[extropy-chat] Nanotech educations

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at CRNano.org> wrote:
> Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
>  > Chris Phoenix wrote:
>  >> * Similar end result: If *any* technology is
> able to
>  >> achieve the MNT end
>  >> result in the next few years, then we have to
>  >> consider that the end
>  >> result is imminent.
>  >
> > Logic error: just because something could happen
> > doesn't mean it automatically will happen. 
> 
> I said "have to consider that," not "know that." 

Ah.  Fair enough, though for that meaning you should
have used "may be imminent", or even "is probably
imminent", not "is imminent".

> If we can identify, with our pitifully small amount
> of MNT research, a 
> technology that can achieve it in only a few years,
> then anyone who's 
> been actually working on it will very likely use
> that technology or 
> another even easier one to achieve MNT sometime in
> the next five years. 

I would disagree with the odds.  Eugene's got a
point: there are far fewer nano practitioners looking
at MNT than there could be, even those who might be
sitting on tech that could turn into MNT if they just
considered it.  There's a chance that they will, of
course - human inspiration is notoriously random, if
somewhat guidable - but not a good one as it is.  Even
when you consider the large number of them.

> > Part of the crash project would be to discuss, as
> in
> > iron out and nail down, the details of the
> technology.
> > In fact, that'd possibly be the most important
> part.
> 
> Yep.  And who's doing that?  I can count them on one
> hand: Drexler, 
> Merkle, Freitas, Phoenix.

Not what I meant by "details".  I meant as in, "how
exactly does it work and how is it made" - and once
you've solved that, you have a formula that you can
go ahead and implement.  (In fact, most scientists
wouldn't say you know this information is correct
until you've tested it by making some samples - i.e.,
until you've actually made and assembler.)

> > #1: Start with two probes, rigged to be able to
> hold
> > and release atoms.  .... then the manipulator
> releases
> > its atom with a pulse of electricity, freeing it
> to
> > latch onto the product.  
> 
> I'm suspecting that just releasing atoms near the
> product, even with 
> sub-angstrom precision, would not be enough to make
> them bind where you 
> want them.

Umm...one hydrogen atom is about an angstrom wide.
And most of the atoms one would use to build things
are larger.  Therefore if you release with
sub-angstrom precision, the atom is already where you
want it - and, if properly excited, ready to bind
there - when you release it.

> And the idea of "holding" an atom is
> pretty questionable, 
> except at very low temperature.

Atoms can bind to one another at room temperature at
higher.  I didn't mean "perfectly hold in place".
Granted, some solution would need to be implemented to
control for thermal noise, and perhaps that might make
this architecture unusable for large structures
(thermal noise shaking the structure too much from
stage to insertion point), but for a few nm^3 it
should be tolerable, no?

> > #2: Take single atom thin layers of material,
> possibly
> > created by deposition on an evaporatable
> substrate.
> > Press these layers onto the product being made,
> and
> > fire laser pulses at the substrate to knock off
> single
> > atoms in the desired position.  
> 
> Laser beams are a lot wider than atoms.  I guess you
> could do it with 
> ebeams, but I'm not sure they're down to atomic
> precision yet.

As I said, this is intended as a way to get those
single dots people can make - which are likely to get
down to atomic precision soon - to be useful for
building real stuff, rather than just tricks to show
off.

> And this 
> still sounds like a way to deposit amorphous
> unbonded stuff, rather than 
> eutactic molecules.

Maybe if one could get the layer really close - see
the above bit about sub-angstrom precision - but,
yeah, I can see some problems with this.

>  >> [Is nano-anarchy survivable?]
> > .... if a general purpose molecular
> > assembler and replicator capable of doing
> everything
> > described in Nanosystems were to be developed this
> > year and appear, without any legislative controls
> that
> > do not apply to most types of physical property,
> for
> > sale at under $100/gram at retail hardware stores
> ....
>  > [plus software]
> > 
> > Long winded, but before I explain my reasoning
> behind
> > that conclusion, does that meet your definition of
> > nano-anarchy?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> If you're going to argue that people will be able to
> get out into space, 
> I tentatively agree that that's plausible and would
> increase the chances 
> that at least a few humans will survive.  Wouldn't
> guarantee it, since 
> the people on earth would likely be paranoid and
> it's hard for a 
> spacecraft to outrun a laser.

