars would need no paved roads, and between the sunflower beds and the power created by the houses manufacturing plant, there is little need for power lines defacing the country side.

In the cities, micromachine maintained gardens would grace quiet conveyor walkways. The glass walled towers will drink in the sunlight, using the abundant resource to power themselves and feed excess into the national grid. Utility fog can maintain the climates at comfortable levels year round, making even the harshest winter warm and cozy within the cities perimeter.

And for the people? With the complete control of matter came complete control of themselves. Human, elves, aliens, anthropomorphs, they all coexist. Skin color ceased to be an issue when it could be changed as easily as clothes. So did personal appearance.

With the mental control of utility fog also came the comfort of shaping the world to your desires, at least with in limits. Control of the fog requires concentration to maintain if someone else has the same access. Pranks would be quite common as individuals strive to show their creativity through their foglets. Making ones chair vanish when you're not thinking about it would likely be the top prank of all.

It's not a world most people would recognize anymore, but it's one possible future, one that doesn't require any curbs on technological development or use. Just the use of technology to maintain a balance.

And it doesen't require any of the drastic measures of population control or de-urbanization proposed by the Eco-paranoids.

It's not a perfect world, there is still violence, but it's less damaging, there's still strife, but no reason for massive wars. There's even likely to be massively dangerous sports, but when death is reversable, so what? Humanity can't trive in a sterile, danger free environment. If we have no natural enemies, we create our own. Utopia leads only to stagnation, and extinction.

Chapter 7: AI

One of my favorite topics. The future of AI seems to be fraught with terror that our creations will out evolve us and replace us.

Here's my answer to that.

They will.

Face it. So long as mankind is shakled to the notion that he's perfect and unchangable, and cannot be altered or upgraded in any way, it's inevitable. A.I. will out evolve man.

SO LONG AS MAN CHOOSES NOT TO EVOLVE!

I really do hope and pray that I'm not the only one who sees the patheticness and genocidal nature of this way of thinking.

For every advance we can make in A.I. we can apply it to the human race. Improvements in the way an A.I.s brain is structured? Why wouldn't they be applicable to humanity?

Minsky has already proposed that the human mind can be transferred to a sufficiently complex computer, and with nanotech, we can replace the brain one cell at a time with much faster, hardier, and more efficient analogs without losing any of the data that makes individuals themselves. We can make our selves faster, increase our intellegence and eventually even transfer our consciousness entirely to the realm of electronics, without losing any of the advantages of a biological systems. We can engineer ourselves to become our own replacements and accelerate evolution by billions of years.

We'll only become pets if we allow ourselves to be.

A.I. is a misnomer. It should be Artificial Evolution. Do we evolve, or die?

Chapter 8: Software reliability and security

This, I don't know enough about to comment on.

Chapter 9: Intellectual property
The social cost of controlling bitstreams into and out of people's
computers outweighs the proposed benefits

Again, this is not something I know enough about to comment on.

Chapter 10: Nanodefense, immune system

Some thoughts on the concept of an immune system. In EoC, Mr. Drexler advanced the notion that small computers could be placed into cells to allow monitoring and repair of the DNA of it's owner. This is the basis of most of my thinking on the immune system based on that concept.

By increasing the intellegence of the cell based units and enabling them to communicate with all other cell comps, it is possible to create an active immune system that will deal with invaders from the point of entry. Any cells which do not share the owners DNA are automatically destroyed. To prevent the introduction of engineered stealth viruses, it may be neccessary to create a means for the computer to do both a DNA check and a software check to ensure the cell is indeed part of the cellular structure of it's host.

With a further increase in sophistication, this cell system can also communicate directly with it's host, and can pass unresolvable issues up to a virtual interface the host can use to control their own immune system. Additionally, with advances in mind machine interfaces, it can also allow the host to modify themselves at will, utilizing engineered abilities to herd cells to consciously fix damage, or even shift their physical appearance.

Additionally, with linkages to a WWW like matrix, the immune system can send information on virus threats to a universal address and download "antiviruses" automatically. This enables more than just one immune system to combat viral of cellular level threats.

Adding to this, if a record of the synaptic pathways is constantly updated, in the event of catastrophic events that may result in total loss of the brain, the synaptic map can be used to rebuild a memory and personality intact copy.

Or, if the synaptic map is electronicly based, awareness can be maintained while the consciousness is transferred to a copy.

This ensures that even in the event of a virulent destructive nanomachine plague that reduces everything to component atoms, the consciousness of it's victims can be transferred to new bodies and not die. This is particularly true if the network is not entirely planet based, but is spread over multiple planets and space habitats.

And once this network is multisolarsytem wide, the likely hood of total extinction is reduced enormously. If means can be found to use Bells theorum to create a communications device that allows realtime communication over any distance, than even supernovas need not destroy people beyond recovery.

