Donate
Donate

Gaming the Future: The Book!

Category: Opinion

Drawing a nano-sized line in the sand

HLovy writes "I can tell from my Web stats that I do have some readers in Iran, which has nanotechnological goals of its own. To them, I'd like to extend an invitation to contact me and see how we can get a battle plan together for an all-out war on inequitable distribution of resources such as fresh water and arable land, brandishing nanotech-enhanced weapons. Having spent much of my journalism career writing about the Mideast conflict, I'm certainly not blundering into this subject under the influence of any kind of naive daydream that historical, cultural, religious and political barriers will simply melt into the desert. But it couldn't hurt to set up a tent.

For the complete commentary, please see Howard Lovy's NanoBot."

TNT Weekly: do the study of MNT

TNT Weekly summarizes the MNT debate: "We have had contact with other scientists too and our impression is that opinions in the scientific community vary between Smalley-style dismissal and open acceptance of the feasibility in principle of molecular manufacturing with only an urge to steer clear of some of the wilder claims. Unequivocal dismissal seems to be rare even if high levels of scepticism dominate. Familiarity with the subject matter seems to be pretty superficial in general…So why not have the independent scientific review that Drexler requests?"

NanoBusiness Alliance spokesman attacks MNT

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?

C&E News debate being debated on Slashdot: join in

Senior Associate Rosa Wang points out that Nanodot readers may wish to join the fray over at Slashdot, where the Smalley/Drexler debate in C&E News is being discussed in the inimicable Slashdot style.

Glenn Reynolds on new nanotech bill

Foresight director Glenn Reynolds gives his views on the new nanotechnology legislation. " It's a victory for people who favor the responsible development of molecular nanotechnology. But it's a small victory, a nano-victory you might say, in the great scheme of things. He speculates on what was meant by the bill's authorizing a study of "molecular self-assembly".

Intel's 'Nano Inside'

HLovy writes "Intel says it's now a master of the 65-nanometer domain. But are these nanochips truly "nanotechnology?" I was surprised when "Engines of Creation" and "Nanosystems" author Eric Drexler — whom I had assumed to be a molecular manufacturing purist — told me he thought they qualified.

"People sometimes perceive me as saying, 'Oh, you shouldn't use the term this new way,'" Drexler told me in October. "What I've actually been saying is we need to understand that it's being used in a new way … that has a certain relationship to the field."

The complete commentary can be found on Howard Lovy's NanoBot."

Bill Joy today: we need to give the good guys a head start

Bill Joy gives an interview in the December 2003 Wired in which he updates his views on potentially dangerous technologies. The bottom line: "These technologies won't stop themselves, so we need to do whatever we can to give the good guys a head start." The technologies being considered are nanotechnology, genomics, and robotics, by which is meant machine intelligence. [Bill's proposal — giving the good guys a head start — sounds right to me. –CP]

Values are the key to making nanotech work FOR the

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.

Intellectual expresses skepticism about our posthuman future

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.)

U.S. presidential science advisor advocates nanotech

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.

Facebook Twitter Youtube Linkedin Podcast Spotify
0
    0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop
    Continue Shopping

      Search Foresight Institute