[extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan

[Harvey Newstrom]

Hal Finney wrote,
> Unfortunately I don't have time to write about all the issues 
> that I see regarding the nanotech debate, or to organize my 
> thoughts as well as I should.

> The 
> initial response seems to be to try to "spin" the debate into 
> a huge victory for the home team.

> I think the perception by those who are not already nanotech 
> proponents is that Smalley won the debate.

> And I also object to some of the tactics being used in this 
> spin doctoring.  Smalley is being misrepresented and taken 
> out of context.

> I've read Nanosystems, and it's always bothered me that the 
> technology described there is so different from what most 
> nanotech fans are familiar with.

> The point of this rather lengthy digression is that Drexler 
> and other nanotech proponents are not doing a good job of 
> explaining their design concepts.  This is in part why they 
> are so commonly misunderstood. And it seems almost willful.

> Why should I have to guess?  And why should Smalley?  This 
> continued evasiveness and refusal to plainly specify a design 
> strategy forces nanotech critics to extrapolate their own 
> understanding and interpretations.  And once this happens, 
> the nanotech proponents sit back and smugly call "strawman".  
> Drexler and Smalley are talking past each other, because 
> Drexler refuses to plainly state how his manufacturing system 
> will work, contenting himself with telling Smalley that all 
> his guesses are wrong.

> This isn't a game of 20 Questions.  If nanotech were the 
> dominant paradigm, this lack of specificity might be 
> acceptable.  But when you are on the outside looking in, it 
> will not succeed.  All you're going to do is make people 
> confused and angry.

> I share Smalley's frustration when he writes, "it would be 
> helpful to all of us who take the nanobot assembler idea of 
> 'Engines of Creation' seriously if you would tell us more 
> about this nonaqueous enzymelike chemistry."  Rather than 
> lobbying and spinning the debate, I'd suggest that nanotech 
> proponents work harder at fleshing out and clearly describing 
> their proposals.  Give your critics something to criticize, 
> and at least the debates won't be as empty as the 
> Smalley-Drexler exchange.

Hear, Hear!  I, too, am frustrated by the lack of scientific or engineering
rigor for many of our futuristic ideas.  Nanotech is merely one of many
obvious examples.  We have no shortage of fan club members who insist on the
viability of these technologies.  We have business models, organizations and
personalities promoting this stuff.  But what we lack is actual engineering
research, design work, or technical specifications that actually have
anything to do with the technology itself.  Virtually all of our
transhumanist writings have been written at the philosophical level or the
speculation level.  Very little of it actually is rigorous enough to analyze
or use by anybody interested in building this technology.  We will continue
to have little to no effect on lobbying or future technologies until we
actually get some engineers working on this stuff.  Military, corporate and
even private labs will continue to ignore us because we have nothing to add
to the technology.  Arm-chair pontificating, arguing on the network, and
amateur calculations on the back of napkin just aren't good enough.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>