X-Message-Number: 12758 From: "George Smith" <> References: <> Subject: Answering specific criticisms of nanotechnology Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 10:45:13 -0800 In Message #12756, Thomas Donaldson wrote: > Subject: some comments on nanotechnology > > About nanotech devices: > > The very first point I want to make is that we'll need much more than > nanotechnology to do anything significant in the world. Nanotechnology is > a way of acting on the world, but before we go out and act on the world > we must first figure out what it is that we want to do. That alone is > a big job, even if once we do so we can then do what we want instantly > with no expenditure of time or energy. > Follow the blueprint! The Human Genome Project is projected to be done well within two years. Once you have a blueprint you need only make simple devices to follow them. Because of the July 20, 1999 nano computer breakthrough, READING, COMPARING and FOLLOWING the blueprint will be made easy. > The second point concerns a problem with nanotechnology (which holds with > biotechnology too, though some features of biotechnology may specifically > exist to deal with it). I've read Drexler's book NANOSYSTEMS. It seems to > me that it omits two problems, which when we come to use nanotech devices > are likely to turn out to be quite significant. > > 1. We want to put together our nanomachines out of smaller, basic > machines. It may well be that each basic machine will fail only in the > most extreme situations, but a nanomachine made out of many basic > machines becomes much more subject to failure: only one of its > parts may fail, but by failing make it impossible for any other > part to work. (To say that failure is impossible ignores such things > as the possibility that a radioactive component slipped into its > manufacture, and after decay disrupts it... and lots of other ways > manufacture might sometimes go wrong, even if only rarely). > > This problem occurs also if we use MANY nanomachines. Even if the > probability of failure is very small, it will increase the more > nanomachines we use. Depending on how we use them, that failure > may be minor or catastrophic ... just like any other devices, > actually. > Yet if the CREATION of new nanomachines is just as easy as anticipated, the needed working life of any machine might only need to be a few seconds. Drexler addressed this issue quite well, in my humble opinion. > 2. To be useful for ANY purpose, our nanomachines cannot act totally > separate from everything else. They must act on something else in the > world, something which is NOT a nanomachine. And just as happens in > biological creatures, that opens things up to lots of EXTERNAL > disruptive influences. That's why our cells make various antioxidant > biochemicals to protect themselves from the disruptive effects of > oxygen, to give a simple common example. If they could come into > contact with oxygen only when they "needed to", all that apparatus > wouldn't be needed. > First, my body is already composed of nanomachines. An atom is an atom. A molecule is a molecule. Life happens when you follow the blueprint as life is nothing more than the complex interreaction between atoms and moelcules. In other words, there is nothing special about carbon atoms. "Vitalism" went out the window when DNA was discovered. There is no need to postulate a ghost in the machine and mask it as biochemistry. Also, just as current day organ transplant rely on immuno-suppressant drugs for the rest of the life of the person, the nano approach can be used for suppressing these reactions for the minutes or hours required to effect repairs - then returning the "dumb" immune system back on. Of course, Drexler suggests we upgrade our immune systems to make them smart instead of dumb - bypassing the entire problem. > And yes, certainly, we might do many things to protect them from > disruption. But no method is likely to protect against ALL POSSIBLE > disruption. If you have the blueprint, the operator's manual, the switches and the repair tools, YES YOU CAN protect against all MEANINGFUL disruption. The big picture is the big picture. The devil is NOT in the details. The devil was in the details until July 20, 1999 made it possible to read the script whoich contains the details. >Moreover, all the extra machinery to protect against > disruption makes the devices bigger... in some cases, probably big > enough that they are no longer nano at all. > Again, we already accomplish this today in organ transplants using crude drugs. > 3. Nanotech devices do consist of about 90 different kinds of parts. > HOWEVER so does everything else. We call those parts ATOMS, and however > we make our device we must use some form of chemistry to do so. One > feature of chemistry is that our atoms don't necessarily stay where > we put them. This is no different than comparing buggy whip technology limitations to computer technology limitations. > Sure, with nanodevices we might make stable chemicals > which would not have been easy to make otherwise (though chemists even > now work on ways to synthesize the wildest chemicals). Even so, that > chemistry provides one way in which external influences can break > a nanotech device ... perhaps, when we actually have them, the most > common way. Not every atom happily combines with every other, and > keeping a chemically active molecule from doing what it wants can > be certainly be done, but once more requires extra atoms solely for > that purpose. Protecting our device from other active chemicals > nearby isn't easy either, and adds more to the device when we do > it. Among other problems, not every chemical is stable at the > temperatures, light levels, and vibrations we might want to use it. > Same objection - same answer. Replication of devices at nano levels means you can have high speed failures for large numbers and simply replicate as you go. On a bulk tech scale, this is seen with the car industry. Cars are built to last up to around ten years. Yet there are always MORE cars being built to replace those that fail. Same with nano devices. On the nano scale ROGHT NOW when failures occur in the body, they are replicated and replaced. It is just the failure to follow the DNA which results in breakdowns in the process ...and the probable need to reprogram the teleomere limitation... to end aging. This isn't a situation where you have to build a limited number of devices and hope they do the job. > These 3 points should be thought about whenever we try to build a real, > working nanotech device. I personally suspect (but no, I cannot now > PROVE) that our biotechnology has the form it has (lots of very small > nanotech devices working in a fluid, rather than put together into > larger machines) comes exactly from means to avoid these problems. > (And please note that I'm not saying these machines must be the same > as enzymes, or that the fluid is water). > Yes. Until now, blind forces of intereaction have resulted in complex bulk human beings running from many simple small parts on a nano scale. Now that we KNOW we can build a nanocomputer to read and direct the DNA blueprint, the rest is just a matter of proceeding. > So these are some points for those who think nanotechnology alone will > solve all our problems. > Thomas, I thank you for your efforts to try and identify what could go wrong with the nanotechnology effort to make cryonics work (as well as radically improve our entire way of life). It's just that it seems clear to me that these particualr points have been made obsolete in view of the July 20, 1999 breakthrough and the coming completion of the Human Genome Project. I also believe that Drexler's books and other discussion have addressed these issues extremely well. In some ways scientists are incredibly pig-headed but the inventiveness of the human mind is remarkable once we have the tools to employ that creativity. It is already happening. Nothing short of the complete destruction of human life will stop it. George Smith www.cryonics.org Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=12758