Category: Nanodot

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.'

from the we-don't-want-a-Joyless-future dept.
Jonathan Desp writes "Tihamer Toth-Fejel wrote a think piece on Bill Joy's technology concerns, available here where he is saying: Our hubris may make it possible for robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology to drive us and our environment into utter extinction. But if we humbly work hard, dig for truth, and love each other, we might just tame the galaxy and live happily ever after. Most likely, we'll muddle through with only a few major catastrophes….I'm glad that Bill Joy is searching. I hope that many join this search, and I hope that as technologists, we can come up with better intellectual tools to aid in that search."

from the sky-may-not-in-fact-be-falling dept.
Virginia Postrel, Editor-at-Large for Reason magazine (whom you may have met at last year's Senior Associates Gathering) responds in the most recent issue to Bill Joy's Wired essay calling for "relinquishment" of advanced technologies. Virginia's rebuttal is concise, well-informed, and eloquent; too bad she won't get a tenth of the media coverage Joy has.

from the I-use-qwerty-myself dept.
waynerad writes "Columnist John C Dvorak wrote a humorous column a while back, Bill Joy vs the Robots. Dvorak has made a name for himself by turning people's crackpot ideas into good punchlines. Check it out and see what crackpots he thinks Bill Joy, Ray Kurzweil, and the rest of us are. A preview of things to come, I'm sure." Of all the wrong people out there, the ones who say "Don't worry; it'll never happen" are the ones that worry me the least. Nearly everyone recognizes nowadays that technology is accelerating; even my barber knows about Moore's law (better than Dvorak does, apparently).