Origin > Dangerous Futures > Molecular Manufacturing: Start Planning
Permanent link to this article: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0596.html

Printable Version
    Molecular Manufacturing: Start Planning
by   Chris Phoenix

Molecular nanotechnology manufacturing is coming soon. The economic value--and military significance--of a nanofactory will be immense. But if a well-designed plan is not in place, serious risks will very likely lead to military destruction, social or economic disruption or unnecessary human suffering on a large scale. Here's what needs to be done.


Originally published in The Federation of American Scientists Public Interest Report, Volume 56, Number 2, Summer 2003. Published on KurzweilAI.net October 8, 2003.

Despite claims to the contrary, molecular nanotechnology manufacturing is coming soon. Because it will be so useful, there will be strong pressure to develop it as soon as possible, and past a certain point it could happen quite rapidly. Macro-scale integrated nanotech manufacturing systems will improve product functionality, product design time and manufacturing speed and cost by orders of magnitude. This advance may profoundly affect economics and geopolitics, creating enormous benefits and risks. It will be difficult to prepare adequately for such a powerful technology. For all these reasons, molecular nanotechnology should be a current topic in high-level policy and planning.

The word "nanotechnology" means several different things. Today's nanotech research is mainly concerned with building small structures that have novel properties. Such research adds steadily to the technological toolbox, leading to improved products and occasionally to new industries. Broadly speaking, such "structural" nanotechnology creates risks comparable to other material science work. The second kind of nanotech is the science-fictional kind, in which nanobots can go anywhere and do anything but generally do not conform to reality.

The third kind of nanotech, "molecular" nanotechnology (MNT), is the focus of this article. MNT will combine chemistry and fabrication to produce precise machines and manufacturing systems at the nanometer scale. Much of the basic science work has already been done; what remains is the engineering to create a working device and then integrate many devices into a human-scale "nanofactory".

Although most nanotech projects today focus on structural nanotechnology, development of molecular nanotechnology will surely become a priority within a few years. Full MNT capability may not be developed for a decade or longer, but preparation for it should probably start now.

The economic value&#8212and military significance-of a nanofactory will be immense. Even a primitive model will be able to convert CAD files to products in a few hours. Duplicate nanofactories will cost the same as any other nano-built product. The capital cost of manufacturing will be negligible by today's standards, and manufacturing capacity can be doubled in a matter of hours.

Nanocomputers will quickly replace semiconductor technologies; whoever controls this technology will be able to produce more computers than the rest of the world combined. The ability to fit a supercomputer (or sophisticated robotics) into every piece of equipment, at no extra manufacturing cost, will enable new kinds of products and weapons. A nanotech-built surgical robot with a full sensor suite could be smaller than a hypodermic needle. Development and deployment of new weapons systems could be far faster and cheaper. Even the initial products of an MNT nanofactory would be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, and the potential for extremely rapid advancement of nanotech fabrication capability means that no economic or political unit can afford to allow a competitor to control the technology.

Much evidence has accumulated to indicate that molecular nanotech manufacturing is possible. A decade ago, Nanosystems studied the required chemistry and engineering in detail; not a single significant error has been found so far. Cells, natural self-replicating machines, make a variety of minerals including magnetite and silica&#8212and they do this under water, using chemical techniques four billion years old. Mechanically guided covalent chemistry has already been accomplished with a scanning probe microscope.

The best arguments of intelligent critics regarding the feasibility of nanotech manufacturing have been refuted in detail. There is little doubt that a small self-replicating system can be built. There is strong theoretical support for basing such a system on mechanochemistry. And given the variety of buckytubes, buckyballs, buckyhorns, and other graphitic and diamondoid shapes that have been manufactured or found in nature, it's likely that a self-replicating nanoscale machine based on 3D covalent carbon mechanochemistry will be relatively straightforward to design.

A goal or milestone of MNT is an "assembler": a self-contained mechanical system capable of fabricating duplicates of itself from simple chemicals. Several researchers have investigated the requirements of an assembler, and Robert Freitas and Ralph Merkle are due to publish two books on the topic in 2003 and 2004. A single assembler is not very useful, since it can only make very small products.

