I hear what you're saying, Shannon. If his sister said that he always would take risks when hiking. He may be hurt and stuck outside in the elements. He have had an accident. But after reading the longecity interview/chat and he was talking about some major concerns dealing with the wrong people coming up with MNT before the United States. I'll let the chat speak for its self. The crossed out line are just stupid little jokes. Mostly about fluid pants.
[20:19] <EmilG> That's the time frame you give on the web site, and Chris's new paper details the bootstrapping we can do *once we have the first assembler* ... but you don't say anything about the path from here to the first assembler, or why we should expect that time frame.
[20:21] <Treder> What's happening now is that all kinds of enabling technologies are being developed. Ability to see and manipulate atoms and molecules at the nanoscale...
[20:21] <Treder> ...also software to manage the work going on at that level...
[20:21] <EmilG> But I still remain highly skeptical that a nano-assembler will emerge in the next 20 years.
[20:22] <Treder> ...it's all a work in progress, and as far as we know, there is no dedicated project for building an assembler, but we think it's inevitable that as time goes by and costs reduce and abilities increase, then someone will see the value of an investment.
[20:22] <@BruceK> Emil, there are already biological nano-assemblers.. just a matter of time.. no?
[20:23] <EmilG> BruceK: I know perfectly well that the theory of molecular nanotechnology is sound, and that Drexler's proposals are right. Contra Smalley et al.
[20:24] <Treder> Keep in mind that serious research into this field is still very young and not many people are working on it -- it's amazing that so much has already happened. So when a large nation decides to support a serious effort...
[20:24] <EmilG> But I just don't see anyone interested in molecular nanotechnology outside of a small group of Foresight folks.
[20:24] <Treder>
AFAIK, you are right. We do wonder, though, about China...[20:25] <haploid> EmilG: people who want fluid-proof pants.[20:25] <@BruceK> I think the increase in funding by governments is telling...
[20:25] <EmilG> haploid: That's not real nanotechnology. BruceK: That's not real nanotechnology.
[20:25] <Jonesey> MNT already exists, albeit in messy biological form. getting cleaner with that new artificial virus from Venter's group
[20:25] <outlawpoet> haploid, I have fluid proof pants
[20:26] <outlawpoet> they rock.[20:26] <Jonesey> get real, emilg

[20:26] <EmilG> Sorry if I sound confrontational, but I see nothing to indicate we'll get to an assembler in the next 20 years.
[20:26] <outlawpoet> teflon impregnated artificial fiber.
[20:26] <outlawpoet> they sold them at the GAP for a while.[20:26] <Treder> I honestly hope you are right, Emil. That would make us breathe easier at CRN. Our fear is that the ability will arrive before the world is prepared to handle it safely.
[20:26] <@BruceK> MikeT.. will the assembler be derived from biolocial to man-made.. or a pure man-made?
[20:27] <@MichaelA> Mike: fantastic idea,
translating your website into Chinese![20:27] <Jonesey> EmilG:
You're chatting with a bunch of assemblers right now.[20:27] <@BruceK> Jonesey.. i think he knows this

[20:27] <Treder> Could happen either way, Bruce. But we think dry nano has advantages and will probably get there first.
[20:27] <EmilG> Jonesey: I *know* that; see above. I know man-made assemblers, in theory, can work. I know Drexler is right.
[20:27] <Jonesey>

[20:28] <outlawpoet> dry nano meaning, fully artificial? or something else?
[20:28] <Treder> Fully artificial and designed.
[20:28] <Jonesey> in theory? all of the organisms that are harnessed now to produce specific molecules are, in my mind, a messy biotech.
[20:28] <Jonesey> nanotech wups.
[20:28] <EmilG> outlawpoet: Even with "wet" nano, the goal is to use wet nano to make dry nano.
[20:28] <Jonesey> and it keeps getting cleaner all the time. that seems to me the most promising path to what I think you see as "real" MNT
[20:29] <EmilG> Hmm. I would like to see a paper from CRN, similar to the bootstrapping paper, on getting from here to the first assembler (no matter how crude).
[20:29] <Treder> It appears that molecular manufacturing will most easily be done in a sealed vacuum within a nanofactory.
[20:29] <@BruceK> MikeT, do you give a % chance to the possibiltiy of a nano 911 within the next few decadeds?
[20:29] <Treder> Emil, the paper you describe is one of our next projects.
[20:29] <Treder> Ick, Bruce, what a creepy question.
[20:29] <EmilG> Treder: Cool. Did you see Hal Finney's recent post on Extropy, and Dan Clemmensen's response?
[20:30] <@BruceK> MikeT, it may help give this problem a focus
[20:30] <Treder> I don't want to give a % probability, but I do want to say the possibility is high enough that we MUST prepare -- or better yet, prevent.
[20:30] <Treder> Emil, I didn't see Hal's or Dan's posts. What did they say?
[20:30] <outlawpoet> Do you see a disconnect between the current theories of design, and the theories of fabrication? because I see a great deal of ideas of structures, and a many ideas on how to construct nanotech, but rarely studies on how the two interact.
[20:31] <outlawpoet> It seems that design should follow fabrication, because working at the scale is so hard.
[20:31] <Treder> Outlaw, I'm not sure I understand your question.
[20:31] <outlawpoet> well, there are lots of designs for joints and edges and engines and computers and such.
[20:32] <EmilG> Hal Finney's post: (Link:
http://forum.javien....Mx-LRJnNDQrSFUM[20:32] <outlawpoet> but they don't seem to take into account what is easier and harder to construct.
[20:32] <Treder> Thx!
[20:32] <EmilG> Dan Clemmensen's response: (Link:
http://forum.javien....cC-VWASA0M7MRMV[20:32] <Jonesey> if enough people are mad at you and want to kill you, you're going down. the best way to cut the danger from MNT is to work on some serious global anger management.
[20:32] <Crypsis> heh
[20:32] <Treder> Both have value
[20:32] <outlawpoet> they're designs, without the kind of attention paid to the fabrication process that industrial engineers tend to do for example.
[20:32] <TCI> The possibility of an asteroid hitting Earth is extremely low, but it will happen sooner or later. Same with new technology - it inevitably will be used for brutal purposes, and like other risks, we must prepare to deal with it.
[20:33] <EmilG> Jonesey: Or Friendly AI

