[extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility

Robert J. Bradbury bradbury at aeiveos.com
Sun Mar 28 02:04:31 UTC 2004


I'm going to focus on an extremly narrow set of
points in this discussion.  The wider set of the discussion
is very large.  But given the costs (~40 million
lives a year) it is reasonable to attempt to focus.

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> My point was there is no specification for a system to produce an
> assembler of any finite number of parts.

This is not completely accurate.  Eric's specification for his
nanoassembler is reasonably precise (at the 100 nm scale).  Given
the amount of time it took Eric and Ralph to create their molecular
designs and the scale-up required for the assembler I would estimate
you are talking less than five years for a group of clever graduate
students.  The incentive is high -- they would make their careers.
There will be only a few people who will claim "we designed and built
the Drexler nanoassmebler".  Those people will walk on water.
They may also go down in history as being more significant than
Jesus (because they may be able to lay a legitimate claim that
they have actually saved more people).

> And therefore there is no sound basis for either (a) estimating
> how soon that system could be produced such that the first assembler
> could be made, or

Well Zyvex seems to be projecting within 10 years.  (Disclaimer:
I do not know any inside information with respect to Zyvex).  I
simply know Jim to be a good manager and someone who wants to
make nanotechnology happen.  Zyvex in my opinion is in a good
position to take one of the possible fronts.

> (b) suggesting optimisations or streamlines on that design to bring
> the estimated time of arrival or assembly of that first assembler
> forward.

One does not need to discuss this.  There are nanoscale assemblers
now (from DNA polymerase complexes to the ribosome).  The only questions
one needs to ask are with respect to what environments in which they may be
limited to operating and what are the materials they are limited to
assembling?

> If the computer is not part of the assembler then its not a
> self-replicating system, if it is, the parts for the computing
> subsystem have to be included in the parts for building the first
> assembler.

As Christine Peterson recently proposed self-replication is
to be de-emphasized [1] as an component of nanotech.  Though
I may continue to have debates with people such as Robert Freitas
on the topic -- self-replication and nanotech are not tied together.
Though self-replication has been with humanity for thousands of years
and we should have a balanced perspective with respect to its costs
and benefits -- it is not necessary to include it in the nanotechnology
debate.

Robert


1. C. L. Peterson, "The Evolution of Foresight's Message", Foresight Update
53 pgs 2-4.




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list