Our Positive Nanotech Future
Commentary by Futuretalk
“Grey goo” is a far-fetched fable, not started by any industry conspiracy, but mentioned as a caution by Eric Drexler, known as the father of nanotechnology, when he spoke at the first Life Extension Conference, hosted by Saul Kent and attended by yours truly, in 1983.
The concern was that one day we would develop tiny nanobots able to self-replicate (automatically build copies of themselves), and if there were no built-in safeguards to stop this replication, they would keep replicating, which would force the nanobots to gather more material to convert into more nanobots. Eventually this process would consume all matter on Earth, including us, leaving our planet covered with“grey goo.”
Since then, Drexler has declared there is no cause for alarm. Self-replicating ‘bots would not be able to compete with nature, which is also “self-replicating”. In fact, many scientists believe that nature’s ‘bots would quickly destroy man-made nanobots if they were turned loose in the environment.
How about the hazards posed by nanoparticles released in the air. “One of the dangers of talking about risks is that it can prompt knee-jerk reactions in some people,” says Mike Treder, Executive Director of The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. “There are indeed serious risks, and many of them are quite worrisome. The answer, however, is not to hide our heads in the sand and hope nanotech will go away, because it won’t. Sooner or later, someone will develop MNT, and it will be very disruptive. We need to perform a thorough, rational exploration of all the problems that may arise, and then seek effective solutions.” Will this positive, but cautionary approach become reality for nanotech development? This writer believes it will.
Positive examples of nanotech products are already beginning to surface. Nanoshells and nanowires hold promise that some researchers believe could make all cancers manageable by as early as 2015 or before. Already, many clothiers are utilizing nano products that keep clothes wrinkle-free, and by 2010, will be able to make clothes change texture and color on command.
The first crude nano assembler is expected to appear some time between 2010 and 2020, which by around mid-2020s may result in nanobots cruising through our bodies keeping us in perfect health, eliminating aging signs, plus counter-top replicators in our homes providing some material goods at little cost. We have seen Star Trek’s Captain Picard order tea from the ship’s computer, and soon, you will voice a command to your kitchen replicator and order anything your heart desires – and your only costs could be Internet-delivered programming formulas and inexpensive raw matter.
Think positive and this positive nanotech future could one day become part of your life!
Comments welcome.
Today, the world spends about $1,000 billion annually on military expenditures. More than 30 percent of this total is marked for creating new nano weapons, along with defenses against many of those weapons.
Sweden and the U.S. dedicate the largest portions of their budgets towards nano defense. DARPA is even dreaming of one day developing a product called “nanodust” that would non-invasively enter the minds of enemy combatants and terrorists and convince them to become non-hostile.
Could a wild technology like this evolve into a future time of creating a world full of brain-washed, but peaceful humans? As Orwellian as this sounds, positive futurists believe this, along with tomorrow’s neuron enhancement technologies providing everyone with millions of times more intelligence, has an outside chance of eliminating all hostile actions that are the result of harmful thoughts.
How ironic it would be if Earth’s massive military budget would eventually contribute to something good for society – security systems that would help world peace finally become reality.
Sweden and the U.S. dedicate the largest portions of their budgets towards nano defense. DARPA is even dreaming of one day developing a product called “nanodust” that would non-invasively enter the minds of enemy combatants and terrorists and convince them to become non-hostile.
Could a wild technology like this evolve into a future time of creating a world full of brain-washed, but peaceful humans? As Orwellian as this sounds, positive futurists believe this, along with tomorrow’s neuron enhancement technologies providing everyone with millions of times more intelligence, has an outside chance of eliminating all hostile actions that are the result of harmful thoughts.
How ironic it would be if Earth’s massive military budget would eventually contribute to something good for society – security systems that would help world peace finally become reality.
QUOTE (Futuretalk+Apr 16 2007, 12:50 AM)
“Grey goo” is a far-fetched fable, not started by any industry conspiracy, but mentioned as a caution by Eric Drexler, known as the father of nanotechnology, when he spoke at the first Life Extension Conference, hosted by Saul Kent and attended by yours truly, in 1983.
I've read several writings by Drexler on teh subject of grey-goo. I agree that it is unlikely. It was originaly a worst possible case scenario.
Grey goo could never be developed by accident. There would have to be a considerable effort put into making such a self-replicating machine. It is much more likely that nanomachines are produced within relatively large (by nanotech standards) factories. That doesn't mean that manufactured nanomachines couldn't be used as formidable weapons.
I've read several writings by Drexler on teh subject of grey-goo. I agree that it is unlikely. It was originaly a worst possible case scenario.
Grey goo could never be developed by accident. There would have to be a considerable effort put into making such a self-replicating machine. It is much more likely that nanomachines are produced within relatively large (by nanotech standards) factories. That doesn't mean that manufactured nanomachines couldn't be used as formidable weapons.
QUOTE (Futuretalk+Apr 16 2007, 04:32 AM)
Sweden and the U.S. dedicate the largest portions of their budgets towards nano defense. DARPA is even dreaming of one day developing a product called “nanodust” that would non-invasively enter the minds of enemy combatants and terrorists and convince them to become non-hostile.
Far easier to make it lethal.
I think smart dust is more likely to be used for intelligence. It isn't battlefields where this would have the greatest benefit, but in situations lke Iraq where terrorists hide within the rest of the population.
The effort to develop the human programming required for mind control would make this sort of tech a long way off. It would be much more beneficial to use smart dust to track and watch whole populations, probably monitored by an AI. As soon as people start acting suspicious, they can be reported, tracked and either arrested or killed.
