Michio Kaku - assembler is 100 years in the future
Hannah Fontana
In a recent blog post, physicist Michio Kaku says the assembler is 100 years in
the future.
Is this the general view of the community?
SANEAlex
On Jun 4, 7:29=A0pm, Hannah Fontana <hannahfontan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In a recent blog post, physicist Michio Kaku says the assembler is 100 ye=
ars in
> the future.
>
> Is this the general view of the community?
Many years ago i read Drexlers Engines of creation which laid out the
steps needed to be made along the why to get to assembler stage and
IIRC he thought about 50 years from when he wrote it and that was in
the Eighties being an interested amateur science enthusiast i like to
keep up with what is going on in the various science fields and i
think we are already a few years ahead of his schedule and i suspect
it will be less than 25 years from now for an assembler that is kept
in a lab. Once i saw the pictures of IBM writing its name using single
atoms i knew it was just an engineering problem as the concept had
been proved even if you thought that there was something conceptually
different with natural biological nanoscale processes.
Jim Logajan
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't know why it should take 100
years.
Moebius
On Jun 5, 11:37=A0pm, Jim Logajan <Jam...@lugoj.com> wrote:
Because current research is promising but is in a fundamental stage. I
am doing a PhD believe me it is easier said than done. Not to rest
merit to futurist they put the sight on the worthy goals. A lot has to
be learned and fundamental knowledge has to be built so the future
generations then can do applications. Very interesting things are done
now but not as interesting as some expect but for the ones in this
area they are very advanced.
Hannah Fontana
On Sunday, June 5, 2011 7:51:33 PM UTC-7, SANEAlex wrote:
> On Jun 4, 7:29=A0pm, Hannah Fontana <hannahf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In a recent blog post, physicist Michio Kaku says the assembler is 100 ye=
> ars in
> > the future.
> >
> > Is this the general view of the community?
>
> steps needed to be made along the why to get to assembler stage and
> IIRC he thought about 50 years from when he wrote it and that was in
> the Eighties being an interested amateur science enthusiast i like to
> keep up with what is going on in the various science fields and i
> think we are already a few years ahead of his schedule and i suspect
> it will be less than 25 years from now for an assembler that is kept
> in a lab. Once i saw the pictures of IBM writing its name using single
> atoms i knew it was just an engineering problem as the concept had
> been proved even if you thought that there was something conceptually
> different with natural biological nanoscale processes.
If the assembler truly is only 25 years away, isn't there a possibility that
the government already has it?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/09/05/wow.tech.black.world/
If the assembler is just around the corner, wouldn't it be one of the
government's primary objectives, to get it before anyone else does?
If it is true, given their past history, how long could we expect them to keep
it a secret? When might the general public gain access to it?
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
> If the assembler truly is only 25 years away, isn't there a possibility
> that the government already has it?
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/09/05/wow.tech.black.world/
What a wonderfully paranoid site.
> If the assembler is just around the corner, wouldn't it be one of the
> government's primary objectives, to get it before anyone else does?
25 years is not just around the corner, bear in mind that fusion
power has been 10 years away for about the last 40 years.
It is not particularly clear that an assembler is even desirable
from a government point of view (economic dislocation is not something
that governments tend to favour), although I would be surprised if the
various military research organisations are not ahead of the curve in at
least some areas of nanotechnology.
All that being said I do recall following with some interest
research on X-Ray lasers in the 1970s, the articles stopped appearing a few
years before news of bomb pumped X-Ray lasers was made public.
I notice that in recent years there has been a dearth of articles
about nanoscale devices such as motors, actuators and even wheelbarrows
such as we were seeing posted quite frequently in this group. However the
gap between those toys/demonstrations and something really useful is a wide
one and the hard work to cover that gap is perhaps lacking in things that
make for interesting reading to laymen.
> If it is true, given their past history, how long could we expect them to
> keep it a secret? When might the general public gain access to it?
Bear in mind that the cold war is long over and so the incentive
for keeping progress hidden is much weaker than it was when the threat of
WW-III was a constant fact of life.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
SANEAlex
On Jun 9, 3:06=A0am, Hannah Fontana <hannahfontan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If the assembler truly is only 25 years away, isn't there a possibility t=
hat
> the government already has it?
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/09/05/wow.tech.black.world/
>
> If the assembler is just around the corner, wouldn't it be one of the
> government's primary objectives, to get it before anyone else does?
>
keep
> it a secret? When might the general public gain access to it?