[20:33] <Treder> Outlaw, I think both design and fabrication have to go forward, as they can drive each other.
[20:33] <outlawpoet> it seems like the design of nanoscale components should follow theories of fabrication more than theories of design, but I don't see a great deal of exploration of that concept.
[20:34] <outlawpoet> like early machine tools being designed for the possible tolerances at that time.
[20:34] <outlawpoet> as tolerances decreased, different designs became feasible.
[20:35] <Treder> Right. We are pushing for more work on software design, that is CAD tools for MNT product design.
[20:36] <EmilG> Treder: Any idea what Drexler is doing these days?
[20:36] <outlawpoet> can current CAD tools be modified for work in molecular designs?
[20:37] <outlawpoet> or are the rules sufficiently different to require de novo interaces?
[20:37] <Treder> Well, Eric Drexler is on the Board of Advisors for CRN, so he spends at least some time advising us. Lately, though, he's been putting a lot of time into a debate with Richard Smalley which will be published soon.
[20:37] <Jonesey> what are they debating?
[20:38] <Treder> "Is MNT possible?"
[20:38] <Jonesey> haha what a dumb q
[20:38] <Jonesey> how can a living product of mnt ask this q?
[20:38] <Treder> Smalley still says no.
[20:38] <@MichaelA> This article: (Link:
http://www.wired.com...2,59268,00.html[20:38] <Jonesey> it's like asking if carbon life forms are possible.
[20:38] <Treder> And because he's a Nobel Prize winner, a lot of people listen to him.
[20:38] <Jonesey> well look in the mirror.
[20:38] <@MichaelA> "The only work focused on the goal (of molecular machines) is low-level, bootleg research being done by people in their spare time," Drexler said.
[20:38] <@MichaelA> I thought that sounded sort of odd for Drexler to say
[20:38] <EmilG> He's been debating Richard Smalley? I thought he sent an Open Letter to Smalley a while back and didn't get a response, and that was it.
[20:39] <EmilG> MichaelA: But it's true.
[20:39] <@MichaelA> Yet CAD software is constantly improving
[20:39] <Treder> Smalley responded offline, they had an exchange, and it will go public in about two weeks.
[20:39] <@BruceK> MikeT, would you mind answering a few questions about physical immortality?
[20:39] <Treder> OK.
[20:40] <@BruceK> first off.. do you think there's anything after death?
[20:40] <Treder> Not without cryonic suspension and restoration.
[20:40] <Jonesey> u signed up yet mike?
[20:40] <@BruceK> thus, one's consciousnes.. the self is lost forever.. right?
[20:41] <Treder> No, I don't think the technology is matire enough yet to work. But as I get older, I may change my mind!
[20:41] <Jonesey> haha
[20:41] <Treder> Bruce: Yes, the self is a function of the physical brain.
[20:41] <Treder> matire = mature
[20:42] <@BruceK> is the reason why you're working on nano is that you'd like to live longer?
[20:42] <@BruceK> or one of the reasons...
[20:42] <Treder> That's one reason. But even if I succumb to senseless death, I hope to make a contribution that will allow others to live.
[20:43] <@BruceK> that's kind of you
[20:43] <Treder> Aw, it's nothin'
[20:43] <@BruceK> what got you motivated to work with nano?
[20:44] <Treder> Nano has gthe potential to offer radical life extension, perhaps indefinite life -- but first we have to survive the introduction of MNT in the next 10-20 years, and it could get very rocky.
I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist, but some of that sounds good enough to me for an abduction. Or worse. Didn't want to write that last part, but there you go. Mike is a scientist trying to keep science moving in the right, direction. What if someone doesn't want to use MNT in the "right way"? The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology is a voice in the world for anyone with a computer to 'listen to'.
By the way. I'd say about 99.7% of the links in that interview are now broken. Like I said. I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist. I think what I've written already has likely made an already tense situation even more intense. Unless you can all have a laugh at it. I just received the email that Brokenportal sent and then read what I read, watched the news clip. What else can you really expect from a fiction writer. But if thing's do turn out in a bad way. Conspiracy theory, or no. Please offer Mike's family my sincerest condolences.
Jim.
Edited by Wanderer2, 20 March 2012 - 02:45 AM.