However, if a nanofactory containing many assemblers can combine the tiny products (nanoblocks) into a single large product, the result would be extremely useful. It has been claimed that this will take years to achieve, blunting the utility of MNT assemblers. However, work by the author demonstrates that a useful nanofactory can be pre-designed, so that building and debugging the design might take only a few months. Once the first assembler is built, a fully functional nanofactory-and the nanofactory's products-may follow in well under a year.

Although design at the atomic level will not be easy, a nanotech product designer will not need to worry about that—just as a software engineer does not think about the transistors in the computer. A small and pre-tested set of nanomachines, built into nanoblocks, can be combined in many ways to make a vast array of products. By designing with nanoblocks instead of atoms, a product designer loses little flexibility, and gains simplicity and reliability. Nanoblocks can be fastened together in a process called "convergent assembly." The joining process uses a single motion, requiring only simple robotics, and the joints retain most of the strength of the base material. A single nanoblock is big enough to contain an assembler, computer or motor, and small enough to be built by a single assembler in a few hours. A nanofactory built of nanoblocks can build and assemble nanoblocks into a huge range of products-including duplicates of itself.

Such a powerful technology introduces many risks. One obvious risk is an unstable arms race. Rapid development of new weapons technologies means less opportunity for surveillance and more uncertainty about the enemy's future capabilities. Weapons could be more powerful and far "smarter"—imagine the combined capability of a million unmanned aerial vehicles with on-board pattern matching and navigation capability.

Many factors tempt a preemptive strike if a temporary advantage is gained in an MNT arms race. The likely outcome of a strike would be either global domination requiring Draconian measures including denial of technology, or a series of increasingly destructive high-tech conflicts. Once weapons, or the systems that produce them, are dispersed, preventing guerrilla use of them would require inspection of literally every cubic millimeter, or continuous surveillance of entire populations.

Availability of unregulated MNT manufacturing could create several serious problems. Criminal and terrorist activity would benefit from smaller, more capable products. Small, widely available, cheap surveillance devices would allow an unprecedented invasion of privacy by governments, criminals and neighbors. Cheap microscopic products can lead to widespread microscopic litter, with possible environmental or health consequences. Small self-contained foraging self-replicating systems ("gray goo") appear to be theoretically possible, and might be released by terrorists, saboteurs or even irresponsible hobbyists.

Though probably less dangerous than all-out war with MNT-built weapons, such devices could be significantly more destructive than invasive biological species because they would have no natural enemies. Many of these problems can best be addressed by widespread environmental monitoring, but the required systems may not be deployed quickly or universally.

Molecular manufacturing may cause substantial economic disruption. Several of today's sectors, including manufacturing, shipping and raw materials, would be disrupted or outmoded. Fully automated self-duplicating factories would reduce the value of both capital and labor, and drive down the cost of goods. Large disparity between cost and value would provide strong incentive for protectionism and anticompetitive policy, resulting in widespread black markets. The entertainment industry is already experiencing similar problems; MNT may extend them to most manufactured products.

Simplistic attempts to regulate MNT could create more problems than they solve. Attempts to restrict proliferation may generate oppressive or even abusive regulation. Today, billions of people live in sickness or poverty for lack of a few basic products like water filters, mosquito netting and computers. All of this would be easy to produce with MNT-based manufacturing, but recent US action blocking a WTO attempt to provide affordable pharmaceuticals to poor nations indicates that the same could happen with MNT.

A population denied access to lifesaving benefits of cheap molecular manufacturing due to protectionist economic policy or paranoid security policy (or even just blatantly overcharged) would have a strong incentive to steal, duplicate or "crack" the technology. Independent MNT development programs multiply many of the risks, including the risk of necessary regulations and technical restrictions being bypassed. Since nanofactories will be self-contained, incredibly valuable and easily concealed, a black market in nanofactories would be difficult to prevent. Ultimately, control of the technology could be lost, and regions with excessive regulation may be sidelined.

In developing MNT, it may be that the safest course is a single, international development effort, leading to a technology that can be widely distributed and carefully administered—with tight technological controls in place to limit its use. This would provide an infrastructure for rapid humanitarian relief with basic products, profit-making with other products, and perhaps even arms control-if nations could be restrained from developing independent, unmonitored MNT capability.