Death, in any form, will cease to exist.

Chapter 11: Social software, personal action

Again, not a subject I know enough about to discuss.

Acknowledgements
Further reading
Glossary
Index

Humm. That's my two cents worth. I apologize if I misconstrued anyones intentions or statements, any such errors are my own fault. Also, I cannot attribute most of the concepts I discussed to anyone source, as I have read far too many books, papers and discussions on these subjects. Some may belong to other people, some may be my own based on ideas I read. I wouldn't be able to tell you.

I simply felt it worth while to add my opinion…

Your example raises the question of activism and its role in the process of achieving ethical and social controls over the development of dangerous technologies.

It may be obvious to us today that in-atmosphere nuclear testing is a bad idea. However, it was the Rainbow Warrior sailing into French nuclear test zones, and Greenpeace (the organization that grew from that effort) growing to oppose the imposition of human technologies and priorities on the wild life of the planet, that forced us to that conclusion. It was not obvious at the time.

In fact, propaganda films of the time "proved" that atmospheric testing "could do no harm" due to dissipation of long-lived radiation in the upper reaches of the atmosphere.

It was Greenpeace that made this ban so "obvious" by putting themselves in harms way those years ago.

Accordingly, we probably owe our best participation when that same organization (Greenpeace) asks questions about artificial life or new molecules or transparency of ethics or etiquette or even just degrees and nature of anoynimity.

If you have arguments against a ban of some new technology that impacts the natural world in a quite basic way, presumably you should go first to those who are least likely to accept your arguments, to both refine those arguments and to encounter your own bad assumptions.

It is simply dishonest to assert that atmospheric nuclear testing is "obviously wrong", and then to dodge debate with those who proved that very thing those many years ago, at risk to themselves.

Technology bans are now commonly discussed on television. It is long past time to engage the people who advocate bans and environmental ethics (such as the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays principle) which would slow down technology's "progress" – such as that is. If we are not activists here, then we are just promoters. I do not think that is what we want to be. Activists engage each other by choice, not only when they are forced to by conflicts.

Do so!

The many assumptions about economics, politics and technology that seem assumed in that outline do not seem to rise from the actual characteristics of the mechanochemistry itself.

If you are going to assume an ontochemistry that is compatible with that mechanochemistry, you are best off to outline where the ontology and the mechanics are isomorphic, and where you have to make assumptions based on assumed timelines of development or feasibilities, i.e. where you must fall back on analogy, metaphor, and even guessing.

Or, rather, "wishing".

I'd like to know where you think Hayek's concept of economics, which to my mind is only three-fifths of ecology and deals poorly with resources and waste by definition, has influenced the book.

If it's not "technical", what is "Nanoshock" about? Is it an attempt to impose a regulatory or ethical framework, or rather, to avoid one?

Reviews of Lakoff, Nunez "Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics Into Being" seem to establish that there are no fundamental objections to their answer to "how can advanced mathematical ideas be built up using the basic mechanisms of conceptual structure: image-schemas, frames, metaphors, and conceptual blends?" "[the authors] in particular, have been able to solve three difficult cases: (1) the grounding of arithmetic, set theory and formal logic in the brain and body. (2) The cognitive structure of actual infinity (infinity as a "thing") for a wide variety of cases: the infinite set of natural numbers, points at infinity, mathematic induction, infinite decimals and the reals, limits and least upper bounds, infinitesimals and the hypereals, and tranfinite numbers. (3) The conceptual structure characterizing the meaning of e-to-the-power-ix, allowing us to characterize in cognitive terms what Euler's equation e-to-the-power-[pi]i + 1 = 0 actually means and why it is true on the basis of what it means. The result is an extended start on an embodied theory of mathematical ideas growing out of, and consistent with, contemporary cognitive science."

Among other things this helps to resolve why the universe seems to fit anthropic constraints not only well, but nearly perfectly and why the scale of our bodies is about as much larger than what we can observe as the observable universe is relative to us.

All of this points towards a cognitive science of mathematics that is more specific to humans or to the anthropoid body-form (which we share with the Great Apes and other hominids including past and future ones), and trusting mathematics less to make what amount to moral decisions.

If the universe is less radically autonomous than previously thought, and mathematics less objective and more an extension of the human body image and other senses, then we simply may not have the tools to assess any risk to the biosphere and may only be groping blindly at this kind or scale of analysis.

In which case the "Singularity Cultists", while wrong to greedily seek the Apocalypse, would be right that we would be lucky to protect anything worth protecting through the changes to come. I think this all points to a much more careful look at ethics, and perhaps a lull in technology work.

Even if that must be arranged by coercive means…

"Chapter 3: Life Extension, biotech, human modification

Concerns about biotech are temporary"

Where do you get this idea?

