Comments on: Nanotechnology – with nature or against it?

By: Richard Jones

Richard Jones — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:11:41 +0000

Moving to renewable sources of energy is clearly very important, and nanotechnology can help. See here for a discussion of nanoenabled solar energy, for example.

By: Joyce Hays

Joyce Hays — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:03:08 +0000

Renewable fuel cells are on the rise. This article shows that we’re
on our way to a fossil fuel free planet. Surely, this is a positive development for the world.

cut&paste the link below to your browser.

http://eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=4E01LQU2G5HK0QSNDBCSKH0CJUMEKJVN?articleID=170703520

By: Richard Jones

Richard Jones — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:36:55 +0000

John, I think we probably agree that new technology is needed in order to move towards a sustainable, good life for all the earth's population. Whether molecular manufacturing (or any other approach) can deliver depends on whether it is possible at all, and if it is, what timescale it can deliver on. For reasons summarised here, I'm sceptical that molecular manufacturing in the form currently envisaged will be viable, and even if I'm wrong about it's ultimate feasibility, I think it will be too far in the future to help with our immediate problems. For example, I think we need to be starting to see the shift to large scale renewable energy to be well in sight within twenty years or so.

By: John Burch

John Burch — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 21:47:23 +0000

Richard,
Glad to see this topic being discussed. I’m a proponent of Drexler’s approach and I think it has the most positive potential to support nature.

We are in the most destuctive period of degradation of the natural world in our history. Our needs are great due to the huge population and our tools are very powerful. So we rape the Earth with great efficiency. Only when our nano tools allow us to reuse every product by deconsruction and reconstruction, will we be able to turn away from the destruction of the natural world. A strong Molecular Manufacturing capability is the only answer I see. See my blog for more discussion.
John

By: Richard Jones

Richard Jones — Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:29:07 +0000

Christine, ancient Greek philosophers can tell us nothing about whether soft or hard approaches to nanotechnology are likely to work better. For that, I agree with you that that question depends on the technical goal. I have argued here before that proponents of hard nanotech often overestimate the advantages of the hard over the soft in applications like the processing of energy and information, and especially in medicine, though maybe that’s an argument we can return to later. It is, however, inmportant to understand how the Greek philosophers thought about technology, though, because the way they framed the argument, and the way those arguments were developed by philosophers in the Christian, Jewish and Islamic traditions, directly underpin the way people think about what is good and bad in technology today. I know you are an engineer, and I’m a scientist, so maybe we both come from a tradition in which such “soft” issues are not thought to be important. But the more I’ve been immersed in arguments about nanotechnology from people who don’t have a technical background, the more I’ve realised that these arguments are, consciously or unconsciously, presented in this deep historical context, and the way new technologies are mentally slotted into these pre-existing categories will vitally influence whether they are felt to be acceptable or not acceptable.

By: Christine Peterson

Christine Peterson — Mon, 27 Jun 2005 03:51:22 +0000

I am sad to see this quotation presented favorably here, with an implication that it contains a criticism of “hard” nanotechnologies. “He conducts or guides forces and processes supplied by nature, thus revealing the powers inherent in matter.” How could any technology, hard or soft, do otherwise? Might we focus on more substantive matters here? I will suggest again that the choice between a hard and soft nanotechnology will depend on the technical goal being pursued in a given instance. Surely there are construction goals that soft nanotechnologies just can’t reach. Perhaps there are goals that even the best hard nanotechnologies couldn’t reach, though I’m not sure what they would look like.

By: Richard Jones

Richard Jones — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 07:55:05 +0000

Thanks, Jim, for that timely warning about the terrible dangers of hanging out with social scientists too much! Don’t worry, I was up late last night irradiating innocent surfaces with sub-atomic particles and now feel much better.

By: jim moore

jim moore — Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:56:01 +0000

(Amerikan Translation)

Oh you bet ya, that Dr Jones, he doesn��t take his orders from The Patriarchy, unlike a certain Dr. Drexler. Jones approaches nanotechnology like a lover, he wants to ��communicate�� with the nano scale world, he wants to ��understand its preferences��, and how ��it likes to do things��, he even calls the approach ��soft and wet��.

Drexler on the other hand is The Patriarchy��s man. He is attempting to extend the ability of The Patriarchy to dominate nature. Not only does he want to IMPOSE HIS ORDER ON THE WORLD FROM THE ATOMIC LEVEL UP, but he also wants to steal The Woman��s (Mother Nature��s) secret. The secret of birth, reproduction, yes he wants to his machines to in his words ��self replicate��. See how even with his use of language the miracle of birth is being turned into controlled mechanical process. Yes it is no wonder that Drexler��s approach is call the ��Hard�� path.

(My question to you Dr. Jones is: Is that a lab coat you are wearing or is that a blouse? ;^)