X-Message-Number: 5373 Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 21:22:04 -0800 From: John K Clark <> Subject: SCI.CRYONICS Big N Nanotechnology -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In #5362 (Thomas Donaldson) On Wed, 6 Dec 1995 Wrote: >I totally fail to understand how those who feel that it >[Nanotechnology] will make a massive change, cause a >revolution If the elimination of death and the speedup of thought a billion fold will not cause a phase change in human society I can't imagine what will. >Anyone who reads SCIENCE will see nanotechnology all around >them. RIGHT NOW. If you mean life then I agree. A tree can converted air, water and a few trace elements into a strong, beautiful solid much valued as a building material. I am another product of nanotechnology. A year ago the atoms that are now me were in pigs and fish and potato plants, not long before that they were in water, carbon dioxide, and free nitrogen. Nature's nanotech isn't as advanced as what Drexler wrote about, but that's not surprising. Evolution is a clumsy, slow, mindless process, but until now that was the only way complex things could be built. When human beings evolved and started making tools things changed . How long will it take to develop nanotechnology? Nobody knows, but in engineering, intelligent planning will always beat trial and error, so I'm sure it will be a lot less that 4 billion years. >it [nanotechnology] will NOT resemble the Second Coming of >Christ in any way at all. I think it's unfair to lump Nanotechnology (I'm out of the closet, I'm big N and I'm proud ) in with the holly roller nuts and the millennia mystics. First: It's clear that the singularity will happen AFTER the year 2000, how much after is not clear. Second: We're not talking about faster than light flight, or perpetual motion, or anti-gravity, or time travel, or picotechnology ; if any of those things are ever possible it would require a scientific revolution of a fundamental nature, and that's not a bad definition of magic. The control of mater on the atomic level does not require a scientific breakthrough, it does require engineering on a scale up to now found only in nature. >Sorry, guys, but you won't find that it solves all your >problems Some have accused people like me of wanting a quick fix. Yes! I'd love that, wouldn't you? Others say we want to use technology to avoid responsibility. I am guilty as charged, but I'm not asking for a lot, I just want to be able to do exactly what I want, any time I want, for as long as I want, and never ever do anything I don't want. That's not asking too much now is it. It's a fantasy of course, nothing is a panacea. The harsh reality can be summed up in the sobering words of Ed Regis "Nobody ever said that nano would solve every problem. It could only solve easy problems, like poverty, aging, and disease." John K Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.i iQCzAgUBMMfHv303wfSpid95AQGfOgTuPwqug+Jf4VK80sSoptw9SJPQLLrIb/dP As1jBOBeHnWiBhpU7SXnvKpmTkzI+Dfu6v6OU3LokAw98OaQetsrmT+HcAebyHdd zo1E7YC244Wh+KAxxp6vL1l82GxFJUZev3wqH5QJ85uvEuHb6NqLwPvnd44QOwbg myozaMrYGAaKJ6r3iFPQSfe2V9p3ARlJ8sh9O7pNWhlhy5nMg24= =m/t3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5373