It just seems part of a mindless pro-technology boosterism. There are lots of people who believe otherwise. There is far less known about genes and proteins, and certainly far less about the epigenetic process, than non-biologists think. For instance "genes" are not physically real but rather an approximate concept based on SNPs (base pair segments) and observed expression of certain bits of chromosomes (physically real bundles of DNA). Gene hacking amounts to no more than viral infection of existing genomes using more physical methods (e.g. smearing DNA all over gold BBs and *SHOOTING THEM* into DNA fragments to bind *WHEREVER*). It is nothing like a real science.

The other mindless optimism inherent in Foresight official positions, e.g. "open source everything, no need to reintegrate improvements as in the GPL" all seems symptomatic of a general attitude of laissez-faire faith in technology itself as a moral force.

Which has, sadly, been typical of Foresight since Chris Peterson has gained more and more influence.

Perhaps someone who *doesn't* believe Hayek was the greatest figure of all history should do the editing job?

This seems very politically tainted in its present form. I don't think I would read it, but I think I would recommend that Green friends read it, it might alarm them to awakening!

This is 2nd edition of Engines of Creation. So the structure of the first book should be followed (as is apparent from the proposed outline). Other books/websites can be written for other needs.

Refer more advanced people to other books /sites in one chapter or intro.

I am unconvinced about the complete end of rage and despair.
-tribalism will require a solution beyond nanotech (Israel / Arab issues.)
-people with sore loser view of history (violent islam)

Under-rated issues
Moving people from undeveloped world to nano world.
And the flip side – not allowing or trying to slow development that would save the lives of millions every year. (starvation, disease etc…)
Need to balance not just the developed worlds concerns with other peoples. How much does policies being advocated in the developed world not jibe with fairness for everyone.

Current dangers & balance of power shifts
When considering the new dangers of nanotech, people should try to have a better assessment of what the current danger levels are.
-deaths from smoking
-deaths from driving
-death from starvation
-death from poverty
-death from disease
(but not just death but real hardship levels)

Mass destruction
-already possible

Chemical, Bio, Nuclear, Conventional

What is really different when nanotech is added to the equation ?

Improvements/Progress
What is really different and possible when nanotech is added to the equation ?
ie. Computers a million times more powerful
That will happen anyway. (Advanced lithography etc…). But computers a billion times or more ?

MEMS will also delivery a lot.

Life extension by ten years or anywhere up to 120.
That is happening anyway.
Getting life extension happening in Asia and south america nearly keeping pace with Japan, Europe and N America also likely to happen with or without nanotech.

How much of the changes that will happen anyway (which are important) should be discussed ? They are more likely, because there are tens of tech and other paths to making them happen.

What are the real differences of nano scenarios ?
It is what a real interstellar civilization will need. People don't understand what that will mean. They think star trek. It is the leap from the caveman to the modern world and beyond.

Without nanotech:
We will eventually be able to do cheaper near earth orbit, interplanetary stuff without it. All the ways to sail the solar wind (M2P2 etc… See the NAIC site.) We can even send some probes to other systems (but taking decades) and make very good telescope arrays. (Dark ages to the Renaissance)

Orders of magnitude life extension.

It is not just what will happen in the 5-30 yrs. It is the impact of all of current tech printing press, combustion engine, telescope, flight, biotech, industrial manufacturing etc… all extremely improved. It is the enablement of what would not be possible otherwise or the rapid acceleration of what would be possible.

One reason why the downside can be partially discounted: The bad stuff can happen anyway without nanotech. We don't want to make it any easier and if possible we want to make it better. But just because it won't be perfect right off, does not mean we should not progress.

Reassurance: It does not raise a lot of the risks that much.
Concern: Do you really know how bad it is now and how bad it could be ?
Reassurance: There really are more good guys and neutral guys than bad guys. We have to keep to the job of not accepting or allowing bad guys to do things.
Issue: So what do we have to do to ensure that the good scenarios happen.

