Exponentially Accelerating Nanobots?
One claim endlessly made by the Transhumanists is that technology is exponentially-accelerating. For instance, here is Eric Drexler on the subject of molecular manufacturing:
"In laboratories around the world, researchers are developing useful products and providing instruments, techniques and nanoscale components that will enable the development of future productive nanosystems."
However, a search for "nanobot" produced just three hits in the Science Citation Index, all journalistic pieces:
1. A. Moore, "Waiter, there's a nanobot in my martini! As nanotechnology gives birth to nanobiotechnology, definitions and perceptions are at risk of becoming mixed into an exotic cocktail," EMBO Reports 5 (5): 448-450 (2004).
2. "Nanobot dream comes true," Chem. In Britain 39 (8): 12 (2003).
3. S. Ashley, "Nanobot construction crews - Nanotechnology visionaries find out how difficult it is to develop minuscule robots that can treat diseases or perform pollution-free manufacturing," Sci. Amer. 285 (3): 84-85 (2001).
Now, for a real science or technology you will get thousands of hits. If I put in "Molecular Manufacturing" I get 20 hits, which is a bit better but still not indicative of a growing accelerating field, especially when you consider that most of those 20 are written by Drexler or his followers.
So, Drexler's version of nanotechnology simply isn't anything we need to concern ourselves with. There is no large-scale research effort going on right now to make tiny little assemblers or robots that will manipulate molecules. Nanotechnology today is concerned with making new functional materials not little robots.
"In laboratories around the world, researchers are developing useful products and providing instruments, techniques and nanoscale components that will enable the development of future productive nanosystems."
However, a search for "nanobot" produced just three hits in the Science Citation Index, all journalistic pieces:
1. A. Moore, "Waiter, there's a nanobot in my martini! As nanotechnology gives birth to nanobiotechnology, definitions and perceptions are at risk of becoming mixed into an exotic cocktail," EMBO Reports 5 (5): 448-450 (2004).
2. "Nanobot dream comes true," Chem. In Britain 39 (8): 12 (2003).
3. S. Ashley, "Nanobot construction crews - Nanotechnology visionaries find out how difficult it is to develop minuscule robots that can treat diseases or perform pollution-free manufacturing," Sci. Amer. 285 (3): 84-85 (2001).
Now, for a real science or technology you will get thousands of hits. If I put in "Molecular Manufacturing" I get 20 hits, which is a bit better but still not indicative of a growing accelerating field, especially when you consider that most of those 20 are written by Drexler or his followers.
So, Drexler's version of nanotechnology simply isn't anything we need to concern ourselves with. There is no large-scale research effort going on right now to make tiny little assemblers or robots that will manipulate molecules. Nanotechnology today is concerned with making new functional materials not little robots.
ok, i admire the honest skepticism on this site, but it needs to be richer in terms of describing what itll be like in the future.
look, it may not be rk's future exactly, theres a pull for open-loop feedback cycles that diminish the value and credibility of some of these predictions.
But, he's trying, and his vision is magnetic to a great many people. the answer is not to deny that there will be any progress as a compensating counterweight for rk's exuberance. the answer is to present the real alternative.
is there a real, "divinable" alternative? well, yes, and its unlike anything else youve ever seen.
Reply to this