Dark side of the moon, or orbit so high that even the
best in-atmosphere laser becomes too diffuse to do
more than power the solar panels by the time it gets
that high.  Besides, it's more a backup in case
something gets out of control on Earth, at which time
those on Earth would be too busy to care about those
above.

> But my definition of "survivable" doesn't include
> the death of 95% of 
> the human race.

My real argument goes to history.  Namely, we've had
technology nearly this disruptive before.  Nuclear
tech, for example, or bio good enough to make weapons.
See what happened then.  Even given the greater
disruptive potential of nano, I would place >50% odds
on history following roughly the same course: study
and study and study to explore the real possibilites,
and any would-be world conqueror or destroyer who
tries to exploit w/out study finds they simply can't
make it work and thus becomes irrelevant.

> > You mean oppression by those using nanotechnology
> > against those who don't?  I'd agree there's a
> > significant danger that that will happen,
> somewhere.
> > I wouldn't agree that it's likely that fate would
> > befall a large fraction of humanity, whether in
> the
> > industrialized nations that could produce MNT
> (since
> > the oppressed would also know how, and soon enough
> > gain their own)
> 
> Not if the oppression were severe enough!

Yeah, right.  Anyone who tries that loses the ability
to come up with new nano, because they have to oppress
the free thinkers who would otherwise perform that
function, and soon gets wiped out or made irrelevant
by the remaining ones coming up with new nano.  Look
to history for a wealth of examples.  I see no
relevant difference for nano.

> > We're just talking the about availability of MNT
> > here, not the intelligence to effectively clamp
> down
> > on its use.
> 
> Destruction doesn't take a lot of intelligence.  An
> unintelligent 
> paranoid person in charge of MNT

would get little effective done, and be mocked and
ignored by the intelligent practitioners.  Look at
the unintelligent paranoid people "in charge of"
biotech in the US: despite their efforts to stop it,
it marches on, both within and beyond the US's
borders.  Ditto for the government people "in charge
of" stopping narcotics production.

Seriously, look to history.  There's all kinds of
maybes in the nano-enabled future, but if you
seriously look at what's happened before, you'll see
some of the same patterns.  I, for one, would rather
not repeat other peoples' mistakes if possible.

> Then we need better policymaking.

Oh, agreed.  I'd say that's a prerequisite to acting
on the studies.  But that's going to take a while to
implement - I'd say at least 5 to 10 years, minimum,
and that's assuming a large, dedicated effort towards
that end - so action right now would very likely take
place in the harmful policy environment.

> That makes it pretty clear that the buckyballs were
> in the water, not 
> injected into the fish throats.

I don't see that as ruling it out.  They still said
nothing about the specific exposure mechanism.  But
you could be right; my information could be wrong.

> No!  Passing laws right now?  When we don't even
> know what outcomes are 
> stable?  Bleah...

You see why I was objecting to it.

> > And given the US
> > tendency towards smart weapons, if WWIII does seem
> > imminent, what's the chance one side or the other
> will
> > simply assassinate the leaders to encourage regime
> > change (and suceed at it), thereby making total
> > casualties under 1,000?  And, and, and...
> 
> The leaders would be very well protected.

They usually are.  Which is why the US had to develop
weapons specifically to take them out, instead of just
using the same weapons it already had.

> > ... immediate studies are good.
> 
> Glad you agree.  Now... why is no one doing them,
> and how can we change 
> that?

The easiest way?  Start by doing them yourself, which
I think you already are, and start finding ways to get
grants for them.  If scientists smell funding, they
may copy the kinds of studies you do - and, of course,
you know the types of studies you want.