Is this topic still active? Anyhow. EoC still stands up pretty well. Why not just publish a slim "EoC Revisited", that includes a few technical updates, progress reports, "I told you so's", and "oops's". Getting EoC reprinted with an "update" should be relatively easy. Perhaps use the added perspective of ~15 years since EoC to create a new past and future development timeline, with more specific milestones – not just "and here a self-assembling nanomachine comes into existence", but more of a map of some likely development paths and innovations along the way. A new book is needed – but should aim at different objectives than EoC. EoC raised many interesting questions – but provided few solid answers. Raise more questions, and more firmly suggest some answers – take a position on what an reasonable post-nano society should be like, for example. Avoid sugary visions of "how things ought to be", in favor of "how things are likely to turn out if we do nothing, and how we can realistically make things more tolerable for everyone." E.g it's likely that post-nano, the owners and innovators and manipulators will be sitting pretty, while conservatively clinging to and enforcing traditional human modes of existence. But what about the renters and consumers and powerless, who will own little beyond their bodies, and find themselves seeking to get beyond mere survival in a glutted human-services market? What should be the aim of those who would change the world, with regard to those who just "deal with whatever comes along"? Bread and circuses? Socialization via "therapy"? Minimal-cost maintenance as a collectively valuable gene pool? Gradual reduction to a smaller population of happy, healthy semi-savages, treading lightly on a restored Earth and subtly kept in their zoo-place? Mass nano-biochemical enlightenment to join in a new level of humanity? What? What mind-sets are likely to dominate in a post-nano era? One will almost certainly be the "Green-world Restorationists". Then there will be the "Conservative Humanists" – opposing anything that would significantly change the definition of 'human'. There will be the "eager transhumanists" – but somehow I suspect they will be in a minority, as most people seek security. Given how we're currently trying to deal with terrorism (which is likely to be about as effective as the War on Drugs), we'll probably still be living in the shadow of terrorists 20 years from now – so the "security mindset" may be a major subculture. Just a few ideas on other directions you could take the book(s).

These are all good ideas, but most of them are too technical for this book as currently envisioned. Dan Shafer is working on a more technical nanotech book, and he might like to include these ideas in his book.

One could do this, but other books already cover these topics. Also, sadly, most of our readers will not want to read such a survey. However, we can insert examples of current and near-term technologies throughout the book as appropriate.

Biotech is to a large degree molecular nanotechnology. Nature is filled with self-replicating systems and parasites that cause humanity an immense amount of hardship. We already have a DNA "goo" problem and the history of medicine is one of gradually subduing it. We also already have or in the near term will develop the biotechnologies to have most of the benefits MNT allows and most of the hazards as well.

Good points, worth covering.

Most people are totally unaware of the impact that lifespan extension will have on society or how rapidly it is going to arrive. If they did, they would be preparing for it now (from an savings/investment standpoint). The implementation of biotech driven interventions in aging allows virtually everyone to eventually become wealthy and that significantly changes the nature of society. This situation however does require robust biotechnology or MNT to mitigate the population increases this will cause.

The lifespan increase to be expected prior to nanotechnology is indeed substantial. I'm not sure how much of that we'll cover, only due to space limitations, and our expectation that nanotech may be along fairly soon…

The issue of the militarization of space is significant. Governments need to realize it simply isn't going to work unless it is totalitarian (i.e. they have to control the entire solar system). I don't think that will work unless you have AIs or lots of clones to play local policemen. Long delay times means you would have to have ubiquitous local authority. Once nanotechnology enables personal access to space and independent space colonies (enclaves) the traditional national/government mindsets fall apart. The nation-state falls apart even sooner given the fact that nanotech (perhaps even biotech) enables yacht or even island building!

We'll need to thrash this out as the book develops. The above depends on who controls nanotechnology.

(I don't see any chapter on how the evolution of political systems and/or governments must occur.)

I'm not sure I'm up to covering how it must occur. One might sketch some scenarios…

Biotech and nanotech significantly increase the carrying capacity of the planet (to a number much larger than what most people think the limits are). Furthermore, the population is supported sustainably! MNT allows us to go up instead of sprawling out all over the planet, so the human footprint is significantly reduced. This raises the sticky issue of "What exactly is the agenda of the environmentalists?" (Who "inherits" the Earth?). To be logically consistent, I think the point needs to be made that everyone must leave the planet if you want it to be natural.

It's true that the carrying capacity goes up a lot, but we may not want to use that. Personally, I'd like to see Earth be mostly a wildlife preserve. If enough people agree, we can make it happen, by buying up land for that purpose. Would get quite expensive.

What happens when designer drugs and or neural implants become available to "make" people happy? (Or can prevent criminals from committing 'criminal' acts?)

Why, Robert, that "sounds like science fiction"!! Seriously, we could address these issues, but they may have been addressed better already in sf. The book may be overloaded already without these. Or maybe they should be squeezed in…let's see how it plays out.

What about uploads? I realize the details have not been fully worked out but I've gone far enough with it to make strong arguments that "The Matrix" like human-machine interconnects seem pretty feasible.

That should be in the AI chapter.

I think there needs to be a very strong emphasis that humans are going to have to learn to overcome their genetic heritage of "tribalism" and embrace a philosophy that embraces diversity.

I wouldn't want to count on that. We might want to think about infrastructures in which tribalism isn't so dangerous.

An unresolved problem that I think needs to be discussed is that of "How do you make humans inherently trustable?". That seems to me to be an essential component of personal security in the MNT era.

I don't think the humans themselves can be inherently trustable. An inherently trustable entity doesn't sound human. Let's try to find a way to deal with untrustedness.