[extropy-chat] Re: Nano-assembler feasibility - politics

[Robert J. Bradbury]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Hal Finney wrote:

> Chris writes:
>
> > In a recent technology post I wrote: One of two events will happen.
> > Either we will built a mechanochemical fabricator, or we will discover a
> > significant error in the theory.

This is a very unproductive approach to the problem.  It assumes that
nanotech requires a nanomechanical fabricator.  And that is clearly wrong.

It assumes that diamondoid or sapphire cannot be fabricated by enzymes.
Or more importantly that *any* material with a high covalent bond
density cannot be fabricated by enzymes.

You have to get *off* the friggen fabricator wagon.  Look at DNA polymerase and
the ribosome -- been there, done that. It is at the nanoscale and it *ain't*
impossible.  So if you are going to have objections they have to be in the
realm of "We can't fabricate that" (which is already a questionable claim
because it is difficult to differentiate the difficult from the impossible.
Once one is in that land it becomes an economic question -- "can one
manufacture it and make a profit?"  In the nanotech world its "oh yes
we can make that but its going to cost you megabucks".  So the bottom line
is whether you can afford megabucks and still make a profit?

ASSERTION: It has been demonstrably proven that it is possible to manufacture
complex chemical structures which contain a significant degree of covalent
bonding at the nanoscale level to be strong (hell one has everything from
tooth enamel to abalone shell to know this) are indeed possible.

CONCLUSION: There will not be any "significant" errors in the theory.
There may however be errors in precisely what the theory allows.
And that may allow for extensions in the theory as we become more clever
than what evolution has bequeathed to us.

BTW: I have proposed the "impossible" in molecular fabrication --
molecular chain mail.  It is likely to be significantly more difficult
to manufacture than Fine Motion Controllers.  If someone could get
it done by self-assembly then my hat would really be off to them
(and I don't take my hat off lightly).  If someone got it to be
done by directed assembly I would believe they had really done a
good job at avoiding the fat-fingers problem.  In either case
such an accomplishment should merit a Nobel Prize.

THOUGHT: EXI and WTA do not set enough goals.  We might perhaps
be more open with what using the current mind-set may be "impossible"
but what might be possible in the future.  (There are examples of
this -- in the mathematics realm for example).  The question is could we
carry it into the extropic/transhumanistic realm?  (Looking for some
convergence with regard to the values that Anders has pointed out
with respect to how do we extend vs. how do we explore?)

It might be reasonable for ExTI/WTA/Foresight to offer up a
top ten goals.  Perhaps even include the government(s) though
I will admit this might be difficult.  But it would at least
give people things to strive for.

Robert