from the distributed-thinking dept.
Serguei Osokine sends notice of a his essay on Internet Evolution and Nanotechnology: "The distributed control approach to infobalance becomes especially important with the introduction of the molecular nanomachines. In order to be prepared to it, the Internet can be used as the infobalance research instrument and as a prototype of the future Nanonet, 'growing' it in an evolutionary way."
Read more for an abstract, or read the full essay.
from the thoughts-on-AI dept.
An Anonymous Coward writes "Recently I have been reading a bit about Kurzweil and Bill Joy's rants about the impending destruction of life-as-we-know-it.
"I'd like to attempt to discount the likelihood of human destruction via machine intelligence by trying to figure out what would/could happen."
Read more for the rest . . .
from the fewer-lawyers-more-engineers dept.
San Jose Mercury News business columnist Dan Gillmor's May 4, 2001 column describes Foresight's PriorArt.org disclosure website, a joint project with IP.com. Dan writes: "Open-source programmers want to ensure that their work remains in the public domain. But some fear that private companies will take their good ideas and turn them into proprietary products — and even patent other people's work…It costs a bundle to challenge even a blatantly bad patent. If this site causes companies to hire fewer lawyers and more engineers, it will be a terrific enhancement to the intellectual-property field." See also earlier controversy.
from the what-DC-is-reading dept.
The Spring 2001 Wilson Quarterly — overall, an excellent publication worth reading regularly — includes a short survey of recent articles on nanotechnology mentioning Foresight, Bill Joy, Gilder's objections to Joy, Smalley's objections to nanomachines ("various practical reasons"), and Mirkin's work at Northwestern. It closes: "The [US] federal government is spending on nanoscience this year some $423 million — hardly a nanosum."
from the sigh dept.
Both nanofluidicist and Sander Olson call our attention to comments by Richard Smalley of Rice University in the recently released NSET report on the societal implications of nanotechnoogy. In the report, while making remarks in support of the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative, Smalley makes reference to the scare that has been raised over the possibility for autonomous, self-replicating nanorobots. According to Smalley, nanobots are "an impossible, childish fantasy," a "fuzzy-minded nightmare dream."
A response to similar comments attributed to Smalley last November appeared in Foresight Update #43.
Read more for an excerpt of Smalley's comment from the report.
from the community-relations dept.
alison writes "I propose that IMM/Foresight have a booth at the exhibit or trade show of a major scientific or engineering meeting. The purpose of such a booth would be to recruit new members from the technical community, and in particular, to recruit folks who are players in nanotechnology research."
Read more for the details of alison's proposal.
from the cost/benefit-analysis dept.
Michael Mestre suggests that members of the Foresight community may want to weigh in with their opinions on this short discussion thread on NanotechNews.com. Michael writes: "Some discussion about this would be welcome : ) — in short, a former Senior Associate from Foresight is being critical of the commercial (and costly) aspect of the Senior Associate gatherings."
from the imagineering dept.
Craig Hubley writes "The American Committee for the United Nations University, which I worked with for some years, recently updated its Global Scenarios which have been compiled since 1997 and include both "normative" and "exploratory" styles, in time ranges to 2025, 2500, and 3000. Of most interest are issues with respect to temporal mechanics and quantum entanglement, inter-species ethics, and the fact that almost all scenarios assume that nanotech will be used by military and "terrorist" organizations at some point. Despite that, a positivist pro-technology tone prevails throughout."
Read more for Craigís take on some of the scenarios.
from the Many-roads dept.
SteveLenhert at About.com writes of an item posted there that looks at an alternate approach to developing an assembler:"This essay ("Are you a Self-Assembler?") discusses an approach towards molecular nanotechnology that does not require self-replicating assemblers and can be realized using available biotechnology."
There is a related item on the site that addresses some of the same issues.
from the what-world-leaders-heard dept.
In an International Herald Tribune item we learn more about what happened at WEF: "Mr. Joy discussed his thesis at a remarkable seminar during the recent World Economic Forum in Davos. He urged scientists to renounce research that could lead to what he considers 'a clear danger of extinction'…At least, he said, there ought to be a democratic opportunity for ordinary people to vote on whether they want this kind of research to continue. That is obviously impractical. We voters don't know enough about the subjects, and at the rate things are changing we will never have a chance to learn in time to make a sensible decision." CP: Technology is also developed in countries where the people don't get to vote. Read More for additional excerpts.
