X-Message-Number: 5501
From: Peter Merel <>
Subject: 2,500,000,000 Happy Chinamen
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 22:59:27 +1100 (EST)

John Clark writes,

>Eric Drexler has proven the logical feasibility of Nanotechnology, BUT 
>he has not  proven when it will happen. Nevertheless he thinks he has a 
>good idea when the Singularity will occur, it seems a tad optimistic to me, 
>but on the other hand Drexler knows far more about it than me, hell he knows 
>more about it  than anyone, so his views should be taken seriously.

I agree strongly. However ...

>We aren't quite there yet, but Eric's answer to anyone who thinks 
>we are still 100 years away is, "What do you think researchers 
>will be doing between 2035 and 2045 that will be so difficult 
>that it will leave more decades of work to reach NT?"  

Reaching NT - sure, fine, I believe twenty years is plenty. But controlling
and profiting from NT, that's something else again. A mature molecular
nanotechnology, one that can do the meat machines, the cell repair devices,
the cryonic revivals, the utility fog, the space elevators and the galactic
diaspora ... that's another kettle of fish. 

Drexler suggests that once we have assemblers then we can use them to
build artificial intellects that can design better assemblers. I think
that's a leap of faith. Maybe AI will just happen - who knows? - but I
see no reason to think it won't take considerable *human* engineering
beyond NT to get to AI.

And if Jay Hanson is right, what the researchers might be doing between
2035 and 2045 is fighting for food. I don't know - maybe Drexler has it
figured, or maybe Hanson has it figured. I think that it might be a
close run race between engineering salvation and ecological disaster. 
I think, since there is room for doubt, it might be good to say that
MNT isn't something that might happen in twenty years; it's something
that *has* to happen in twenty years. That is, it might be good to
start a concerted effort among technologists to hit NT asap.

But this sounds foolish. After all, most engineers can see that 
mind-bending profits are a good reason to develop NT asap. Perhaps this
campaign should be pursued among the holders of purse strings?

Mark A. Plus writes,

>I'm not especially worried about resource constraints on future population
>growth and economic progress, especially since the real costs of energy are
>still decreasing.  (As someone put it recently, we're not running out of oil, 
>we keep running into it.)  And the L.A. Times reported on 1 October 1995

>that Brazil's "cerrado" region in the southern part of that country is becoming
>the next great breadbasket, even if China has to import food from now on.  

One thing that concerns me is that most of the ecol/economists I've heard
discussing the situation are content to leave long-term forecasts alone. If
we're okay out to 2025, then why worry? I think that, on this list at least,
we have good reason to worry. How much food is cerrado supposed to produce
for how long? Do the estimates take the (frequently devastating) "El Nino"
effect into account? How is the land being managed and at what rate is
erosion occuring there? 

I've spent a couple of days web-surfing to try to figure out if food is
really becoming more available, or less available. Certainly famines
like those in Africa are caused by political processes, not ecological
ones, but a lot of the stats about actual food trends are not hopeful.
The most worrying stat. I found was from Science Magazine Vol 267 (Feb
1995) which indicated that in the last 40 years more than 30% of
global arable land has been lost to soil erosion. The second most
worrying stat was that the present rate of species extinctions is
greater than the rate that occurred during the death of the dinosaurs ...

>And what's the Bosnian mission all about?  Even if economic rationality could
>decently sustain a world population of 15 billion people, the nonrational

>reality of prejudice could still make such a future unlivable for many people.

I had a look at the UN predictions in a little more detail. They suggest
that China will stabilise with a population of 2.5 billion ... and
they'll all live happily ever after. Don't get me wrong - I'm very
optimistic about the feasibility of Drexlerian NT - I'm only worried
that it might take twenty years longer to get there than will do us any good.

Peter Merel.


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5501