prometheus wrote:
If complete and consistent atom level control over matter is not a panacea - not only for the biological but all physical sciences - then I don't know what is.
Imagine I told you a tool could exist that was capable of reading and writing every byte on your computer hard drive (in fact such tools do exist). Would that be a panacea for computer problems? No, because complete knowledge of the operating system would be needed to make repairs. Would tools for reading and writing every byte, AND complete knowledge of what a normal operating system and file system was supposed to look like be a panacea for computer problems? No, because you could still have malfunctions and accidents causing irretrievable loss of data even after things are restored to working order.
So it is with "mature nanotech." That's why atom level control over matter is not a medical panacea. There will always be medical problems that are difficult or impossible to solve, even with atom-level control. But aging (defined as progressive breakdown of functional capacity) is not among them.
For perspective, I recommend the excellent essay by Thomas Donaldson
http://www.alcor.org...rymedicine.htmlwhich is best summarized by the passage:
To understand medicine of the 24th Century, we have to understand the thin line between vulnerability and invulnerability. This line dominates our lives night and day. It is so important that we learn to walk along it without even thinking about it, any more than we think about breathing. And yet, whether we experience happiness or despair depends on where that line falls for us.
The most important point about 24th Century medicine is this: that line will fall elsewhere.
There are no panaceas, only changing problems.
But I'm even more intrigued by your belief in the manifestation of futuristic technology whose scientific principles have yet to be discovered.
There is a voluminous and growing literature on the principles of molecular mechanical machines. You would be surprised at the level of detail this has been worked out. The problem is building the tools to make the tools that will make the tools to make the devices. In my pessimistic view, it's a multi-generational technology bootstrapping problem, not one of basic principle. Then there's also the other side of story, which is the likelihood that most of the anticipated capabilities of molecular mechanical machines will also be achievable with biology-like devices based on diffusion chemistry (the Donaldson view).
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for futuristic technology but I think we may be sending the wrong message and distancing ourselves from the scientific community by emphasizing and overly relying on the achievement of anti-senescence through nanotechnology.
It depends on the context and the audience. Do I think nanotechnology is a good argument to use with health policy makers about how science can extend healthy lifespan of the present work force? No. Do I think nanotechnology is a valid argument to use here on Imminst with other Imminsters to convince them that biological immortality of the brain is possible
in principle? Absolutely.
----BrianW
Edited by bgwowk, 31 October 2005 - 10:42 PM.