[extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility

[Eugen Leitl]

On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 10:05:30AM -0500, Technotranscendence wrote:

> I haven't been following this discussion closely, but I feel an
> incremental approach might be necessary here.  Why can't bacteria be
> used as models of what needs be done to make a nanoassembler?  Yes, they

Because the repertoire of chemical structures bacteria can create is quite
limited, as well as their degree of control over the product. Engineered
biology in theory could create a whole set of macroscopic objects, but we
can't do that yet. 

> are not _universal_ nanoassemblers, but they do make more of themselves
> as well as other things.  Can't one just use this as a rough

We can make them to make bread, cheese, wine and beer, but, say, cars?
Houses? Solar panels? Not necessarily impossible, but rather inefficient.
And very very hard.

> approximation of a nanoassembler specification?  (Hopefully, initial
> non-universal nanoassemblers would be a bit less complex than bacteria.

There's nothing particularly complicated about a 3d lithography printer. 
The difficulties are at scaling down the design to nanosccale.

> Why?  At the very least one might eliminate non-essential functions and
> junk parts.)

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org         http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040328/ade90b3f/attachment.bin>