Mad conspiracy theorist that i am known as in some circles ;-) i don't
think so on this one as things do tend to leak in their generality if
not in great specific detail for instance it was long "known" that the
stealth bomber existed before officialdom admitted it but the
technical details of the anti radar paint and other specs were kept
secret for a lot longer. So although i suspect that their are some
interesting toys under a mountain near you i have not seen any
indication that we are close to a fully fledge assembler
unfortunately, as before it got to that stage i think there would be
more of the components needed to build one published in scientific
papers and even in university labs. We are on the way but not there
yet IMHO tho i could be wrong. In my more optimistic moments i hope
that the phase change that the arrival of the widely available
information sharing capabilities of the internet has brought will make
more new technologies developed in the light rather hidden under a
veil of secrecy.
Hannah Fontana
On Thursday, June 9, 2011 9:45:44 AM UTC-7, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
> It is not particularly clear that an assembler is even desirable
> from a government point of view (economic dislocation is not something
> that governments tend to favour), although I would be surprised if the
> various military research organisations are not ahead of the curve in at
> least some areas of nanotechnology.
>
Not desirable?
Well, consider the following:
1. The potential for an unlimited lifespan - not immortality, but close enough.
Military leaders have been searching for the fountain of youth for eons. This
is it.
2. The ability to make all the goodies they could possibly want for the price
of potatoes. They could have their new orbital spy plane designed and built in
an afternoon.
3. Whoever gets it first has absolute power to do whatever they want. If the
enemy gets it first, say goodbye to life as we know it. Can you imagine what
would happen if Al Qaeda scientists built the first assembler?
I'm certain the government is behind the effort to build the assembler. They'd
be stupid not to. We have too much to lose if we don't get it first.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
>
> On Thursday, June 9, 2011 9:45:44 AM UTC-7, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> >
> > It is not particularly clear that an assembler is even desirable
> > from a government point of view (economic dislocation is not something
> > that governments tend to favour), although I would be surprised if the
> > various military research organisations are not ahead of the curve in at
> > least some areas of nanotechnology.
> >
>
> Not desirable?
From a government point of view! That's a very important point.
> Well, consider the following:
>
> 1. The potential for an unlimited lifespan - not immortality, but close
> enough. Military leaders have been searching for the fountain of youth
> for eons. This is it.
Er no, it isn't military leaders who search for the fountain of
youth, historically it has been misguided adventurers. Robert Freitas Jr.
is well known to be the researcher at the front end of medical
nano-technology, I see no sign of government interference in his work or
publishing.
> 2. The ability to make all the goodies they could possibly want for the
> price of potatoes. They could have their new orbital spy plane designed
> and built in an afternoon.
However politicians gain influence (and votes) by (among other
things) handing out high value contracts. Politicians are more likely to
fear the consequences (loss of votes) of being involved in putting Boeing et
al. out of business at the cost of hundreds of thousands of jobs.
> 3. Whoever gets it first has absolute power to do whatever they want. If
> the enemy gets it first, say goodbye to life as we know it.
This is far from clear, and if it's at least 25 years away that's
out of scope for a politician for the same reasons that there isn't a crash
program to develop a fusion reactor (which is only 10 years away).
> Can you
> imagine what would happen if Al Qaeda scientists built the first
> assembler?
Hardly likely, Al Qaeda are not noted for running research labs
with long term payoffs.
> I'm certain the government is behind the effort to build the assembler.
> They'd be stupid not to. We have too much to lose if we don't get it
> first.
I am quite sure that most governments (I'm pretty sure that we are
not under the same government) would be happiest if assemblers were proven
impossible and that the best available was limited nanofabs incapable of
making their own parts. The prospect of the wilder dreams of the
singularitarians coming sufficiently close to true to rip their power base
out from under them cannot be welcome to politicians.
Finally from a technical point of view it is not clear that a
Drexler style assembler is the best way to go, it seems likely that a
desktop nanofab can be built without using self-contained self-replicating
components. While a desktop nanofab won't get us a utility fog it will get
us cheap on-site manufacturing of pretty much anything including medical
nanobots by the litre.
Diamondoid
On Jun 9, 8:11=A0pm, Hannah Fontana <hannahfontan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 9, 2011 9:45:44 AM UTC-7, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote=
:
>
>
>
> > =A0 =A0It is not particularly clear that an assembler is even desirable
> > from a government point of view (economic dislocation is not something
> > that governments tend to favour), although I would be surprised if the
t
> > least some areas of nanotechnology.
