[extropy-chat] Social Implications of Nanotech

[Dan Clemmensen]

Reason wrote:

>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
>>[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Dan Clemmensen
>>
>>    
>>
>>>1.  Atomic Precision:  Atom-scale manufacturing is feasible; we put
>>>some atoms where we want.
>>>
>>>Depending on how cheap this ability is, and which atoms, many new
>>>products may be possible, including much cheaper computers, and
>>>perhaps medical devices that float in our bloodstreams.
>>>      
>>>
>>I think the medical stuff , while it sounds good, is not relevant. There
>>is a huge amount of additional design work to get from design of
>>"hardware" (computers, furniture, etc.) to design of "bioware" of
>>any type.
>>
>>I also think that energy-generation products and energy conservation
>>products are more fundamentally important, and more feasible. Am I
>>correct in assuming that energy is a fairly major component of current
>>economic models?
>>    
>>
>
>I'd take objection to that. Medicine is the most important thing. Nothing is
>important when you're dead -- and dead you will most likely be without the
>advent of medical nanotechnology. Medicine first and everything else next/as
>required to support medicine seems to be a much smarter way of prioritizing
>things.
>
>  
>
There is a huge difference between importance and feasibility. Even if 
we agree, for the sake of argument, that medical problems are paramount 
this does not affect the feasibiliy of "hardware" versus "bioware."

In particular, if I were given an infinite budget to implement medical 
MNT, I would focus on "hardware" MNT first, because I think that this is 
the best way to achieve "bioware" MNT. "Hardware" MNT gives us the tools 
we need to achieve 'bioware" MNT.

My specific problem with bioware MNT relates to the control system. It 
is perfectly reasonable to control hardware MNT with a macro-scale 
control system. This is true even when the control system is itself 
built using MNT hardware. By contrast, bioware MNT as Robin outlines it 
will require a nanoscale distributed control system.

If you are looking for MNT support for medicine, I think you should look 
first at macro-scale and perhaps micro-scale machinery built using 
"hardware" MNT. Nano-scale bioware MNT requires an entire new level of 
design.

Let's look at a few examples. It's clear that a MNT hardware economy can 
generate massive improvements in medical technology, such as radically 
improved artificial kidneys, artificial hearts, diagnostic equiment, 
etc. However. autonomous nanoscale machines, or machinery that can 
correct problems at the molecular level, will require a completely new 
level of design.

In the context of Robin's original question, bioware is striclty a 
secondary economic effect.