Save the world from nano-hype.
Havirrion
I read this NG quite a bit, being interested in many of the technologies
discussed, but the extent to which this technology is hyped here is
unbelievable. The vision that most people here discuss when they talk
about nanotechnology is far far in the future-assuming we manage to over
come the myriad of technical obstacles-yet there are many people here
talking about this stuff as if it is a decade or so away. What is
nanotechnology hyped so much?
Samuel
Havirrion <havi...@NOblueDAMNyonderSPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<c7sb6...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
People get caught up with the utopian idea that nanotech is supposed
to provide. I just hope the hype remains manageble.
Havirrion
What concerns me is they hype is actually very damaging as people are
getting themselves twisted up in theoretical debates about scenarios
that will unfold when society has changed significantly, not within the
next few years.
John Larkin
On 12 May 2004 05:03:04 GMT, Havirrion
<havi...@NOblueDAMNyonderSPAM.co.uk> wrote:
Partly because the vision appeals to a lot of people who think it will
truly change the world and free them from whatever they want to be
free of: connecting to public utilities, buying gas, fear of cancer,
death.
But a lot of the hype is manufactured and paid for by VCs, the same
guys who got rich using Dr Koop and Webvan to rip trillions off the
nation's pension funds. They dearly want to do it again.
John
Samuel
>
> What concerns me is they hype is actually very damaging as people are
> getting themselves twisted up in theoretical debates about scenarios
> that will unfold when society has changed significantly, not within the
> next few years.
I agree whole heartedly, hype is never good. People who mostly talk
about these "Theoretical" scenarios are fringe elements. Other's find
it more of a thought experiment, for pure enjoyment. I don't think
anyone should take too much out of these discussions, as you would
say, it would cloud what nanotechnology, today, is all about.
Renee Keller
I have to disagree. The modern world changes very quickly. It was just the
other day on CNN I believe, was a story about the cloth made from carbon
nano tubes, still experimental, but in it's current state is three times
stronger than the silk from a spider. Sounds pretty simple, but when you
considder layering it, one begins to think of insulation, bullet proof
clothing, Fire protection aircraft materials, etc, etc. I don't think it is
all hype, and if it is, then it is the hype that helps drive the industries.
Samuel
"Renee Keller" <kell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<c81nf...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
Renee,
I was thinking more of the Mechanosynthesis part of nanotechnology.
It's this type of nanotechnology that I feel is hyped even though we
are decades away from such a technology.
We need to keep things in perspective, there is roughly 70 years,
give or take a decade, when technology goes from lab research to
mainstream use.
Arthur Beyder
If it wasn't for the hype, there wouldn't be any progress!
Danny at Chrastina dot net
A couple of months ago, a TV programme was broadcast in the UK on
the subject of Hendrik Schoen. He's the guy who lost his job at Bell
Labs for scientific misconduct. The programme begins:
"This is the story of the man behind the most remarkable discovery. His
breakthrough seemed so revolutionary it could have created an
extraordinary new world. A world where disease could be destroyed before
the first symptoms appear. Where nothing would be beyond the boundaries of
human knowledge. But others thought it could also be a world where the
darkest evil could be unleashed. Where microscopic machines would link up
to destroy us all."
It seemed that the whole thing was mainly an excuse for some
blue-sky rambling on the subject of nanotechnology. The actual bit about
Schoen is a relatively minor part of the show.
A summary is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/hendrikschon.shtml
And a full transcript is available here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/hendrikshontrans.shtml
The result of the inquiry is here:
http://www.lucent.com/news_events/researchreview.html
Regards,
--
Dr Danny Chrastina
Office: +39 031 3327612 Everywhere else: +39 333 2825623
http://www.chrastina.net/
Havirrion
Renee Keller wrote:
> I have to disagree. The modern world changes very quickly. It was just the
> other day on CNN I believe, was a story about the cloth made from carbon
> nano tubes, still experimental, but in it's current state is three times
> stronger than the silk from a spider. Sounds pretty simple, but when you
> considder layering it, one begins to think of insulation, bullet proof
> clothing, Fire protection aircraft materials, etc, etc. I don't think it is
> all hype, and if it is, then it is the hype that helps drive the industries.
