Clinton on nanotech: “potential is breathtaking”
from the sounds-like-he-gets-it dept.
In an interview with Science posted at Yahoo, outgoing President Clinton said: "[Most] people still don't know what nanotechnology is. But if you combine the sequencing of the human gene and the capacity to identify genetic variations that lead to various kinds of cancers with the potential of nanotechnology, you get to the point where, in the imagination, you're identifying cancers when, assuming you have the screening technologies right, there are only a few cells coagulated together in this mutinous way, so that you raise the prospect of literally having 100 percent cure and prevention rate for every kind of cancer, which is something that would have been just unimaginable before…And I think the work we've done in nanotechnology in 10, 20 years from now will look very big, indeed. I just think that the potential of this is just breathtaking, and it will change even the way we think about things like calculation or what we're supposed to know how to do. It will — it's going to really, I think, have a huge and still under-appreciated impact on our understanding of human processes and our capacity to do things."
December 22nd, 2000 at 4:06 PM
Blah Blah Blah
You forgot to mention, Mr. Clinton, that Nanotechnology is going to destroy this pathetic country, as well. But, you probably kept that out deliberately just so that your precious, braindead 'Americans' – (the ones that still don't have a clue what Nanotechnology is) – wouldn't panic. You're just delaying the inevitable.
Nanotechnology will not only destroy the pathetic United States, but basically every other country as well. Don't look at that as a bad thing because it isn't – Nanotechnology is going to unite us, and we will no longer have to put up with the braindead bullshit from you moronic politicians because in a 'Nanotech' World, your kind will not be welcome at all.
My new motto:
'Death to pathetic United States and all morons who continue to hold onto the stupid ideals of our braindead ancestors.'
December 22nd, 2000 at 5:19 PM
Re:Blah Blah Blah
Your position is arguable, but you leave it unargued. You make extreme statements without giving reasons. This is very ineffective. If you are going to take an extreme position, you need to make a good case for your position.
December 22nd, 2000 at 5:40 PM
Foresight Institute Role?
Would Chris care to confirm or deny the possibility of contacts between the Foresight Institute and the President, his advisors (e.g. Neal Lane, Al Gore) or other White House or administration personnel?
December 23rd, 2000 at 3:40 PM
Re:Foresight Institute Role?
There have been various contacts over the years, starting when Gore was still a senator, and Eric [Drexler] testified at a committee hearing run by Gore (see the testimony at http://www.foresight.org). We've briefly talked on occasion with people in the White House Science Office: nothing terribly substantial, and nothing with Clinton personally. Our influence on, for example, the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative, has been indirect, and is the result of about 15 years of public education, rather than direct contacts with this administration.
December 23rd, 2000 at 4:12 PM
Re:Foresight Institute Role?
Certainly much credit is due for the 15 years of public education, which I think has had far-reaching influence even on many of those who still pooh-pooh Drexler, assemblers, super-AI and so on. But I take what you have written here as a firm denial of direct contacts with Clinton and his inner circle, and I find that surprising. Given then-Sen. Gore's clear grasp of Eric's testimony, and given the scientific controversy, I would think Clinton and his top advisers would want a chance to assess for themselves whether "the man is a flake" or an important thinker. I tend to think of Bill Clinton as the kind of guy who, in the midst of a brief discussion of the question, in the course of a meeting on broad issues in S&T policy, would pick up the phone and call Eric Drexler directly and ask him to fly out to Washington to give the prez and his staff a briefing. Okay, so you say that didn't happen. But a lot of the rhetoric Clinton used in announcing the NNI sure sounded familiar.
December 23rd, 2000 at 4:45 PM
Re:Blah Blah Blah
If your post's title is self-reflective I would say it is aptly chosen. Otherwise, you're probably only writing those sentences so you can read yourself over and over in some sickening megalomaniacal ritual. The United States isn't evil, what is evil?, are they trying to ruin you, or harm you, no?, and where do your claims of 'pathetic' keep their reason? I suggest you get with it rather than carry on like a delusional neurotic.
December 23rd, 2000 at 6:47 PM
Reasons.
Here are some reasons why the United States and every other country will collapse due to the effects of Nanotechnology:
1) All countries are based on an economic system – and these systems are based on Supply and Demand. The Supply and Demand system is what differentiates the Upper Class, the Middle Class, and the Lower Class – The Upper Class is obviously the first to get the goods, while the Middle Class and the Lower Class are left with the left overs, thus making a 'division among the people' or a 'status quo' in this society. The Upper Class like to think of themselves as godlike most of the times, which is why you see politicians and actors who get caught using drugs or beating up a cop etc etc, getting a small fine and getting away with murder, while the supposed 'peons' of the Middle and Lower Classes, if caught, get ridiculous penalties.
Nanotechnology has the potential to literally make 'Supply and Demand' literally meaningless, considering you could make anything you want for free. The world is run by money, there is no denying that – but with Nanotechnology, money becomes absolutely worthless. So what is left to run the world if there is no money to motivate people to work? Absolutely nothing. The world will be in a complete state of true anarchy, where no one owns anything, and where the only people who tell anyone what to do, are the ones who possess the knowledge to teach. This is the reason the government does NOT want the people educated about Nanotechnology, because if the knowledge were widely available, the government would be rendered meaningless or possibly even destroyed completely. This is a threat to the 'people' who like telling people what to do, even though they have no right to do so, and thus, to this day, the truth remains hidden to the masses about Nanotechnology.