If this is in fact the best approach, the need for action is even more urgent. A nation with an entrenched MNT development program may be less likely to join or support an international development effort. It will not be easy to convince military and political leaders, captains of industry and environmental and social watchdogs that the best course of action involves giving up some control in order to retain some control.

MNT development appears inevitable for two reasons. The first is the immense utility of MNT. Even if public pressure prevented it from being used in consumer goods, various militaries would not hesitate to develop it as a tremendous aid to military capability. In conventional conflicts, the improvements in logistics, miniaturization, development and cost would give an overwhelming advantage to the possessor of such technology, both in preparation and in actual combat.

The second reason is the increasing ease of development. Enabling technologies are improving each year. New families of structural chemicals are being discovered. New fabrication technologies, new nanoscale imaging technologies and increased computer power for mechanochemical simulation will rapidly decrease the difficulty of building an assembler-and thus a nanofactory. Today, a successful program might require billions of dollars and several years.

A decade from now it might be possible for only $100 million, within the reach of many corporations and nations. At that point, if MNT is not already widely available, it will be developed in multiple labs around the world-and will be almost impossible to control.

By encompassing all phases of production from chemical processing to final assembly, MNT manufacturing can be far more flexible than any other single technology, with the possible exception of programmable computers. A few other technologies may be equally dangerous, but are easier to control.

Nuclear technology can only be used for a few things&#8212bombs, power generation, cancer treatment—so it has been possible for a fairly small international effort to keep control of various aspects of this technology. Biotechnology is flexible in its domain, but biotech products have been difficult to engineer. Conventional rapid prototyping systems will improve gradually; it will be a while before they can make complete products, and even longer before they can cheaply duplicate themselves.

A single technology with the programmability and speed of digital computers, the chemical flexibility of biotechnology, the military potential of nuclear technology or airplanes and the utility of very advanced rapid prototyping, will bring many changes. The variety of potential problems, in economic, military, political, humanitarian and environmental spheres, indicates that no simple solution can work. A balance must be struck between national defense and arms control; between capitalist practice and social needs and between unrestricted private use and oppressive restriction. These issues will not be easy to solve.

The final stages of development will occur too quickly for solutions to evolve. If a well-designed plan is not in place before this happens, one or more serious risks will very likely lead to military destruction, social or economic disruption or unnecessary human suffering on a large scale. Each major risk should be studied in detail. Public education and discussion should take place. Policy makers need to be informed.

There is very little doubt that MNT manufacturing will be developed within the next three decades, and it may be as soon as ten years. It seems likely that some sort of international administration will be necessary. Any large administrative body, especially one requiring complex international cooperation, will take time to design, fund and create. All this may require more than a decade. A large international development effort may also be necessary, and would have to begin even sooner.

These factors indicate that preparation for molecular nanotechnology should become a current topic in high-level policy and planning.

References

"A Debate About Assemblers" http://www.imm.org/SciAmDebate2/index.html.

See http://CRNano.org/bootstrap.htm for the latest work.

For more extensive discussion of risks, benefits, and administration options, see http://CRNano.org/overview.htm.

' 2003 Federation of American Scientists. Reprinted with permission.

 

   
 

   [Post New Comment]
   
Mind·X Discussion About This Article:

Some of these thing are already happening!
posted on 10/15/2003 11:16 PM by kcisobderf

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Fully automated self-duplicating factories would reduce the value of both capital and labor, and drive down the cost of goods. Large disparity between cost and value would provide strong incentive for protectionism and anticompetitive policy, resulting in widespread black markets.


This is already happening in that Far Eastern peasants are assembling these items instead of nanoassemblers. Electronics, especially computers have been drastically dropping in price on an accelerating pace for the past 15 years. It is very obviously doing that in the last 3-4 years. Even household appliances are beginning to share this trend.

There are notable exceptions! Houses and cars are two goods that have an entrenched commercial infrastructure that needs to disappear.
Otherwise, a car might be 50% cheaper, and a house, 67%, excluding the land. I can't wait for this to happen, social disruption be damned! Do we really need to employ people who profit solely from information friction?

