Page 380 – Foresight Institute

Gaming the Future: The Book!

Newt says 20 years to nanotech

from the molecular-rotor-rooters-fan dept.
Senior Associate TomMcKendree alerts us to The Age of Transitions by Newt Gingrich: "Nanotechnology is probably twenty years away but it may be at least as powerful as space or computing in its implications…This approach to manufacturing will save energy, conserve our raw materials, eliminate waste products and produce a dramatically healthier environment. The implications for the advancement of environmentalism and the irrelevancy of oil prices alone are impressive….Imagine drinking with your normal orange juice 3,000,000 molecular rotor rooters to clean out your arteries without an operation." Read More for further comments from Tom. Comment below on your views of Newt: useful to us or not?

Bioengineering Nanotechnology Initiative

from the a-nanogram-of-sugar-helps-the-nanomedicine-go-down dept.
Robert Freitas writes "NIH is issuing Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants for projects on nanotechnologies useful to biomedicine. The grants provide funding to develop near-term nanomedical applications involving primarily engineered nanomaterials and biomaterials. While the goals are admittedly modest by MNT standards — nanomedicine with a small 'n' — at least they are experimentally accessible now. The level of federal interest in this area is clearly growing. Here, NIH appears to be bending the usual federal rules a bit to help jumpstart the 'nano' sector of biomedicine. I've excerpted the most important parts of the announcement [Read More below]; the full text is at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-00-018.html."

Progress in Computational Power

from the Palm-Pilot-will-be-smarter-than-we-are dept.
Senior Associate Ka-Ping Yee (ping) writes "For a recent keynote talk i gave on the future of technology, i put together a chart of computing power based on the data in Ray Kurzweil's book, The Age of Spiritual Machines. I wasn't too happy with the readability of the chart in the book, so i asked myself "What would Tufte do?" and tried to design a clearer layout. A couple of things to note (if you have not already read Kurzweil's book):

The vertical scale is a log scale, yet the best fit is not a straight line. It still curves upward slightly. (Try to fit a straight line and you'll see that it doesn't work.)
We aren't just plotting maximum available computing power here — it's computing power available for a modest amount of money ($1000 in 1999 dollars).
All the data, except for the last point (the Athlon) is taken from the book.

What do you think? Are we on schedule? Any bets for when the computational power of an affordable desktop machine will approach the computational power of a human brain? "

Space: the Final (Nanotech) Frontier

from the turning-space-into-a-place dept.
Senior Associate TomMcKendree is the only one we know working on a PhD in nanotechnology for space applications. He spoke at an internal NASA planning conference, "Turning Goals into Reality": I put together a new presentation, based on NASA's technical goals, my work on MNT and space, and lifting heavily from JoSH's aircar study, since a majority of their technical goals related to aircraft. The charts are available at link …A partial transcript is at link "Read More" for the full story.

Republicans cut Nanotech Initiative

from the if-it's-Clinton's-idea-they-don't-like-it dept.
SteveLenhert writes "The $500 million US nanotechnology initiative proposed by US President Clinton for the year 2001 may not happen as planned. While Congress supported the increased NIH spending, many cuts were proposed in the various other initiatives, including nanotechnology." See also the Clinton Administration's protest.

Gene Mods for Malaria Mosquito

from the no-more-need-for-bzzzz-slap dept.
Greg Burch told us about the first stable germ line changes to the species of mosquito that transmits malaria. (Malaria kills an estimated 2.7 million people a year.) Researchers at Imperial College London and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany, inserted a fluorescent marker gene in Anopheles mosquitoes. This is a first step toward making anti-malarial changes to the mosquito, such as making it produce antibodies against the malaria parasite. Greg comments: "What a great breakthrough in gene-engineering PR it would be if this line of research would prove fruitful against malaria!"

Stanford biophysicist critiques nanoenthusiasts

from the maybe-he's-not-all-wrong dept.
28 June, CP: This has been toned down at the request of a former Foresight Conference chair. YakiraHeyman reports that many Foresight members alerted us to this story on WiredNews: "Some scientists believe that nanotechnology will transform computing, biotechnology, and medicine, even proclaiming that the technology will one day solve every problem from hunger to disease. But researcher Steven Block has one thing to say to these nanotech Polyannas: Wake up." Read More for additional quotes. (Important: please don't send rude email to Prof. Block; he makes some good points.) Query to Nanodot readers: If some call us PollyAnna (too optimistic) and some call us Chicken Little (too pessimistic), does that mean we are about right?

Xerox PARC's JSB on nanotechnology

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?

Beginner's Guide to Complexity

from the might-as-well-learn-to-love-it dept.
Think you can handle complexity? We ain't seen nothin' yet. Get ready by tooling up at the Guide to Complex Systems. It's nowhere near complete, but it's complex enough to get you started if you're new to the field–better start now if you hope to be able to handle the next few decades. (If you know of better sites for this purpose, please comment below.)

Must We Technologists Interact with Government?

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?

Gaming the Future: The Book!

Search Foresight Institute