X-Message-Number: 2724
Date: 04 May 94 20:55:02 EDT
From: Mike Darwin <>
Subject: CRYONICS Ben Best and Nanotechnology

As I read Ben Best's piece I thought "What a kooky extremist presentation
of my (supposed) position.  Then Ben saved me the trouble of saying this
myself by calling himself an extremist (he just left out the kooky part,
but then nobody's perfect).  However, Ben calling himself "extremist" is a
little like Jeff Dahmer confiding that he has "a little problem with
intimacy...."

I have had more than one conversation with Ben Best which was then in turn
reported (distorted) beyond my recognition of it, filtered through BEN'S
feelings about what I said.  I say this with some confidence because I
have NOT had this experience nearly so often with others and because I
have participated in some conversations with Ben where others were
present and have observed the incredulity on their faces when they read
"the gospel according to Ben Best."

I realize all this may sound harsh and ad hominem, it is NOT!  I am
smiling broadly when I say this and the reader should take it
lightheartedly although it IS meant to make a serious point.

Ben Best and Paul Wakfer are two of the most eccentric and extreme people
I have met (and let me tell you THAT is saying something!!!!!!!). 
Notwithstanding this they are two of the brightest and most useful people
I've met as well (you gotta pay somehow, TANSTAFL). I can just imagine how
that conversation went with both of them getting more and more worked up
and extreme.  And, in all fairness, I ain't Mr. Levelheaded either.  The
label extremist has been applied to me too with more than a little
justification.

With this background I will now proceed to say what I think about the
issues Ben raised, not what Ben or Paul or anyone else said or implied
that I think.  And Paul Wakfer doesn't speak for me any more than I speak
for him (an assessment I feel sure he would be in agreement with (Ha!))

1) I was instrumental in using Eric Drexler's ideas to promote cryonics
and and I was the VERY FIRST in the cryonics community to appreciate their
power and utility to cryonics (being first was easy since I was one of
the who got a copy of *Engines of Creation* to review when it was in the
form of a manuscript called *The Future By Design* (a much better title I
thought).

I happen to think Eric Drexler is a brilliant and by and large balanced
thinker who would be the first to acknowledge that there is more than one
royal road to nanotechnology and that biochemical/biological approaches
may carry us there first -- or may not as the case may be.

2) On balance *I* think the ideas of nanotechnology have been positive
for the cryonics community and for the world and I have NO regrets about
the small part I played in promoting the hell out of them (sic) in the
cryonics community.

3) Having said the above I DO have regrets about the way these ideas have
ben used and seized upon and turned into (as Thomas Donaldson says)
Nanotechnology as oppposed to nanotechnology.  Victims of this syndrome
can simply take the religious fantasy of their choice, pull out the word
"God" and substitute "Nanotechnology."

4) And yes, I do believe that such big "N" Nanotechnology has hurt
research and eroded people's committment to it.  But the blame for this
cannot be laid solely at the feet of the Big N.  This was a problem which
existed long before Drexler put pen to paper and in fact when Ralph
Merkle was probably still in High School.  It was then called "Our
Friends Of The Future."  They were the all powerful beings who will "fix
everything."  Now they have a new name and have been depersonalized?  So
what, this is the '90's, what did you expect?

5) I DO think Merkle and to a lesser extent Drexler are far too
optimistic.  But how does that get translated into demonizing them or
nanotechnology?  Please, let us be realistic about all this!

6) Finally, Ben's own thoughts on where the truth lies in all of this are
very close to my own.  There is grounds for hope but not wild optimism
and you'd best hope for the best but PREPARE for the worst.  I'm a belt
and suspenders man myself.

My epiphanies against the Nanotechnology worshipers (and Thomas' too for
that matter) have been directed at complacent, foolish people who think
that Nanotechnology is like god.  In between are rational men who differ
over the details, approaches and possibilities.  Such can (and most
generally do) retain respect for one another.  No, I do NOT think that
little rod logic computers are the path to nanotechnology and yes I do
feel that many of Donaldson's criticisms of Merkle's paper and
pronouncements are correct.  But that does not mean I feel that Merkle is
a bad person, worthy of contempt or deserving of ingratitude in the
courageous and academically risky stand he has taken in favor of cryonics.

7)  I would ask Ben to CALL me before he links his (and others') opinions
with mine.  But that would accomplish nothing except to give more grist
for the mill.  Herewith all readers are warned Mike Darwin speaks for Mike
Darwin.

Mike Darwin

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2724