I was referring to nanotechnology in the dexerian sense, this means
nanobots etc.
Paweł Kasprzak
I take the reasons of the hype are quite easy to understand. This forum is
thought to be "scientific", but nanotechnology as a technical issue is a
nightmare of complexity requiring a knowledge that hardly anybody possesses.
It's easier to talk "philosophically". Being a layperson I myself try to
follow inventions and discoveries that lie on the way of "universal
assembler" but even if this is quite easily understandable, the layperson
like me has actually no chance to evaluate a real importance of the news and
the reality of new prospects it creates.
And there are several other reasons to think "philosophically". Look at
Drexler's Engines of Creation. If you think this vision is nothing but a
fairy tail - there's no need to bother. But if it crosses your mind this may
be real - the consequences are tremendous. And certainly the "brave new
world" emerging from it does not need to be that brave for sure - it might
be a nightmare as well. The vision also raises some purely philosophical
questions. If we really are biological machinery, if AI is thinkable the way
Drexler puts it - than what we are? Can we be replicated? What is our
consciousness all about? Etc.
So it it really is thinkable to build nanomashines within a range of our
lifes then what the world is going to be like within the decades to come? On
the other hand - if it's only thinkable to build such machines at some
distant point in the future, then what we are? Both topics are exciting.
Reading Drexler's Engines, trying to figure whether this is a serious vision
or not, seing more and more guys, laboratories etc. involved - all what
seems weird to me is not a hype around it in some newsgroups - this should
be on TV in fact! Hard to imagine what could me more important and more
exciting.
Uytkownik "Renee Keller" <kell...@yahoo.com> napisa w wiadomoci
news:c81nf...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Robert V Hill
70 years from lab to home is wrong. The Chip was in the home in less then 20
years from the first lab test. Even the laser was less then 30 years. The
first laser was made when, 1950? Most large stores had bar scanners around
1980, and holograms were being sold by then too. It also took 10 or 20 years
to think of a use for the laser. Everyone thought computer would always take
up a room, and never be in the home. People are already trying to think up
uses for "universal assemblers" and nanobots, and they have not even been
made yet. Once somone build a working "universal assemblers", it will be in
homes 5 years later or less. Some people think we might have a "universal
assemblers" working in a lab in 10 years. I used to think this was possible,
as the biggest problem is computer power. Right now it look like we are
coming to a slow down in the growth of computer power and no one know how
long this slow down will last. So now it look like it could be 20 years or
more, but even so it could be less then 10 years, as none know what the
future will bring.
"Samuel" <ch...@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:c82rh...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Samuel
"Robert V Hill" <t.bla...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<c8on3...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
> 70 years from lab to home is wrong. The Chip was in the home in less then 20
> years from the first lab test. Even the laser was less then 30 years. The
> first laser was made when, 1950? Most large stores had bar scanners around
> 1980, and holograms were being sold by then too. It also took 10 or 20 years
> to think of a use for the laser. Everyone thought computer would always take
> up a room, and never be in the home. People are already trying to think up
> uses for "universal assemblers" and nanobots, and they have not even been
> made yet. Once somone build a working "universal assemblers", it will be in
> homes 5 years later or less. Some people think we might have a "universal
> assemblers" working in a lab in 10 years. I used to think this was possible,
> as the biggest problem is computer power. Right now it look like we are
> coming to a slow down in the growth of computer power and no one know how
> long this slow down will last. So now it look like it could be 20 years or
> more, but even so it could be less then 10 years, as none know what the
> future will bring.
>
>
Actually I'm talking about the first transistors back in 1920's. By
the time integrated chips were devised, the workings of a digital
computer had already been worked out. What you are talking about
really is not from the "labratory". All the research had taken place
many decades before. Since there is considerable research to be done
before any type of "assembler" is constructed, I still stand by my
claims of another 70 years (give or take a decade) before it goes
mainstream.
