Zyvex facilitates cooperation between UTD, Jilin U in China
from the International-nanotech dept.
Vik writes "Looks like Zyvex's trip to China has bourne fruit. The Dallas Business Journal is reporting here that Jilin University is to share research with the University of Texas at Dallas. It's good to see such cooperation, particularly in the current climate of distrust, and highlights that ultimately nanotechnology is for the benefit of all.
Vik :v)"
[Editor's note: more detailed information on this cooperative venture between UTD and Jilin University can be found in this press release on the UTD website.]
December 3rd, 2001 at 10:57 AM
Oh boy.
I'm beginning to think Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age is going to be pretty close to the truth, and with this latest development with Chinese investors and Zyvex, well, it's staying right on track for such a future becoming a reality.
Anyone care to disagree or talk about how they think Diamond Age may or may not be a good predication for the future?
December 3rd, 2001 at 7:11 PM
Re:Oh boy.
Stephenson did a pretty good job imagining a consistent future that hung together well enough to suspend disbelief.
Some of his ideas are a little lurid and hard to believe. For example, the cult of biocomputers who solve NP problems by having a massive orgy–why not just get a quantum computer to do it? And his brief contention that strong AI is faulty also seemed flawed to me but I don't think he was actually stating a scientific opinion, just writing an adventure story.
His speculation of the world subdividing into synthetic cultural states seems flawed to me but I think he didn't really intend for people to take it seriously. A common premise in most cyberpunk is that governments begin to erode. Looking around at the current world, I see little evidence that this will happen.
But other than that it was pretty fun to read.
Nano may have its terrorists and Hiroshimas (on the political/public sector side) and it's Bophals and Valdezes (on the private sector/corporate negligance side) but I don't think Zyvex searching around for venture capital in China really portends sinister things. At least no more sinister than any other corporate/government activity is.
December 4th, 2001 at 11:48 AM
Re:Oh boy.
Anyone care to disagree or talk about how they think Diamond Age may or may not be a good predication for the future?
Only that good speculative fiction is just that .. fiction. The best sf takes the question "What happens if this goes on?" and runs with it. It's not supposed to be a prediction of the future, good or bad.
Having said *that* – Diamond Age is a wacking good story, and Neal Stephenson is a pretty fair wordsmith.
December 4th, 2001 at 5:25 PM
no way
First let me say that I loved the Diamond Age, and have read almost all of Stepheonsons other stuff, and really like all of it. I think there is alot that is really thought-provoking, and some of his visions for what real nanotech could look like are both amazing and possibly not too far from the truth. However, I would say that his assesment of where china would stand in nanotechnology in 2050 is way way off, and getting farther off every year. China is taking nanotechnology very seriously, as a matter of government policy(look at People's Daily and other governemntal web sites for propoganda on that). Furthermore, China is sending droves and droves of very talented, well educated young people over here to get PhD's in physics and the relevant engineering fields, and i'm certain that these people together will be a force to be reconed with as various nations vie for nano dominance over the next several decades. Also, alot of good work has come out of China in nanotube synthesis research, and several of the other key areas. Overall, I think it's becoming increasingly clear that China intends to be one of the worlds superpowers in nanotechnology over the coming decades, and they don't need a joker company like Zyvex to help them do it.
December 4th, 2001 at 6:15 PM
Re:Oh boy.
Is there some evidence for the claim "this latest development with Chinese investors and Zyvex" (or am I misinterpreting the comment)?
It simply sounds like Zyvex is facilitating in enabling collaborations between Chinese research groups and U.S. research groups.
This is not such a bad strategy considering that according to my previous comment the Chinese nanotechnology investment may be comparable to the U.S. (after accounting for differences in economic scales) — something the recent Roco commentary did not seem to take into account (e.g. pgs 6-7 and Figure 3.)