I'm researching the purchase of a new car, and I'm appalled at the inefficiency and outright thievery inherent in the process! I won't even discuss the organized crime syndicates that masquerade as realtors. Those who own property and expect to make money while doing nothing are equally guilty. I am gleefully awaiting the supposed collapse of the housing bubble and the ultimate, permanent price deflation on physical goods. When enough items can be made for $10 and this fact becomes common knowledge, the ability of salesdroids to charge $200 for it will evaporate, regardless of how well they are dressed!

Re: Some of these thing are already happening!
posted on 10/16/2003 3:16 PM by grantcc

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

The problem with real estate getting cheaper is that they aren't making any more of it while people continue to reproduce.

Re: Some of these thing are already happening!
posted on 10/28/2005 6:06 PM by ChrisGilliard

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

<i>I won't even discuss the organized crime syndicates that masquerade as realtors.</i>

<br><br>
You know, you don't have to use a real estate agent to sell your house. You are free to sell it on your own. You are also free to choose any agent you want. It's a free market.

Re: Molecular Manufacturing: Start Planning
posted on 10/19/2003 12:11 PM by radmail

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

I recently e-mailed the Labour Government (just to see what kind of reply i would recieve) and asked them what regulations they were considering for nanotechnology. The website encouraged questions, so i was not too impressed when i recieved an automated response thanking me for my question. I understand that nanotubes are possible today but nano assemblers are not. Even with the uncertainty of future technological progress, i would feel alot safer if someone in Government was availiable to answer such questions.

Re: Molecular Manufacturing: Start Planning
posted on 11/07/2005 6:21 AM by Jake Witmer

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Even with the uncertainty of future technological progress, i would feel alot safer if someone in Government was availiable to answer such questions


The only reason why any government doesn't pursue every last freethinker "troublemaker" in the nation is private gun ownership and/or a lack of resources. Why should they tolerate a libertarian party (or individual independant candidates) that wants less government (especially when they point out how little value and how much suffering government causes)?

If I were you, I would feel safer knowing that the regulatory arm of the government was clueless about nano, and responsible private individuals are the ones on the cutting edge (just as they are in the United States gun culture today). If the government has the ability to regulate molecular manufacturing before it is widely established, it will be deemed "too dangerous for the masses".

At that point, the government will push to centralize control of the nano-engineering talent. Just after they do this, they will slaughter their opposition (quietly, so the scientists don't turn against them). History has shown us clearly that this is what we should expect to deal with.

Why pine for another FDA? (Through their sloth and incompetence alone, they sentence thousands to death every day) At worst, we might get a 'ministry of science' that will wield political power, controlling thought. At best another FDA-type regulatory body that is far from the cutting edge, slowing down research, development, and marketing.

Re: Molecular Manufacturing: Start Planning
posted on 10/19/2003 5:08 PM by grantcc

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Duke University seems to have taken a pretty good first step:

Duke scientists 'program' DNA molecules to self assemble into patterned nanostructures

DURHAM, N.C. -- Duke University researchers have used self-assembling DNA molecules as molecular building blocks called "tiles" to construct protein-bearing scaffolds and metal wires at the billionths of a meter, or "nanoscale."

Re: Molecular Manufacturing: Start Planning
posted on 10/22/2003 5:53 PM by stevel4857

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

I read about that, also.

Re: Molecular Manufacturing: Start Planning
posted on 10/22/2003 5:56 PM by stevel4857

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Also, The Target Store chain sells a pair of pants that are, "wrinkle and stain free" and that my friends is due to a nano-polymer spray added to the cotton in manufacturing. Water beads off cotton.
I believe the cloth was for sale two years ago for manufacturing and a year ago Banana Republic (I believe) made the first stain-free pants.

Although it's not nanowire it is nanotech.

Re: Molecular Manufacturing: Start Planning
posted on 10/22/2003 7:37 PM by grantcc

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

To me, the most important part of that story was the part about "self assembly." I think engineering, in the future, will be concentrated on how to program materials to manufacture themselves -- just as people, plants and animals are programmed with DNA to self assemble. Once we know how to use the code, I see no limit to what we can design and get it to produce iteself. IF you think low wages in developing countries is putting Americans out of work, just imagine what will happen to them when we develop the technology of molecular self assembly. What we'd better get cracking on is the education of future generations so they can work in the design fields instead of the manufacturing fields. Manufacturing will be for people who live in backward societies.

Re: Molecular Manufacturing: Start Planning
posted on 10/26/2003 4:18 AM by radmail

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

I agree that nano assemblers will completly dominate manufacturing (if we let it). Im unsure whether this is good or bad ?? Of course it will solve nearly all of our current problems of removing diseases, polution, famine etc. It will also effect our social/political way of life drastically. Jobs will be lost but also products will be very cheap. I dont know how (and im interested to see) society will respond. It will probably come with a storm. Suggestions are made that as soon as the first limited molecular assemblers are created they will be used to create more advanced assemblers and factories of assemblers.
Also predictions have been made that this could happen between 10-30 years considering the Law of Accelerating Returns.

Re: Molecular Manufacturing: Start Planning
posted on 10/26/2003 12:36 PM by grantcc

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

An article in New Scientist shows that progress is already being made.


The Robot Within

By Philip Ball
THEY call it "global ecophagy". That 's "eating the Earth" to you and me. Rumour has it that this is what replicating nanostructures might do, and according to one estimate, they could gobble up the entire planet in about three hours flat.

So it 's a mystery why the announcement by German chemist G nter von Kiedrowski last December that he is on the brink of making self-replicating objects just nanometres across has passed off so quietly. No one batted an eyelid when von Kiedrowski and his team at the Ruhr University of Bochum reported they can copy the chemical information in complex molecules that are designed to assemble themselves into pre-defined structures.

The idea is that these structures might one day be assembled into tiny robots nanobots that could perform incredibly precise tasks. They might prop up failing immune systems, for example, by helping to distinguish friendly cells from dangerous foreign invaders, or help construct miniature electronic circuits.

Whereas the nanobots of sci-fi nightmares are implausible little devices that mine atoms from the environment and use them to build more nano-brothers and sisters, von Kiedrowski 's versions are based on the tried-and-tested molecular replicator DNA. Hisprototype replicators rely on the same principles that enable DNA to copy itself to pass on their own assembly instructions to a new generation. Why go to all the bother of designing replication systems from scratch, von Kiedrowski asks, when nature already has a good way of doing it?


See complete article at:
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/dna/article. jsp?id=23865500⊂=DNA:%20the%20next%2050%20years

Re: Molecular Manufacturing: Start Planning
posted on 10/27/2003 5:34 AM by radmail

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Yes i agree progress is being made and VERY fast.
Im am interested to know whether Ray has considered the CONTINUAL doubling of the exponential rate (as i know he has mentioned that the exponential rate is doubling). I think Rays predictions are based on exponential rate and thus he would be overestimating the time taken to make these breakthroughs.
Though i do not confess to understanding the technology behind nano tech i do understand the trends of growth.
I just read an interesting article by CRN where for the first time they have described a complete nanofactory in detail. Also that "every aspect of nanofactory design other than the fabricator mechanism is well within the capability of todays engineering practice". The full story is listed in the news section of this website.
CRN (Chris Phoenix and Mike Treder)are cocerned that it will arrive too soon before adequate means for controlling it are in place.
CRN have created original and thought provoking ideas on the subject of regulation. So check out their site if you are interested.

Re: Molecular Manufacturing: Start Planning
posted on 10/31/2003 1:15 PM by Karbonish

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

"The second kind of nanotech is the science-fictional kind, in which nanobots can go anywhere and do anything but generally do not conform to reality."

Reality? Nanobots and Aerostats ("Diamond Age") seem fictional today, but even Phoenix himself discussed the plausibility of 'flying nanotech weapons':

"Molecular manufacturing raises the possibility of horrifically effective weapons. As an example, the smallest insect is about 200 microns; this creates a plausible size estimate for a nanotech-built antipersonnel weapon capable of seeking and injecting toxin into unprotected humans." (http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm)

"Nanotech-built antipersonnel weapon capable of seeking" ? ... sounds like the typical 'seeker' robot in today's SF. So it seems Phoenix waivers on his idea of what is possible and what is not, from one publication to the next.

"but preparation for it should probably start now." Probably? I think it must, and Phoenix would agree. I wonder why he didn't say 'must', his argument would be more authoritative and stronger if he did.

Re: Molecular Manufacturing: Start Planning
posted on 10/31/2003 2:37 PM by tharsaile

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Sure, nanotechnology -- like all technologies -- is improving *gradually*, but would it be going to far to say that possessing real self-contained MNT would be a little like possessing the Philosopher's Stone of legend?

I wonder what would happen if, say, Japan were the first country to reach this goal. Don't get me wrong; I love Japan and Japanese culture. But, their fantasy of superiority, as evidenced by their myth-laden history school texts, has not completely vanished, and they've been aggressors before.

Or let's say someone with both the position and the religious of General Boykin
[ http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&q=boy kin ] were to take an interest of American scientists' possession of such technology. Equally scary.

As Chris Phoenix' article suggests, this is all going to be hard to regulate. Before the beloved Singularity comes (if it comes), there are some chaotic times ahead. Am I being alarmist?

If I were find a small device bearing MNT in my basement, I think that would be the best for everyone. I promise to you all right now, that I would only use it for the betterment of mankind.

Re: Molecular Manufacturing: Start Planning
posted on 10/31/2003 2:38 PM by tharsaile

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

in the post above,


religious of General Boykin


should read


religious fervor of General Boykin

Re: Molecular Manufacturing: Start Planning
posted on 10/31/2003 8:00 PM by Karbonish

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

I wonder what would happen if, say, Japan were the first country to reach this goal.


I have heard a lot about the rise of China's economy and their quest to become the sole superpower, or something to that effect. I wonder how nanotechnology will be developed by governments.

All in all, it is going to be a very, very interesting century to say the least.

Re: Molecular Manufacturing: Start Building
posted on 11/07/2005 6:57 AM by Jake Witmer

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

I wonder how nanotechnology will be developed by governments


Who says it'll be developed by governments? Ideally, they'll be clueless, because it'll be people with too much personal integrity to work for the government who get there first. Why do I say 'ideally'? -Because government's sole proper domain is the use of force -and using nanotechnology as a weapon would give nearly any government absolute power over its people (and any others it wished to conquer).

Government attracts the kind of people who want to control other people, and who can manipulate the willfully ignorant majority. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Causescu, Mussolini, Amin, Hussein, etc... We'll get to experience a much more effective version of these regimes if a government is the first to control MNT. Just think: everyone who's ever effectively complained about paying taxes -dead of something that looks like cancer and can't be proven to be otherwise. Oh well! Nobody cares! -As long as they keep paying their taxes and keep their mouths shut, the trains they see every day won't be carrying them to the chambers.

With nanotechnology, our parasite class will have a window of opportunity to perfect itself beyond the moral limits currently imposed by the remnants of our Bill of Rights.

If any of this moves you, you can get a head start on preventing effective totalitarianism by voting libertarian:
http://www.lp.org --it's the very very least you can do. (And if you're like most people you'd rather vote for a killer because he fleetingly promises you a handout than vote for a liberator who will actually give you your freedom.)

If you want to see the ultimate cost of trusting that "governments obey the will of the people", visit:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills

All of these 200 million innocent people died because an ignorant majority didn't do everything they could to stop their socialist/fascist/statist dictators from seizing absolute power. Hitler's nazis operated with the blessing of the ignorant and anti-enlightenment German citizens. What made them anti-enlightenment? -They believed in collective rule of the individual, and of subordinating the individual to the "greater good".

-But really, the greater good is every citizen acting in his own self interest, to the best of their intelligence. The free market might not be perfect, but least under actual capitalism (not protectionist fascism), mass murder is avoided, and productivity gradually increases.

Ask most US citizens what they think about the Waco massacre in Texas, where the government killed a bunch of innocent people, on national tv, with no trial, after firing on them first and without provocation. If you're in New York City, most people sympathize with the slaughterers, and if you're in Fairbanks, Alaska, most people sympathize with the slaughtered.

Which city casts more votes?

Re: Molecular Manufacturing: Start Planning
posted on 11/01/2003 6:32 AM by Tomaz_(Thomas)_Kristan

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

If I were find a small device bearing MNT in my basement, I think that would be the best for everyone. I promise to you all right now, that I would only use it for the betterment of mankind.


