[extropy-chat] Smalley, Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan

[Technotranscendence]

On Sunday, December 07, 2003 10:36 PM Hal Finney hal at finney.org wrote:
> Unfortunately I don't have time to write about all
> the issues that I see regarding the nanotech
> debate, or to organize my thoughts as well as
> I should.  It's disappointing that the recent
> nanotech bill has explicitly removed funding
> for Drexlerian nanotech.  But this just reinforces
> that Brett is right: at least in practice, given the
> current political situation, the burden is on the
> pro nanotech camp to produce a more
> convincing case for the technology.

I think the only thing that will convince some is actual nanotechnology.
That being said, perhaps -- and I don't have time to read your whole
post, so forgive me if you mention (or someone else already mentioned)
this -- the way to turn things around -- and I actually don't mind no
public funding for this:) but I'd like to convince private sponsors and
see the research aboveboard -- is to get critics of nanotech like
Smalley to articulate what would be the minimum short of a full-blown,
working assembler to get them to agree nanotechnology is possible and
even practical.

In other words, one might say to Smalley, if it's possible to build X or
control process Y on a nanoscale, would you agree that it's possible to
have full-blown Drexlertech?  (X and Y would be stuff that is either
doable now or will be doable in short order.)  Smalley can even fill in
the X and Y above -- provided it's not something too off the wall.  (If
he says you have to bring Socrates back to life...:)

35% awake now.

Cheers!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/