[extropy-chat] Drexler laying down a hand...
robert.bradbury at gmail.com
Sat Mar 3 18:37:05 UTC 2007
Well, well, well, it looks like I get the tidy "hot news that should have
been on the list that wasn't" award for this month.
It looks like the long anticipated "Engines of Creation 2.0" is out.
I have not read it, so don't ask me to comment. But at 646 pages it comes
in at 6 pages less than TSIN. I am not sure if one can buy a cellulose copy
of this (it doesn't come up on Amazon). So now for all of those naysayers
out there (oh, lets see, the names Eugen and Rafal come to mind) may be "on
task" to explain why not.
Also of interest with people following nanotechnology it will be interesting
with such a page count the extent to which Eric may be raking critics over
the coals. (drama in the nanotech world....)
So now, if I can manage to get a printed copy. I can whack nanotechnology
luddites over the coals in the left side of their heads with TSIN and the
right hand side of their heads with EoC2.0. And then maybe on the top of
their heads with NM VI. And if I unfortunately I can only get an electronic
copy of EOC2.0. well the laptop with its downloaded contents will do as a
good substitute for a printed copy.
The problem (maybe) with an international list where people have grown up in
other countries may be the perspective of "cannot' rather than "can". I
would like to hope that we (as rational engines) want the numbers on the
table to say we "can" before we say "can't". Spike didn't ever say they
could not set a lander down on Pluto. He did say it would be very very
hard. And I proposed ways out of the box.
The naysayers do *not* have the numbers on the table which would assert that
a complete nanoechnology enabled reality is not possible in 30 years, or 20
years or 10 years.
If you cannot assert that it is impossible, then why should I stop trying to
make the "impossible" happen?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat