← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Valley Forge
Thread ID: 13581 | Posts: 5 | Started: 2004-05-06
2004-05-06 22:09 | User Profile
*Angler, If you're out there, I'd be very interested in hearing your take on this debate.
Bottom line: The father of nanotech, K. Eric Drexler, believes that it's possible to create "molecular assemblers" -- devices that push atoms around and position them precisely.
Noble laureat Richard Smalley, on the other hand, says the exact opposite -- that molecular assemblers as conceived by Drexler are physically impossible in principle based on the laws of chemistry.
So, who do you think is right, and who in your opinion is ahead at this point in the race to develop genuine atom-positioning assemblers?
(Call me paranoid, but I shudder at the thought that this potentially world-altering technology might fall into Jewish or ZOG-controlled hands.).
Also, if there is anyone out there who's interested in this subject, I highly recommend John Robert Marlow's novel [URL=http://www.johnrobertmarlow.com/]Nano[/URL]. It is a somewhat shallow, but ultimately entertaining read dealing with the grave implications of this technology.
-VF*
[SIZE=4][COLOR=Blue]NANOTECHNOLOGY: Drexler and Smalley make the case for and against 'molecular assemblers'[/COLOR][/SIZE]
In this C&EN exclusive "Point-Counterpoint," two of nanotechnology's biggest advocates square off on a fundamental question that will dramatically affect the future development of this field. Are "molecular assemblers"--devices capable of positioning atoms and molecules for precisely defined reactions in almost any environment--physically possible?
In his landmark 1986 book, "Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology," K. Eric Drexler envisioned a world utterly transformed by such assemblers. They would be able to build anything with absolute precision and no pollution. They would confer something approaching immortality. They would enable the colonization of the solar system.
Drexler, who was then a research affiliate with Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, also explored in "Engines of Creation" the potentially devastating negative consequences of such a technology. "Replicating assemblers and thinking machines pose basic threats to people and to life on Earth," he wrote in a chapter titled "Engines of Destruction." Because Drexler sees the development of molecular assemblers and nanotechnology as inevitable, he urged society to thoroughly examine the implications of the technology and develop mechanisms to ensure its benevolent application.
Drexler received a Ph.D. in molecular nanotechnology from MIT in 1991. He is the chairman of the board of directors of Foresight Institute, Palo Alto, Calif., which he cofounded, an organization dedicated to helping "prepare society for anticipated advanced technologies."
Richard E. Smalley, University Professor and professor of chemistry, physics, and astronomy at Rice University, Houston, won the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery of fullerenes. Much of Smalley's current research focuses on the chemistry, physics, and potential applications of carbon nanotubes. For the past decade, he has been a leading proponent of a coordinated national research effort in nanoscale science and technology.
Like Drexler, Smalley believes the potential of nanotechnology to benefit humanity is almost limitless. But Smalley has a dramatically different conception of nanotechnology from Drexler, one that doesn't include the concept of molecular assemblers. Smalley does not think molecular assemblers as envisioned by Drexler are physically possible. In lectures and in a September 2001 article in Scientific American, Smalley outlined his scientific objections to the idea of molecular assemblers, specifically what he called the "fat fingers problem" and the "sticky fingers problem."
Smalley's objections to molecular assemblers go beyond the scientific. He believes that speculation about the potential dangers of nanotechnology threatens public support for it. Notions about the darker side of nanotechnology have rapidly entered the public consciousness. Two notable examples were an April 2000 essay in Wired magazine titled "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us" by Sun Microsystems cofounder and chief scientist Bill Joy and the 2002 novel "Prey" by Michael Crichton.
This C&EN "Point-Counterpoint" had its genesis in an open letter from Drexler to Smalley posted earlier this year on Foresight Institute's website. That open letter, which challenges Smalley to clarify his "fat fingers" and "sticky fingers" arguments, opens the "Point-Counterpoint." In three subsequent letters, Smalley responds to the open letter, Drexler counters, and Smalley concludes the exchange. C&EN News Editor William G. Schulz coordinated this feature.
Read the rest here:
[url]http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8148/8148counterpoint.html[/url]
2004-05-07 00:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]*Angler, If you're out there, I'd be very interested in hearing your take on this debate.
Bottom line: The father of nanotech, K. Eric Drexler, believes that it's possible to create "molecular assemblers" -- devices that push atoms around and position them precisely.
Noble laureat Richard Smalley, on the other hand, says the exact opposite -- that molecular assemblers as conceived by Drexler are physically impossible in principle based on the laws of chemistry.
So, who do you think is right, and who in your opinion is ahead at this point in the race to develop genuine atom-positioning assemblers?
(Call me paranoid, but I shudder at the thought that this potentially world-altering technology might fall into Jewish or ZOG-controlled hands.). [/QUOTE] Er, I think you've been reading too many nanotech novels.
Smalley here is the serious scientist here. Drexler is the more ephemerel scientist turned sci-fi writer promoter.
IMO the reprsenting "nanotechnology" represents a serious break with established scientific protocol, that science should be driven by proven scienctific accomplishments rather than the speculations of science fiction etc., aka Drexler.
2004-05-07 00:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Er, I think you've been reading too many nanotech novels.
Smalley here is the serious scientist here. Drexler is the more ephemerel scientist turned sci-fi writer promoter.
IMO the reprsenting "nanotechnology" represents a serious break with established scientific protocol, that science should be driven by proven scienctific accomplishments rather than the speculations of science fiction etc., aka Drexler.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps. The reason I'm asking though is that I'm not really qualified to determine for myself who is right in this argument. (One of the reasons I'm interested is because I'm thinking about investing in nanotech companies). It seems to me that a lot of informed people take nanotech seriously. Bill Joy is a good example. He's not exactly a run of the mill kook, and the people who pull the strings of the regime in Washington DC aren't exactly saints. I have no doubt that if the US government gets its hands on this or any technology of similar power they won't hesitate to use it for evil purposes.
2004-05-07 00:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Perhaps. The reason I'm asking though is that I'm not really qualified to determine for myself who is right in this argument. (One of the reasons I'm interested is because I'm thinking about investing in nanotech companies). It seems to me that a lot of informed people take nanotech seriously. Bill Joy is a good example. He's not exactly a run of the mill kook, and the people who pull the strings of the regime in Washington DC aren't exactly saints. I have no doubt that if the US government gets its hands on this or any technology of similar power they won't hesitate to use it for evil purposes.[/QUOTE] The politics of science are interesting, but when politics starts fictating the science rather than vice versa, that shows something amiss has started to happen in the science.
The nanotechnology concept basically represents an attempt to repackage traditional scientific concepts in a sci-fi motif, so as to make the physical sciences more sexy and match the funding increases achieved by the life sciences.
I think at the root of it lies the declining attitude toward science of postmodernism, epitimized by things like the Sokal affair. The postmodern attitude really of course is strongly influenced by the negative attitude toward empirical science as oppressive and a tool of social domination of the Frankfurt School and Critical Theory.
IMO, a lot of serious scientists have made a faustian pact in buying into the nanotechnology paradigm. It won't be long until, to get money, scienctists start having to funnel their research onto areas that are openly political and speculative, like "feminist science" or "multicultural science".
2004-05-07 00:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]The politics of science are interesting, but when politics starts fictating the science rather than vice versa, that shows something amiss has started to happen in the science.
The nanotechnology concept basically represents an attempt to repackage traditional scientific concepts in a sci-fi motif, so as to make the physical sciences more sexy and match the funding increases achieved by the life sciences.
I think at the root of it lies the declining attitude toward science of postmodernism, epitimized by things like the Sokal affair. The postmodern attitude really of course is strongly influenced by the negative attitude toward empirical science as oppressive and a tool of social domination of the Frankfurt School and Critical Theory.
IMO, a lot of serious scientists have made a faustian pact in buying into the nanotechnology paradigm. It won't be long until, to get money, scienctists start having to funnel their research onto areas that are openly political and speculative, like "feminist science" or "multicultural science".[/QUOTE]
Good points about the influence of the Frankfurt school and postmoderism -- you may very well be right. I'm still thinking about it.