X-Message-Number: 10735 Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 07:52:33 -0500 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: CryoNet #10725 - #10733 Hi everyone! To Tom Mazanec: Your claim that stone age technology "counted as a form of nanotechnology" missed out on what I was saying. Biotechnology however satisfies all the requirements if we define nanotechnology as a means of working with nanoscaled objects on nanoscales. And I was pointing out that Drexler and his followers do NOT have a monopoly on nanotechnology at all. As a matter of fact, I was not impressed by NANOSYSTEMS, but will say that Drexler did do everyone a service in his earlier book by pointing out all the things that were going on in terms of people learning to work on nanoscales. If you start reading science more closely you will notice that much more is going on than just Drexler's version of molecular nanotechnology. Even outside biotechnology. Why wasn't I impressed? Basically I'm not convinced that we can do ANY serious technology as a pure theoretical exercise. (Yes, apparently some people have formed companies to try to actually develop devices using the Drexler variety of nanotechnology. I wish them well, really). The problem with theoretical exercises is very simple: it's the difference between being able to write lots of very short computer programs and have them work fine on first trial, and actually writing a million-word program which works fine on first trial. The first I have no trouble believing; the second strains my belief a lot... too much. Moreover I think biotechnology presently is the most advanced form of nanotechnology. Perhaps it will not keep that status permanently, perhaps it will. I will say, though, that various claims by those fundamentally ignorant of it simply aren't true. There is no reason, for instance, why we could not develop creatures(???? -- devices???) capable of working on nonwater solvents at temperatures lower than the freezing point of water. Various enzymes are being used RIGHT NOW to do exactly that. To Thomas Nord: I strongly suggest a bit more reading on both sides of this issue, if you can do so from Sweden. The anti-gun idea is very popular and too often accepted with no question. As for Switzerland, the point that these guns are under control is exactly what I was saying. Very few people believe that anyone should be allowed to own a gun simply if they can buy one. At the least, it should require some training, ideally by a nongovernmental entity (government branches tend to be too influenced by politics). You state vaguely that you got most of your information from web sites. Can you please be more specific? You did cite a publication (some years ago) of the US Centers for Disease Control, but that was the only one. Extrapolation of figures is always easy and often wrong --- if it were usually correct, we'd all be starving. More contemporary figures would be very useful. The fact that gangs in the US use guns and kill one another is undeniable. It would be interesting to see figures which separated the users of guns by age, ethnicity, and location. And for what it's worth, I've lived in the US for long periods and not felt in danger ... but then I was hardly foolhardy enough to go into areas where there would be any danger, either. The situation in the US with "drugs" does increase use of guns in those segments of the population involved. And my personal opinion is that you'd do a lot for your fear of the US if you simply went to visit there. Not to New York, but to some other city in the Midwest or West. Arizona would be a good place. And go to visit friends, not as a tourist. To Tom Jonson: Ethanol? Interesting. It's been known for a long time that individual cells will usually survive freezing. The crunch ( ;-)) comes when we try to preserve whole working organs: the freezing disrupts structure at a supercellular level. Which gets me immediately to my question: how well were the structures and operation of the organs you froze preserved? If you tried hearts, for instance, could you get them to beat afterwards? Even getting muscle tissue to respond to electricity as well as normal unfrozen muscles would be VERY interesting. Best and long long life for all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10735