Comments on: Hollow centre: Nanotechnology is a discipline in the throes of an existential crisis

By: Richard Jones

Richard Jones — Tue, 23 May 2006 05:19:09 +0000

To reply to your point in the context of this book review, I’m guessing (on the grounds of the omission of any mention of Drexler) that this book reflects the sceptical end of the scientific consensus about Drexlerian nanotechnology, which is that it isn’t possible, from which it follows that one doesn’t need to worry about goo, grey or otherwise.

By: Damien

Damien — Mon, 22 May 2006 13:43:26 +0000

===
Nanotechnology, above all an applied science, has been the subject of a possibly unprecedented push for early consideration of social, environmental and ethical impacts. Here the rhetoric is overwhelmingly positive… The possible downsides are largely limited to the potential toxicity of some nanoparticles
===

The first thing which leaps to my mind after “nanotech”, from years on the extropians list, and from reading Engines of Creation, is “gray goo”. I’m fairly sure Drexler spent some pages worrying about this, and talking about extreme safety measures for nanotech research; I know the extropians spent a lot of time worrying about gray goo, because I was the local archconservative asking about power supplies and mobility and the flammability of tiny particles of diamond in an oxygen atmosphere.

Perhaps this hasn’t filtered out to the public or politicians, but certainly many nanotech advocates have worried themselves sick over the existential crisis of our being wiped out by runaway nanobots. This shows up in a lot of nano-oriented science fiction novels as well, plus the (larger scale) Replicators of the TV show Stargate: SG-1, which nearly wiped out everyone, allies and enemies of Earth alike.

By: Zelah

Zelah — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 15:58:36 +0000

To follow up on what was being said,

Here is a link to the sort of Nanotech research which I believe is at the frontier of Nanotech today.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=41174

By: Phillip Huggan

Phillip Huggan — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:26:29 +0000

I would define nanotechnology as applying mechanical engineering principles on the scale of an angstrom to 10 nanameters. This seems to be about the scale that London forces and other influences not found operating within standard ME, become apparent.

If Drexler’s ideas only work at very low temperatures in UHV conditions, that doesn’t invalidate his ideas. If other mechanisms apart from SPM molecule abstract can be found that enable customized diamond molecular structures, then his conclusions will still be relevant even if his pathway (which is the tough and oft-neglected concern) is false.

By: Zelah

Zelah — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:35:13 +0000

For me there are basically 2 points. One is that Scientific research should be SCIENCE NOT TECH. This seems to me where tht existential crisis occurs.

On the tech side, I agree with Richard that Amazing technologies are emerging which will validate the broad Nanotech hype (i.e the public are not as naive as on may think). For me, only question on the tech side is the creation of entire new economies (aka Space Elevators) or just gradual improvements of what already exists (non invasive cancer treatment). My bet is in entire new industries!

An amateur mathematician

By: Tom Wynne-Morgan

Tom Wynne-Morgan — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 14:22:51 +0000

I think its quite exiting to watch this technology emerge like some sort of darwinian creature. No one really knows what its going to be. No one really no what it should be. Its all a bit messya but it’s survival of the fitest. As much as I am sceptical of applying evolotionary principles ad hoc i think that with emerging technologies it fits quite nicely.

By: Richard Jones

Richard Jones — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 07:22:16 +0000

Hal, I agree that this has sometimes happened (and I hope my review makes it clear that whatever I think about the correctness of Drexler’s ideas, I think it is pretty shabby to write him out of the history of the subject). But there’s another interesting phenomenon, which is that the same pro-MNT writers, who at one moment are propagating the “bait and switch” theory that scientists are exploiting the Drexlerian excitement but doing something totally different, the next moment are enthusiastically greeting developments from academic nanoscientists like Tour, Stoddart, Seeman and many others, as indicating inexorable progress to the Drexlerian goal.

Eric, “The Nanotech Pioneers” by Steve Edwards is well worth reading. (I’ve just reviewed it for Physics World, and I’ll post my review here when the magazine is published, copyright permitting). You could always read “Soft Machines” and tell us what you think of it yourself.

By: eric

eric — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 02:11:47 +0000

What about books worth reading? Those are much more interesting to talk about, and harder to come across (especially nano related). Suggestions? (Not for dummies)
I have not had a chance to read your book yet.

By: Hal

Hal — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 22:21:49 +0000

Note that I’m not saying here that Drexler’s ideas will work, rather that scientists have exploited the excitement about his devices to work on entirely different things.

By: Richard Jones

Richard Jones — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 21:07:02 +0000

Hal, your view is of course popular with MNT supporters (of the traditional sort), and it contains a grain of truth, but is not the whole story. My own point of view on this (which I’ve spent a lot of effort propagating) is that we should be grateful to Drexler for pointing out some of the possibilities and potential of making functional devices at the nanoscale, but that we shouldn’t expect them to look like the ones in Nanosystems. I don’t think you’ll think it’s been a fraud if scientists make viable quantum computers from quantum dots; I think that scientists will make things that could be described as nanobots, and that these will be important, but I don’t think they’ll look anything like the MNT designs, and they won’t happen very quickly (at least, ones that have any degree of sophistication won’t – crude models could actually be around rather soon, but they won’t do very much).