X-Message-Number: 18590 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 03:35:05 -0800 From: "John Grigg" <> Subject: "Drexlerian" as an epithet The challenges facing Drexlerian nanotech continue to be discussed. best wishes, John "Drexlerian" as an epithet, was Re: Saul Kent's powerful new cryonics organization From: Michael M. Butler () Date: Thu Feb 14 2002 - 13:51:54 MST "Robert J. Bradbury" wrote: > > > > As far as Wolfe is concerned, any technology based on the "Drexlerian vision of > > nanotech"--that is, the self-replicating assembler--should be put in its place. > > Src: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-833739.html > > We are not "over the hump" yet by any stretch of the imagination. It seems that one must deal with the notion that self-replicating general purpose assemblers is Drexler's sole contribution/albatross; probably by tacitly ignoring it when dealing with those with short-term parallel goals. Calculating the consequent risks & goal drifts requires craft. Argue, or win the war? This sometimes seems daunting. I try to remember Robert Goddard's history--and to be mindful of the Peenemunde story arc. -- butler a t comp - lib . o r g Wm. Burroughs said it best: "After a shooting spree, I am not here to have an argument. they always want to take the guns away I am here as part of a civilization. from the people who didn't do it." Re: "Drexlerian" as an epithet, was Re: Saul Kent's powerful new cryonics organization From: Robert J. Bradbury () Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 - 07:33:58 MST Michael Butler wrote: > It seems that one must deal with the notion that self-replicating general > purpose assemblers is Drexler's sole contribution/albatross; I don't consider that to be the case. If one reads Nanosystems and Eric's other papers carefully there are a huge number of other things discussed. A few would include -- the problems of constructing molecules with strained bonds, the damage UV radiation causes to molecules, the rather fantastic number of structures that can be constructed within a cube measuring 100 atoms per side, the fact that heat removal is the *real* problem for high computation densities, the fact that one has to move from non-reversible to reversible computational architectures, the fact that there is a clear chemical/biotechnology based path to assemblers by designing molecular parts of increasing stiffness, etc. The fact that SRAs can exist is obvious to anyone who understands biology. Eric's extension of this to general purpose assemblers is a significant contribution but I wouldn't consider it *that* significant. Its only significant from the perspective that he pointed out the risks that such devices could pose and that gets everyone who isn't aware of the existing "green goo" situation all upset. > probably by tacitly ignoring it when dealing with those with > short-term parallel goals. You don't have to ignore it at all. You simply point out there are *very* effective ways of dealing with the risks, e.g. heat and radiation. Those are the same methods that have been used to deal with the green goo for ages. It is unfortunate that people generally lack the knowledge to paint a complete picture -- that you can have assemblers that are non-self-replicating that can rely on broadcast architectures and that the people who promote the dangers of SRGPA do not in the same breath acknowledge we are effectively already in that situation *and* there are defenses that can be employed should we choose to do so. > Calculating the consequent risks & goal drifts requires craft. > Argue, or win the war? Educate, avoid annoying people as best you can and prepare to defend oneself. Robert Check out Cupid School where you will learn from Matchmaker's best and brightest. Good Luck! http://ecard.matchmaker.com/cupid0202/cupid0202.html Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=18590