>
> Not desirable?
>
> Well, consider the following:
>
nough.
> Military leaders have been searching for the fountain of youth for eons. =
This
> is it.
> 2. The ability to make all the goodies they could possibly want for the p=
rice
> of potatoes. They could have their new orbital spy plane designed and bui=
lt in
> an afternoon.
> 3. Whoever gets it first has absolute power to do whatever they want. If =
the
> enemy gets it first, say goodbye to life as we know it. Can you imagine w=
hat
> would happen if Al Qaeda scientists built the first assembler?
>
hey'd
> be stupid not to. We have too much to lose if we don't get it first.
An "Inside source", some time back, told me that it was confirmed
that, indeed, there already are "primitive" molecular assemblers and
nano replicators that have been developed, but, they are kept tightly
under wraps because of their potential to tear apart the entire
scarcity-based economic system. Supposedly, they have limits at this
point, they can only make things like macroscopic amounts of
atomically-precise diamondoid and fullerenes, metals and crystals and
the like. But that alone is amazing. They are afraid of releasing them
to the public because once it is developed for wider-use, we will see
general assemblers able to produce any chemically stable material
item.
Also, Michio Kaku is wrong. Even without the black budget programs,
Assemblers are only a couple of decades away at the most. We already
have scores of enabling technologies like scanning probe microscopes,
DNA nanomachines, Nano Dip Pen Lithography, optical tweezers, and much
more. Computer circuits are already at the nanoscale, too.
SANEAlex
On Jun 11, 2:15=A0am, "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Finally from a technical point of view it is not clear th=
at a
> Drexler style assembler is the best way to go, it seems likely that a
> desktop nanofab can be built without using self-contained self-replicatin=
g
> components. While a desktop nanofab won't get us a utility fog it will ge=
t
> us cheap on-site manufacturing of pretty much anything including medical
> nanobots by the litre.
>
I think that the desktop nanofab will be one of the steps in the
evolution of this type of machine you could think of IBM's STM as the
first mainframe assembler equivalent they are working on the mini
computer equivalent of the nanofab at the moment the next stage will
be the desktop one but as the technology matures there will be a
demand for the mobile phone pda equivalent.
WRKC
How can we safely release assemblers to the public without totally
destroying the economy and perhaps creating the next great depression?
"Diamondoid" wrote in message
news:Z5qdnRYHbJZSXG_Q...@supernews.com...
SANEAlex
On Jun 28, 6:16=A0pm, "WRKC" <mousepoop....@gmail.com> wrote:
> How can we safely release assemblers to the public without totally
> destroying the economy and perhaps creating the next great depression?
>
>
> news:Z5qdnRYHbJZSXG_Q...@supernews.com...
>
> They are afraid of releasing them to the public because once it is develo=
ped
> for wider-use, we will see
> general assemblers able to produce any chemically stable material item.
Even if a fully fledged fully programmable easy to use general
assembler were magicked into existence tomorrow it would not destroy
the economy as things like Land, Energy and service industries would
still have assignable value it would certainly change the economy and
those who like to retain power over others by controlling scarce
resources would have their noses put out of joint to a certain degree
but i think it would be for the greater good if this tech was spread
widely we would just have to adapt to the new economies realities like
we have always done thru history, things rarely stand still.
And you can currently buy one of those primitive assemblers desktop
size but can manipulate single atoms.
Make them tho i think if you have to ask the price you probably cant
afford ;-)
For a good state of play of our current level of nanotech the recent
25th anniversary foresight conference is a good place to start videos
of it are available here:-
Uncle Sam
How will the average person accumulate the wealth necessary to purchase
things like land and energy? The assembler will make labor obsolete and AI
will outperform any human. What's left for mere mortals to do to earn a
living?
Are we headed for some government controlled system like the Venus Project
and their resource based economy?
How will the economy work when we have advanced Nanotechnology?
"SANEAlex" wrote in message
news:OPmdneB2u4sNxpLT...@supernews.com...
SANEAlex
On Jul 3, 9:54=A0pm, "Uncle Sam" <uncle...@hatesspam.com> wrote:
> How will the average person accumulate the wealth necessary to purchase
I
> will outperform any human. What's left for mere mortals to do to earn a
> living?
>
t
> and their resource based economy?
>
> How will the economy work when we have advanced Nanotechnology?