2) Rebellion – this will be a key issue in the future. Right now, in our current state of technological process, we have the ability to cleanse the world of hunger AND pestilence. But is this being done? No. The reason it hasn't been done is because of ruthless politics, and because of people who continue to think that such a world free of hunger and disease would take up way too many resources – and indeed, with today's technology, curing the world of those particular problems would be a great task, indeed. However, with Nanotechnology, very little resources will be used – and if people were to realize that such a technology existed and that the government was hiding it from them, the first reaction would be to protest and then overthrowing the government would be inevitable. This is another reason why the government is 'afraid' of Nanotechnology and is the also the reason why they feel that 'they' must develop it first, so that its existence could be kept secret for several years – or perhaps indefinitely.
There are also many other reasons why all of the countries will collapse, due to this wonderful technology – but I believe I just covered the main two. If anyone else wishes to discuss the other reasons, by all means, continue this thread. It is my belief that everyone should be educated on these matters, just so that they can make the transition easier when this does come to fruition.
December 23rd, 2000 at 10:25 PM
Actually…
… the US and just about every other government is in the business of ruining peoples lives, whether they realize it or not. Governments steal from the hard working to give to the lazy, affect the economy in adverse ways (if a monopoly on money isn't adverse enough for you, time to retake economics), and allow public and private lands to be polluted without retribution, among many other things. I suspect that most, if not all, of these activities and others would be considered evil if done by anyone else, so they should also be considered evil for governments.
From the pragmatic view point, I can see why most people continue to support government, but it isn't doing anything that private individuals couldn't do better by pooling resources and working together volunterily.
December 23rd, 2000 at 10:31 PM
Re:Reasons.
Okay. First off, most of us already know what you are writing. If I hadn't posted already I would have moderated this post as redundant, just because none of this is new to any of us. You could give your reasons without going into so much detail that we already know.
Now, you have made a bit of an error in your argument. You mention anarchy as being a situation where no one own anything. Anarchy would situate quite the opposite: in the lack of any archy, the people own *everything* that can be owned, or it goes unowned and unclaimed, which isn't very likely, since no resource is so unscarce that people would let it be unowned, even after we have assemblers.
December 23rd, 2000 at 11:20 PM
Re: your reasons.
Yes, all mass societies have class structures. However, in modern capitalism, the class structure is rather fluid, lacking sharp boundaries at a gross scale, but with lots of fine structure, and there is a lot of mobility. A society with such characteristics may be more able to adapt to changing economic (including technical) conditions than you might assume. Capitalism under democracy has repeatedly demonstrated that it is not a fragile system. Capitalism is a very dynamic and adaptable economic system, and the democratic process allows correction for the failures and imbalances of the market and intervention in times of crisis.
It is true that we expect technology to continue to reduce the labor cost of production, and with the emergence of nanotech, robots and AI, human labor may be completely displaced. This, however, is not quite the same as saying everything would be free, and it certainly is not the same as saying money would be worthless. If you are a Marxist, you should understand that money is really a codification of status, a quantification of political power, in a form which can be exchanged but whose distribution is the social hierarchy. Why should this cease to be true in the advent of powerful technologies, even if they do replace labor? Of course there would be social turmoil in that event, but money and its distribution would continue to be a stabilizing and disciplining force; all the more so when the laboring classes (e.g. nearly everyone) have been deprived of independent means of producing wealth.
You have not explained how this unlikely condition would come about. What are your assumptions… that everyone has had equal access to the technology? That other forms of wealth, such as real property, have been redistributed by fiat?
Where is the evidence for this assertion?
I tend to agree that technology is good enough to provide food and basic medical care to everyone, but I also agree with your statement that it "would be a great task, indeed." That, and the fact that capitalism by definition is unwilling to provide goods and services to people unless some way can be found to have them give not only equal but greater value back, seems to me to be the real reason it has not been done, rather than "ruthless politics." Many politicians would like to do more to directly improve human welfare, but they are unable to mobilize political support for the level of generosity and some sacrifice that would be needed in order to do what is needed…. So instead, the program has been "globalization" of capitalism, in the hope that this will lead to development and progress in the Third World. The results are mixed, but far more goes in investment to Third World economies than ever went in aid.
It's pretty hard to argue with this logic. Of course, in a representative democracy, the easiest way to overthrow a government is to vote the bums out, and that is surely what would happen in the case you imagine. But politicians would know this. Such a situation seems very unlikely to arise.
This comes across as outright paranoia. Our government is already funding $100 millions worth of nanotech research, nearly all of which is openly published. and is planning a major increase. The reason is so that we can all benefit from the products of this research. I see no evidence of an effort to develop nanotech secretly and maintain it as a government monopoly.
Again, your position is arguable, but your reasons are not well-argued and are insufficient to support your overly broad and categorical statements. I agree that a super-productive, super-capable, super-automated technology will pose a profound challenge to our society and political institutions, and may well provoke a cataclysm. But this issue needs to be considered and discussed in much more depth and with much more caution than you display. Simply announcing that the end of the world is nigh and everyone who doesn't know it is a fool, is likely to make everyone think that you are a fool.
December 27th, 2000 at 11:23 AM
Re:Reasons.
Poor guy. Who said 'those who can't remember their history are doomed to repeat it'?
That 'things will change' is a given. That things will change as you imagine it is . . improbable.
Europe, pre Middle Ages. 'Money' existed, but it was hardly the basis for the economy. Land was, and the people to work it. Come the rise of the middle class, and a person no longer needed to inherit great hunks of land to wield power and influence, he merely has to earn his way – presto! A money economy.
But that didn't diminish per se the value of land, or it's usefullness. Like-wise, the economy may undergo a seachange, but there will always be an England and there will always be (some-type) of guv'mint. If only to keep chemical weapons away from people like you! 8).