I trust you. I trust maybe 80% of the people. Those 20% are the problem. In fact ... I trust 10% of people only, when this kind of things are in question. At least 10 people here are among those 10%. You included. Go to the basement and check! ;-))

Re: Molecular Manufacturing: Start Planning
posted on 11/01/2003 3:22 PM by tharsaile

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]


I trust you. I trust maybe 80% of the people. Those 20% are the problem
[\quote]

Exactly, that other 20%.

Well, I checked the basement, and so far all I've discovered is that my wife spilled bleach on the sleeve of one of my favorite shirts. I'll keep you posted.

Re: Molecular Manufacturing: Start Planning
posted on 11/06/2003 8:44 AM by whatever

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Proponents of Molecular Nanotechnology (MNT) manufacturing claim that the technology will be revolutionary like the Internet in its effects on society and the economy, yet unlike anything we have seen so far. But we have heard things like this before ' for the Internet, for wireless technology, for Virtual reality, for any new technology for that matter. Surely these technologies have affected our world to varying degrees but the Internet has not been apocalyptic so far. Though the Internet has brought its problems, it also has unforeseen benefits that society today is probably not willing to give up. Electricity brought environmental problems that we had not expected. Does that mean we will stop using it? No, even after almost a century, we are trying to find a solution. Similarly each change will bring good things and bad things for our society, and the way to face it would be to work to find a solution.
MNT offers many potential benefits for our society, albeit at a cost ' the risk of radical changes to our society's core. The Industrial Revolution transformed the 19th century world from an agrarian economy to a manufacturing one. It was a time of dramatic change and innovations, but those were changes that have led to our current world. Even then there were opponents of technology who worried about loss of income and fewer jobs. This was seen again in the 20th century when the economy was being automated and computers were being used to replace human services. Those changes did not bring the end of our civilization, rather enriched it. I expect to see similar reactions when nanotechnology comes in the mainstream, but I also expect that people will have other things to do ' maybe trying to find ways to harness the potential of MNT. Even though optimists say that nanotechnology is coming, and coming very soon, it is hard to believe that it will change everything at once. It is quite reasonable to assume that the technology will be implemented in phases and won't happen overnight, after all 'Rome was not built in a day'.
We are living in an age of transformation ' the economy is changing from manufacturing to a service oriented one, and future innovations will require us to keep up with those changes. After all, that's what evolution is all about ' keep up or get left out. Every time civilization takes a step forward, there will be some who were happy with the way things were and they don't want anything to change, while others will want things to change. Most of my parent's and grandparent's generation complains about how fast-paced life is now and how they lived in much 'simpler' and 'happier' times. The fact is that pessimists will always be over cautious and techno-optimists will always try to 'better' our world. Human nature is such that we are always cautious of the unknown, and will fight change as far as possible.
That is not to say that we shouldn't be prepared to deal with the issues that will arise as nanotechnology becomes a common phenomenon. The solution to such a situation would not be simple and may require as much effort as the technology itself needed. It doesn't necessarily imply government or a particular state's control. Instead we need to rethink our current nation-state model to come up with something that treats all humans equally so that future technologies don't widen the gap between peoples of different regions. I believe that our society will undergo an upheaval like the French Revolution which will change the way we view ourselves ' not citizens of a country but of a global village. This change is necessary in view of global technologies such as the Internet and MNT, and will happen sooner or later. Such a model will encourage utilization of available resources and technologies for positive purposes and not to destroy 'enemies'.
Realistically speaking, people like Hitler and Alexander will always find a way to fulfil their goals regardless of the age or available technologies. Even a thousand years ago, people were fighting yet surviving. They are still doing that. Possibly they will continue doing so for the next thousand years or more. Human nature won't change. But that should not stop us from actively seeking improvements and change.

Re: Molecular Manufacturing: Start Planning
posted on 11/07/2005 6:59 AM by eldras

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

It helps if you can reduce to the fundamentals of what men are.

We seem to be patterns of cosmic particles.

we know that all patterns break up eventually, usually in the short term, and change into something else.


I seriously doubt that life could sustain it's pattern indefinately, and that entropy would occur in 10 20 years at most from now.

MNT pr SAI or something else is going to happen if it's possible.

But to beleive we can control it is monomaniac in it's optomism.

it will run it's own blind goals and probably burn out quickley