Russell Wallace
On 14 May 2004 06:03:17 GMT, "Renee Keller" <kell...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>I have to disagree. The modern world changes very quickly. It was just the
>other day on CNN I believe, was a story about the cloth made from carbon
>nano tubes, still experimental, but in it's current state is three times
>stronger than the silk from a spider.
Yes, that's real, and it might even become a commercially useful
product within the next decade.
The hype is about stuff like magic utility fog that will make everyone
immortal, infinitely wealthy etc.
Maybe in a hundred years magic utility fog will even exist; it doesn't
appear to contravene any known laws of physics. But in the meantime
it's the equivalent of moon bases, flying cars, sentient AI, "Internet
time" etc - a nice dream _if recognized as such_, but potentially very
harmful to the people who are doing _real_ work such as that mentioned
above. (Remember the AI winter and the dot-com crash?)
So when writing or talking about nanotechnology for an audience
outside of us geeks, you might want to bear that in mind and keep
science fiction clearly labelled as such.
--
"Sore wa himitsu desu."
To reply by email, remove
the small snack from address.
John Larkin
On 31 May 2004 02:10:45 GMT, wallacet...@eircom.net (Russell
Wallace) wrote:
>
>On 14 May 2004 06:03:17 GMT, "Renee Keller" <kell...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I have to disagree. The modern world changes very quickly. It was just the
>>other day on CNN I believe, was a story about the cloth made from carbon
>>nano tubes, still experimental, but in it's current state is three times
>>stronger than the silk from a spider.
>So when writing or talking about nanotechnology for an audience
>outside of us geeks, you might want to bear that in mind and keep
>science fiction clearly labelled as such.
I propose that, to better communications with the non-geek world, the
SI units system be scrapped, and more friendly engineering units be
adopted.
Small distances should be measured as fractions of the diameter of a
human hair.
Large distances would be measured, of course, in football fields.
Exponents should be replaced with "million-million-million" format,
or, if necessary, "a one followed by thirty zeroes"
The temperature scale should range from "as cold as Antartica" to "as
hot as the surface of the sun", spanning perhaps 60 degrees.
Velocities should be measured in "bullets."
And material strengths should be relative to steel, or spider
excretions.
John
Amos Jeffries
"Samuel" <ch...@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:c8t6j...@enews2.newsguy.com...
As someone who has made in their prsonal project to follow the advances in
nanotechnology since it was a relative unknown on the world stage. I would
agree with your 70 years, and point out that on the same level of basics to
nanotech started back in the 1950s and 60s.
Amos
Amos Jeffries
"Russell Wallace" <wallacet...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:c9e47...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> On 14 May 2004 06:03:17 GMT, "Renee Keller" <kell...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I have to disagree. The modern world changes very quickly. It was just
the
> >other day on CNN I believe, was a story about the cloth made from carbon
> >nano tubes, still experimental, but in it's current state is three times
> >stronger than the silk from a spider.
>
> Yes, that's real, and it might even become a commercially useful
> product within the next decade.
>
> The hype is about stuff like magic utility fog that will make everyone
> immortal, infinitely wealthy etc.
>
> Maybe in a hundred years magic utility fog will even exist; it doesn't
> appear to contravene any known laws of physics. But in the meantime
> it's the equivalent of moon bases, flying cars, sentient AI, "Internet
> time" etc - a nice dream _if recognized as such_, but potentially very
All of which either exist or can exist based on yesterdays level of
technology.
Moon base has been planned at NASA and other space centers and merely awaits
funding and a political or economic push.
Flying cars are available for $USD200,000.
AI ('thinkers') as it was originally envisioned exists in expert systems
(turing passable), sentience is a benchmark we humans apply to keep AI below
'our' level of thought. The below average human has roughly equal 'sentient'
environment responses to Lucy or Kismet though they are the simplest
response systems so far designed. There are games that can out play expert
humans in a free for all firefight battle despite being slowed down to human
response timings.