I don't know about the Venus project idea but all economies are
controlled to a greater or lesser degree by the governments of any
nation that has an economy where they lose some control it is the
interactions with other nations economy's. Also control is lost when
the governments that run economies do not fully understand the basics
of what an economy is which given examples over recent years i think
covers most of them. A little while ago I wrote a basic dummy's guide
to economics on a fan site of my favourite author Sir Terry Pratchett
which i will cut and paste below and expand upon to show that there
will be an economy after we enter the age of fully fledged nano tech
providing misuse of the tech does not wipe us out. But to help those
who have not read the books i am referencing Going Postal it is a
great book showing amongst other things the difference between
business cultures and technical cultures but also introduces economic
ideas in that things that had previously not had any intrinsic value
could sometimes equate to money like stamps the sequel Making Money
shows that in reality nothing has intrinsic value that our idea of
Money is just a shared belief but like his book Small Gods where Gods
come into existence thru belief in them once created this belief has
real world consequences.
Reflected-sound-of-underground-spirits 101 (for those who have not
read the book this a pun Echo-gnome-ics )
Much as I preferred Going Postal for many reasons including the
obvious one it seems that a lot of you did not get that Making Money
is similar to Small Gods in that it shows that belief in something
gives it real world effects whether what is believed in is real or
not.
Money is just just a shared imaginary tool that just like the gods in
Small gods only exists when many people believe in them and its value
as a tool goes up and down as to how those people believe in it. A
simple example to prove it is :-
Imagine you are shipwrecked alone on a desert island which would you
prefer a Trunk full of gold and jewels or a clean water supply and a
coconut tree
Money and economics only comes into play with two or more so taking
the desert island example again and expanding upon it being a strong
swimmer you managed to save some gold and jewels and arrive at an
island that has a Native on it lets call him Friday he is quite bright
planted a coconut tree when he arrived dug out a pool to collect water
so feels that he has the right of ownership and can charge you at
least one piece of eight for a drink and a bite to eat.
Real world economics is just a more complicated version of the above
as everybody has slightly different sets of beliefs even if they
believe in broadly similar systems.
And with more people in the system as well as =93pure=94 economics there
are those who like to wield the power over others that economic power
can give so try to persuade the majority that it is a zero sum game
which it is if enough people believe it is rather than a social tool
that can increase everybody's wealth/standard of living which can also
be true with enough belief and the reality is that world wide
economics swings between the two making it seem more complicated than
it is.
My belief is that currently there are too many in this world that
prefer a larger fraction of a smaller pie rather than a smaller
fraction of a larger pie even if their slice of pie is smaller in
their preferred option as their proportion of power over others others
is larger preferring to be a big fish in a small pond rather than
sharing an ocean of plenty that it could be if more people understood
how the system worked and wished for the greater good of all.
To expand upon the idea to show that economics could still work after
the age of Nano tech just by changing the parameters of shared belief
just look how economics has changed thru history we have already had
and survived several phase changes in economics.
In the times of the Greeks and Romans the cradle and turbulent teenage
years of democracy and arguably economics the economy was dependant
upon slavery i doubt in their time the smart economists of their day
could believe you could run an economy without the use of slaves but
things changed we adapted to a system without slaves.
In the middle ages serfdom was a bit like slavery but moderated a bit
by noblesse oblige for many years a basic unit of the economy was how
many serfs you controlled until the black death came along and caused
a phase change in the value of labour again we adapted.
The industrial revolution had less people working the land more in
factories again a phase change in the economy.
Changing beliefs in what is right and wrong and in what is valuable or
not has created many transition points thru history a more recent
example is the mobile phone it has been and still is a phase changed
tech that we are currently adapting too.
Usually thru history most people don't see the changes coming, a few
do and they often become successful during the change what puts us
above the other animals is to us another pTerry example is that we are
Pan narrans, the storytelling ape. And we can tell stories of past
present and future, the opportunity now as money and economics is just
another shared belief is:-
As we can see what the next big phase change will be before it happens
is to come up with a set of beliefs that will enable us to function as
a society ideally without have to lose a third of the population like
during the black death or have the Luddite riots due to not managing
the transition properly in the industrial revolution. With so many
examples of us as a species surviving phase changes in the economy its
entirely possible we will survive the coming one and as i said before
i think energy, land(the most valuable the kind that produces food)
and the service industrials will increase in value against
manufacturing but energy and land will only have a value if people can
buy them so governments will arrange for taxation etc to move whatever
is the money token around otherwise as the Romans found out if there
is not enough bread and circuses the representatives of the government
end up hanging from lampposts both metaphorically and literally.