HLovy writes "Since everybody is doing a "year in review" piece, here's mine in a "nanosecond." Nanotech purists cannot see how nanotechnology could be treated as merely a business proposition, while businesspeople cannot see how it could be treated as anything else. And that brings us to 2004." The complete commentary can be found on Howard Lovy's NanoBot.
Sam Ghandchi, Editor/Publisher of Iranscope, explains why he finds Drexler & Kurzweil's views more persuasive than Smalley's, and why this matters to the developing world: "The same way, the nanotechnology can be the most important technology that may replicate fuel cells, to put an end to the age of oil, and not only it would impact the economy of oil producing countries like Iran, but it can change the whole economy of energy production in the world, which is the basis of all industrial production worldwide, and can make a huge impact on poverty and wealth worldwide."
Ronald Bailey of Reason Magazine offers a nanotech pro-progress essay: "As for unintended consequences, someday something will go wrong with nanotechnology, as it has with electricity, cars, and computers. But we shouldnít deny ourselves the benefits of a new technology just because we cannot foresee every consequence. We should proceed by trial and error and ameliorate problems as they arise. Thatís how the dramatic progress humanity has seen during the last two centuries was accomplished. If an ICENT [International Convention for the Evaluation of New Technologies] had existed in the 19th century, we probably would still be riding horses, using candles for lighting, cooking on wood stoves, and gulping whiskey for anesthesia."
As reported by James Pethokoukis at USNews.com, Mark Modzelewski's views on why a study of molecular manufacturing was changed to "molecular self-assembly" in the new U.S. nanotech bill: "There was no interest in the legitimate scientific community ñand ultimately Congress ñ for playing with Drexler's futuristic sci-fi notions."
So how does this fit with having the technology on the Dec. 1, 2003 cover of Chemical & Engineering News?
Lincoln Roseanna writes "Values are the key to making Nanotech work FOR the future When discussing the implications of Nanotechnology, one assumption has been clearly stated; that someone, somewhere, will abuse the technology.
The strength in that belief of ourselves is the force that creates war, though mistrust, fear, guilt and paranoia.
The emergence of commercial applications for nanotechnology, usable, saleable, mass-producible products, means that we are entering a new stage of evolution. Just as technology for transport changed the way that industry, society, cultures and countries interact with each other so profoundly, this new technological revolution will, in time affect every aspect of our lives on this planet. It is time that the implications of this type of research and development were taken very seriously. It is time that we thoroughly analyse and shift our motivation, and our values."
Read more for the remainder of this lengthy comment.
from the Failures-of-vision dept.
Mr_Farlops writes "The New York Times examines Dr. Francis Fukuyama's new book, Our Posthuman Future ("A Dim View of a `Posthuman Future' ", by Nicholas Wade, 2 April 2002). Some may recall Fukuyama as the author of The End of History and the Last Man. In this new book he exchanges the optimism of that earlier work for a pessimistic view of the future of biotechnology. It is his view that science is rapidly aquiring the tools to fundamentally redefine what human nature is. He wonders, while acknowledging the evil that Napoleon and Caesar did, what we may lose if advanced neurotherapy simply edits that type of personality out of society. Of course nanodotters are already very familiar with this line of thinking, what with Joy, Weizenbaum, Sales, Kaczynski and others but, it might be worthwhile to read and comment on the article."
According to the article, Fukuyama fears that "Major increases in human longevity could also be disruptive . . . because 'life extension will wreak havoc with most existing age-graded hierarchies,' postponing social change in countries with aging dictators and thwarting innovation in others." The article also notes "[Fukuyamaís] views are not academic; he has an official voice on such matters as a member of the White House's Council on Bioethics" So is Leon Kass, who doesnít like the idea of human cloning, either (see Nanodot post from 31 August 2001.)
from the good-advice dept.
For some insight into the decision by the Bush administration to request a 17% increase in funding for the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative, read the transcript of an address ("Science Based Science Policy") by the head of the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) and presidential Science Advisor John Marburger to the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Boston on 15 February 2002. Although Marburger was discussing R&D funding as a whole, it is significant that he repeatedly raised the need to support research and development in the field of nanotechnology during his address.
Gina Miller writes "Nanotechnology: Is It Healthy, Wealthy, and Wise? is the topic of an article at Power Electronics Technology dated March 1, 2002. Sam Davis, the Editor, invokes the $500 million National Nanotechnology Initiative and Pres. Bush's proposed increase in the program as evidence that nanotechnology should be taken seriously. Davis explains how re-arranging atoms could provide us with new semiconductors and improved integrated circuits. He cites the book Unbounding the Future: The Nanotechnology Revolution, by Drexler, Peterson, and Pergamit (1991) and quotes Ralph C. Merkle of the Zyvex Corp on what nanotechnology will mean. And last but not least he notes the problems nanotechnology could bring in the form of deliberate abuse or accidents, and the Foresight Institute's draft of guidelines for developing nanotechnology to minimize those problems. He summarizes by asking "Although nanotechnology products are years away, is this a good thing, or bad? Is it an ethical problem, similar to nuclear energy with its good and bad points? Is it a threat to power electronics engineering and manufacturing as we know it? Is the 'march of science' going too far?" Is he worried primarily about threats to the job security of power electronics engineers?"
A lengthy commentary by Richard Louv on the lack of substantial discussion and debate of emerging technologies — including nanotech — appeared on SignOnSanDiego.com, the website of the San Diego (California) Union-Tribune ("Debate should advance with technological leaps", by Richard Louv, 24 February 2002). Louv quotes Daniel Yankelovich, a public opinion analyst: "Overconfidence in technology leads to distraction, lack of attention to the human element, not watching where you're going . . . In any enclosed environment in which people are isolated, you become vulnerable to delusionary thinking. You stop questioning." Louv writes, "Have we stopped questioning? Maybe. Or we've barely begun."
Read more for additional quotes from the article.
from the terminology-drift dept.
Cryptologist Hal Finney points out on the Extropy mailing list that Foresight's views of molecular nanotechnology are still not generally accepted, despite all the funding of "nanotechnology". Read More for his post. Yet there are a few brave researchers who take self-replication via nanotechnology seriously in public; see the end of this interview with Harvard's Charles Lieber in The Deal: "There really are some fundamental scientific problems where you can end up creating self-replicating things and invading bodies, but I don't worry about that at this point." He's right not to worry that this might happen soon. However, since it is a possibility, some of us are putting time into thinking about it in advance — it's a tough problem to head off, and figuring it out will take some time.
