[extropy-chat] Cryonics is the only option?
hkhenson at rogers.com
Tue Apr 17 08:11:39 UTC 2007
At 11:50 AM 4/17/2007 +1000, Brett wrote:
>Okay, let me ask you straight then.
>On what basis do you think machine phase chemistry is "definately"
Better than 50 years of studying chemistry. I studied organic (still have
the textbook) when I was in the 9th grade.
>I'm assuming you are aware of Smalleys fat and sticky fingers criticisms of
It took Drexler years, but Smalley came out second best in the December
2003 Chemical and Engineering News which carried a 4 part debate exchanges.
They are linked from Drexler's Wikipedia page.
>Life molecules like proteins assemble in compartments containing
>water. Machine phase chemistry as I understand it is essentially
>watery-solution free chemistry. Without a watery solution how do you see
>machine phase chemistry managing the folding of proteins?
Straw man. It is unlikely you would build and fold proteins in a machine
You might note that I came to cryonics only *after* Drexler's work
convinced me that machine phase chemistry, i.e., nanotechnology, was a very
reasonable bet in the long run.
More information about the extropy-chat