A skeptical view of nanotechnology
from the reacting-to-nanohype dept.
For a skeptical view of the potential benefits of nanotechnology, try this editorial ("Itty bitty miracles", by Jared Kendall, 12 September 2001) from The Advocate in Baton Rouge, Louisiana: "Every decade or so, a new scientific field is hailed as the answer to all our problems. Usually, such claims turn out to be slightly exaggerated. Such is surely to be the case with nanotechnology, a large field of study being built around the really, really small. That isn't to say that nanotechnology won't change our lives. Heck, it already has. It's just that nanotech won't solve all our problems. Technology is never as powerful as its potential."
September 16th, 2001 at 2:34 AM
Guessing what nanotechnology won't be…
This article begins to make the point that I was going for in a previous thread. Namely that, even if nanotech fulfills much of its promise, it won't lead to eutopia and, therefore, we must still consider where it will fail. The article stops short of asking pointed questions about how and when nanotech will deliver on its promise.
Let me ask this, what do people believe will be the first big nanotech breakthrough that really impacts the average person and when will it occur?
September 16th, 2001 at 11:59 PM
Re:Guessing what nanotechnology won't be…
I don't think we'll see the really big impacts until we approach the Singularity and have some really strong AIs to develop the nanotechnology we've read about in books like /The Diamond Age/ instead of just really small stuff. As I think many naysayers have pointed out, the *current* knowledge of physics makes nanotech next to impossible. It is going to take either a lot of years or a very smart AI that can solve these problems in not much time in our reference frame.
So, I see it as nanotech is going to be a big thing, but only because it will be required by a bigger thing to complete its goals.
September 18th, 2001 at 12:41 AM
Re:Guessing what nanotechnology won't be…
I think it will be in computer hardware.
We don't need mature, machine-phase nano to build hybrid chips consisting of consisting of convention photolithographic components and elements composed of nanotube wires and single molecule switches. We are already on the cusp of this change in the industry.
Anyway commenting on Kendall's article, I think he makes a good point: Nano will do all kinds of revolutionary things but it will also create many unexpected effects. Back in the thirties when they first figured out how to split nuclei, I don't think they expected something like tanks of radioactive chemicals sitting in the desert of Eastern Washington.
What usually happens when a new technology emerges is that it renders old problems irrelevent while at the same time creating new problems. I don't think this truism will change with nano.
September 27th, 2001 at 2:32 AM
Re:Guessing what nanotechnology won't be…
I think you're wrong.
Idyllic futures are the best the hope for.
Eutopia is only what we make of it.
Of course, the technology can't do that, ….
unless it's Collosus- LOL.
"This is the voice of Collosus, the voice of Guardian."
I think, like many nano-goers, despite lack of
formal training, that the two major impacts
that will affect the average person will be:
The first computer (possibly nanotech-based) that
can adequately simulate (at very high speeds) a
human brain or similar artificial intelligence.
If that comes first, then the second will come
more easily, but if not, then the
universal molecular assembler (despite some who
say that a 'universal assembler' is not
pratical) will be the most profound impact.
With the safeguards put forth by Dr. Drexler,
perhaps in law, the OpenSource movement and
other things will quickly 'scan' (perhaps
the third breakthrough to happen at any time
between) useful items, and distribute them over
some super-efficient multicasting internet-type
service. Thereby giving complete access to
all constructive information of a non-patentable
nature…. such as perfume, drinks, food,
OpenSource nanocomputer designs. And they all
would pop out of this "nanobox", sort of like
the "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" box,
wherein the safeguards, mind you, would still
be in place. In other words, user-end products,
not cabable of constructing or constituting
something that could be assembled into a
non-biased assembly complex.
-James.
October 27th, 2001 at 11:25 AM
Re:Guessing what nanotechnology won't be…
If you allow that biotechnology is nanotechnology then the significant impacts are already here. For example see the forthcoming drugs designed to deal with viruses in William Haseltine's Scientific American article.
We will have designer genomes within this decade and those will have a significant impact. I also think we will get real molecular electronics within this decade. Blue Gene type computers based on molecular electronics will allow robust protein and enzyme engineering. That will get a large section of the phase space of robust nanotechnology and enable many of the utopian benefits to become available in the next decade.
November 26th, 2001 at 12:00 PM
Re:Guessing what nanotechnology won't be…
The first big breakthrough in nanotechnology will likely occur in the computer/technology, medicine or nutritional areas. Much of the pioneering work in the area of computers is being done even as we speak. The medical arena has been looking to the molecular level for some time now as well has the nutritionists. I feel that our concern should not be so much as to the whatfore or the whenfore of nano. Rather we should be concerned with developing a kind of society in which the historical reasons for abuse of technology no longer exist. Archaic concepts such as racial/social bias must be factored out of the field of human endeavour. Living in the modern age we must see that the input of all citizens is of the utmost necessity.