I don't know what fable you refer to as "Internet time" but NTP (Network
Time Protocol) provides a universal timing system for all internet traffic.
Amos Jeffries
Samuel
> > Actually I'm talking about the first transistors back in 1920's. By
> > the time integrated chips were devised, the workings of a digital
> > computer had already been worked out. What you are talking about
> > really is not from the "labratory". All the research had taken place
> > many decades before. Since there is considerable research to be done
> > before any type of "assembler" is constructed, I still stand by my
> > claims of another 70 years (give or take a decade) before it goes
> > mainstream.
> >
>
> As someone who has made in their prsonal project to follow the advances in
> nanotechnology since it was a relative unknown on the world stage. I would
> agree with your 70 years, and point out that on the same level of basics to
> nanotech started back in the 1950s and 60s.
>
> Amos
Amos,
Yes obviously, research on the molecular level started in 1950's and
60's (I would hazard even earlier if you include particle physics) Now
if that is what we know as nanotech, I'm not so sure. If we define
nanotechnology as nanopowders and particles, that started in the late
80's.If it's Nanotubes, early 90's, If it's assembler technology, that
hasn't even begun yet.
Chris Phoenix
Samuel wrote:
> Renee,
>
> I was thinking more of the Mechanosynthesis part of nanotechnology.
> It's this type of nanotechnology that I feel is hyped even though we
> are decades away from such a technology.
> We need to keep things in perspective, there is roughly 70 years,
> give or take a decade, when technology goes from lab research to
> mainstream use.
I wish I had time to follow this newsgroup; I would have answered this
thread much earlier if I'd known it was going on.
First, to answer someone else's statement: the extreme predictions about
molecular manufacturing don't come from VC's. From everything I've
read, they fear it, recognizing the potential for a bubble. Instead,
the most extreme predictions tend to come from the people who have
studied it the most.
Second, maybe it takes 70 years for a new scientific breakthrough to
reach mainstream use, but a new technology can be a lot quicker. Look
at nylon. Parachutes to pantyhose in, what, less than a decade?
And molecular manufacturing is about technology, not science. It'll
take a lot of R&D, of course. But I don't know of anything that'll be
outrageously hard to develop. And as solutions to subproblems have been
developed, I've been repeatedly surprised at how much cheaper and
simpler they were than what I expected.
Let's start with the capabilities of a nanofactory. Feed it the
blueprints, and it'll rapid-prototype anything from aerospace hardware
to another nanofactory. At a cost of maybe 20 bucks a kilogram, or
roughly 10^-20 pennies per feature.
If you disagree that this is possible, tell me where's the mistake in
Nanosystems or my Nanofactory paper at
http://www.jetpress.org/volume13/Nanofactory.htm
Today, the problem is decomposable into a few well-defined areas, like
mechanosynthetic chemistry, bootstrapping, and CAD software. Each of
those areas is amenable to engineering--and with the exception of
software, throwing money at them will probably speed them up.
All it takes is for the military in any of half a dozen countries to
realize what a nanofactory could do for them... and one would exist
within 5-10 years. Another half-dozen countries, and various
corporations, could do it in 15 years if no one's beaten them to it.
If you disagree that this is possible, please explain what part of
nanofactory design is more difficult than the problems solved by the
Apollo program. Or why the products of a nanofactory would not be worth
at least $100 billion to a modern military.
So let's say a nanofactory exists in the lab a decade from now.
How long would it take for this to change the world?
If it led to an unstable arms race: maybe less than a year.
If it was made available to support medical research and treatment:
maybe 3-5 years.
If any nation used it to improve its citizens' standard of living: less
than a decade.
If it became an excuse (or legitimate reason) for taking away civil
liberties: a year or so.
Are we ready for this? Can we get ready in five or ten years?
Chris
--
Chris Phoenix cpho...@CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology http://CRNano.org