Donate
Donate

Gaming the Future: The Book!

Category: Opinion

Nano: Healthy, Wealthy, and Wise?

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?"

Columnist calls for hard questions about emerging technologies

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.

Nanoscale tech vs. Mechanosynthesis

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.

Possible cloning ban: effect on nanotech?

from the temporary-controversy dept.
Excerpted from the Feb. 2002 Foresight Senior Associate Letter, by Eric Drexler and Chris Peterson: "The U.S. Senate is debating a possible complete ban on human cloning, both therapeutic and reproductive. People who object to both are objecting to tampering with cells that (via reproductive cloning) could lead to human life. Such a ban could be passed without much public comment, so if you have strong views on this, get them in immediately; see www.lef.org for info on how.

"If such a ban were passed, it would not obstruct progress toward molecular manufacturing: cloning isn't an enabling technology here. In the long term, advanced nanotechnologies will eliminate the incentive for therapeutic cloning, so those who oppose such procedures may become strong advocates of nanotechnology."

D'Souza: Tech progress can bring moral progress

from the both-gains-and-dangers dept.
Foresight director Jim Bennett brings to our attention this item from Red Herring by Dinesh D'Souza on whether technology can further tradition human values: "The critics focus on the moral dangers of technology. Those dangers–of technological hubris and undermining human dignity–do exist, and we should debate them. But what the critics miss is the possibility of moral gains. Used correctly, technology can generate moral progress by strengthening and affirming our highest values, as we have seen it do in the past. Technology doesn't just offer us the chance to be better off; it offers us the chance to make a better society." His examples are the ending of slavery, emancipation of women, and extending human lifespan.

UTA Prof foresees medical nanorobots

from the so-there-TNT-Weekly dept.
Prof. Wiley Kirk of the Center for Nanostructure Materials and Quantum Device Fabrication (NanoFab) at University of Texas at Arlington was quoted in the Fort Worth Business Press (Dec. 6, 2001): "Dr. Kirk, who began moving atoms in the NanoFab center this summer, describes exciting potential medical developments utilizing nanostructures. 'We could have tiny robots circulating in the bloodstream to deliver drugs to cancer cells without harming healthy cells. They might bring extra intelligence to artificial limbs, eyes and hands." The research team also envisions these robots clearing clogged arteries or repairing damaged tissue, as well as the possibility of repairing defective DNA in human cells." The news article appears to be unavailable online.

Proposed modification to Sloan-Kettering nanogener

WillWare writes "Last November there was a press release (16 November 2001) about a potential cancer treatment agent called a nanogenerator, under development at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, with subsequent discussion here at Nanodot. The treatment involves a monoclonal antibody connected to a radioactive actinium atom. The antibody somehow targets cancer cells selectively, so that the decaying actinium is brought into the cell. The actinium releases four alpha particles as it decays, which are energetic enough to usually kill the cell. The timing of these particles follows a Poisson distribution over time, so the material must be prepared and transported on a careful schedule.

It would be nice if the actinium atom could be replaced by something that could be activated from an energy source external to the patient's body. This would allow for long-term storage, rather than needing to process the stuff soon before treatment. The absorption spectrum for water alternates several times between transparent and opaque, so it should be possible to get energy to the "weapon" using EM radiation that has minimal effect on surrounding tissue.

One strategy could be to use a benign molecule that breaks into toxic pieces when stimulated. This would be a one-time use weapon. This would leave the question of ensuring that the toxic products would not do further damage after the cancer cell was killed.

If the weapon could be fired repeatedly, it would overcome the limitation that actinium releases only four alpha particles. The function of the weapon itself could be merely to transduce received EM energy to a frequency that is absorbed by water, thereby heating and hopefully killing the cancer cell. It may be possible to find such a transducer simply by searching databases of known molecules and their absorption spectra."

Ray Kurzweil asks some basic questions

In his contribution to a special edition for The Edge website, Ray Kurzweil asks some really, really basic questions about the physical basis of identity. His essay, " Who am I? What am I?", is available on The Edge website, and on his own KurzweilAI website.

Templeton: "Open source ape" may become first AI

from the unnerving-thoughts dept.
Senior Associate Brad Templeton, also chairman of Electronic Frontier Foundation, has been thinking about AI through uploading: "However, the uploading scenario presents a rather disturbing conclusion. The first super-beings may not be based on humans at all, but instead may be apes. In the course of modern science, it is always the case that we experiment with animals first, years before we attempt anything on people. It's the ethical way, and in many cases the only legal way. As such, as we develop the technology to scan or convert an existing brain into an artificial form, we'll try this first on animals. We'll start with lower ones, and then work up to our closest relatives, the chimpanzee and bonobo…Indeed, the software of this chimp brain might be made available for free distribution. An "open source" ape, for all to experiment on." He makes a plausible case; worth reading.

"Age of Fear" to drive nanotech funding

from the fear-or-no-fear-nanotech-still-gets-funded dept.
According to John Ellis of Fast Company (Dec. 2001): "Before September 11, the debate among business and financial strategists was, roughly stated, nanotechnology versus genomics/proteomics. Which will be the next big thing? Where would you put your money? The best minds at Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup wrestled with these questions, as did those at the country's venture firms." After Sept. 11: "[The Age of Fear] means that a whole host of new technologies — like nanotechnology — will get more funding from the federal government."

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

      Search Foresight Institute