[extropy-chat] Nanoassembly Blueprints using Atomic Resolution MRI

A B austriaaugust at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 5 03:16:05 UTC 2007

Hi Keith,

Keith wrote:

"But if you want to do something to improve the odds
> of a bright future, I 
> have a number of suggestions."

At this point, all ideas will be helpful. Being a
non-genius myself, I don't really know how much I
could usefully contribute, except in the form of
donations to SIAI and the like. Unfortunately, I don't
have a great deal of money to do that with. But I'm
definitely listening to any suggestions you may have.

Best Wishes,

Jeffrey Herrlich

Keith wrote:
--- Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

> At 03:15 PM 4/4/2007 -0700, Jeffrey wrote:
> snip
> >The main "advantages" I was thinking of were a
> >possibly considerable size(space) and weight
> savings
> >for the space colony, plus a potentially much
> simpler
> >(probably cheaper) internal environment. For
> example,
> >if you could just rebuild a strawberry to eat, you
> >wouldn't require any specialized light sources,
> soil,
> >bacteria, nutrients, additional physical space,
> etc.
> The entire problem of feeding people in space was
> worked over in a great 
> deal of detail over 30 years ago.  I can't point you
> to an on-line site, 
> but if you can find a copy of the Space
> Manufacturing Conference for 1975, 
> "how to grow food" is spelled out in considerable
> detail with a pretentious 
> title on the paper.  Incidentally, in space you have
> all the light you 
> want, and area isn't that hard to make either.
> You don't need soil or bacteria.  In a closed
> system, what comes out of the 
> sewage plant incinerator has everything except a bit
> of nitric acid for a 
> hydroponics solution that will keep the plants
> happy.  Now it might 
> eventually be easy to rebuild strawberries to eat,
> but if you are that far 
> into nanotechnology, why not just run on electricity
> and simulate eating a 
> berry?
> >Whatever the case turns out to be, the near future
> >will, without a doubt, be very exciting. :-)
> There is good exciting and bad exciting. 
> Unfortunately, the odds are 
> stacked by the long evolutionary history of our
> species against the future 
> being good.
> But if you want to do something to improve the odds
> of a bright future, I 
> have a number of suggestions.  Even so, the most
> likely number for physical 
> state humans 100 years from now is zero.
> Keith
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org

Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. 
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list