Author: Foresight Editor

from the maybe-he's-not-all-wrong dept.
28 June, CP: This has been toned down at the request of a former Foresight Conference chair. YakiraHeyman reports that many Foresight members alerted us to this story on WiredNews: "Some scientists believe that nanotechnology will transform computing, biotechnology, and medicine, even proclaiming that the technology will one day solve every problem from hunger to disease. But researcher Steven Block has one thing to say to these nanotech Polyannas: Wake up." Read More for additional quotes. (Important: please don't send rude email to Prof. Block; he makes some good points.) Query to Nanodot readers: If some call us PollyAnna (too optimistic) and some call us Chicken Little (too pessimistic), does that mean we are about right?

from the yet-another-response-to-Bill-Joy dept.
GlennReynolds brings to our attention a worthwhile essay coauthored by Xerox PARC's director, John Seely Brown, pointing out that "Nanotechnology offers a rather different example of how the future can frighten us. Because the technology involves engineering at a molecular level, both the promise and the threat seem immeasurable…nano devices are theoretically feasible. No one, however, has laid out a route from lab-based simulation to practical systems in any detail. (emphasis added) In the absence of a plan, it's important to ask the right questions: Can nanotechnology fulfill its great potential in tasks ranging from data storage to pollution control, all without spiraling out of control? If the lesson of genetic engineering is any guide, planners would do well to consult and educate the public early on, even though useful nano systems are probably decades away." Query to JSB: Good points. But is there a particular reason why we're assuming such a plan hasn't been prepared?

from the to-lobby-or-not-to-lobby dept.
A relatively high-quality debate is developing on how to preserve/enhance Internet freedom and privacy. Should we attempt to use government-related mechanisms (lobbying, lawsuits) or focus on technical innovation as our primary tool? Eric Raymond, Lawrence Lessig of Harvard–both openness proponents–and three others debate in round 3. Let's try to pick up some pointers we can use on the same question for nanotech: ignore government or try to work with it? Regardless of the right answer for the Internet, nanotech folks may need to do the latter, operating as we do in meatspace, not cyberspace. What do you think?

from the just-say-no-to-just-say-no dept.
More debate on the issues raised in the press recently by Bill Joy, this time by Foresight board member Glenn Reynolds, writing for IntellectualCapital.com: 'Rather than too much technology, as Joy suggests, perhaps the problem is that we have too little. In the early days of nanotechnology, dangerous technologies may enjoy an advantage. Once the technology matures, it is likely that dangerous uses can be contained. The real danger of the sort of limits Joy proposes is that they may retard the development of constructive technologies, thus actually lengthening the window of vulnerability.'