This is a frightening technology. I don't really want governments, or worse corporations, controlling this level of tech. Still, it is less scary than the mind control you are suggesting.
Far easier to make it lethal.
I think smart dust is more likely to be used for intelligence. It isn't battlefields where this would have the greatest benefit, but in situations lke Iraq where terrorists hide within the rest of the population.
The effort to develop the human programming required for mind control would make this sort of tech a long way off. It would be much more beneficial to use smart dust to track and watch whole populations, probably monitored by an AI. As soon as people start acting suspicious, they can be reported, tracked and either arrested or killed.
This is a frightening technology. I don't really want governments, or worse corporations, controlling this level of tech. Still, it is less scary than the mind control you are suggesting.
Government-controlled AI searching through our minds to locate potential dangerous individuals and prevent them from harming innocents may appear to diminish privacy rights, but if it saves humans from suffering needless deaths, then it would certainly be justified.
This would not only save likes (like the 32 Virginia Tech students killed by a deranged person earlier this week), but would offer a sense of security and peace to everyone.
I cannot see this technology developing before the “Singularity” arrives, possibly mid-2030s or so; and by that time, advanced intelligence could design this type of “mind-searching” in ways that would not take away from our privacy rights.
I don’t think any scientist can imagine this system today, but with expected future intelligence billions of times greater than can be created with today’s limited brains, a futuristic mind-monitoring system could become reality. And the world will be much better off because of it.
These are just some thoughts.
This would not only save likes (like the 32 Virginia Tech students killed by a deranged person earlier this week), but would offer a sense of security and peace to everyone.
I cannot see this technology developing before the “Singularity” arrives, possibly mid-2030s or so; and by that time, advanced intelligence could design this type of “mind-searching” in ways that would not take away from our privacy rights.
I don’t think any scientist can imagine this system today, but with expected future intelligence billions of times greater than can be created with today’s limited brains, a futuristic mind-monitoring system could become reality. And the world will be much better off because of it.
These are just some thoughts.
QUOTE (N O M+Apr 19 2007, 02:18 AM)
Grey goo could never be developed by accident.
Well, if humans can develop from a cesspool by accident than maybe gray goo can too
I'm not all tongue-and-cheek though. I saw this link in another thread:
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/598-1.html
Well, if humans can develop from a cesspool by accident than maybe gray goo can too
I'm not all tongue-and-cheek though. I saw this link in another thread:
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/598-1.html
The grey-goo scenario means that the nanobots would need to have the ability to dismantle (eat) anything and also be able to build copies of themselves using the resources they have created.
We know about the grey-goo scenario. We can't use the excuse that we have developed nanomachines with this capability by accident.
Maybe nanobots could evolve, but they will only do this if we design them this way.
I'm not saying that someone can't or won't build them deliberately. This is a very real risk. But to actually achieve grey-goo nanobots would be a massive achievement.
We know about the grey-goo scenario. We can't use the excuse that we have developed nanomachines with this capability by accident.
Maybe nanobots could evolve, but they will only do this if we design them this way.
I'm not saying that someone can't or won't build them deliberately. This is a very real risk. But to actually achieve grey-goo nanobots would be a massive achievement.
A gray goo type of scenario in nanobotetry, would mean that not only could the active hive colonies of nanobot swarms find raw materials to convert to what they are, by manufacturing symbiosis; it would have to be that mankind, would almost be complete gone.
This is a scenario similar to the physical side of the movie Matrix Reloaded, however, with far less people.
This would have to mean, that mankind would almost be gone and the nanobots be living on a once industrialized abandoned world.
I don't think that this will happen.
However the following could.
There might be effected from both junkyards, battlefields and crash sites, to where self intelligent nanobots might be releases into the wilds.
These colonies might organize themselves.Then in some way para, or join to biological like configurations.
Since these colonies would more than likely be unmonitored, they might seek out both food sources, or substances, that they could subsist on.
This might, or might not be a hostile living colony, to any other organism, that would be corporeal by nature.
This is a scenario similar to the physical side of the movie Matrix Reloaded, however, with far less people.
This would have to mean, that mankind would almost be gone and the nanobots be living on a once industrialized abandoned world.
I don't think that this will happen.
However the following could.
There might be effected from both junkyards, battlefields and crash sites, to where self intelligent nanobots might be releases into the wilds.
These colonies might organize themselves.Then in some way para, or join to biological like configurations.
Since these colonies would more than likely be unmonitored, they might seek out both food sources, or substances, that they could subsist on.
This might, or might not be a hostile living colony, to any other organism, that would be corporeal by nature.
One of the reasons that naysayers and pessimists garner so much support from the public is that they paint a picture of future dangers assuming they will be released in the context of today’s unprepared world.
The reality is that the sophistication and power of our defensive knowledge and technologies will grow along with the dangers. Ray Kurzweil, in his book “The Singularity is near,” says that “grey goo” could be countered with “blue goo,” “police” nanobots that combat the “bad” nanobots.
“Blue goo” could be forever present and ready to detect the slightest abnormal molecular activity anywhere in the world and immediately launch protective measures.
There will be many futuristic technologies developed that could also be used to harm humanity, but as we evolve the intelligence to create these new products, the knowledge of how to protect society from new dangers could also be developed.
This writer believes, however, that there is a huge danger in current technologies like nuclear bombs, biotech pathogens, and other horrific products that can be used as a weapon of mass destruction by terrorists. I see these products causing millions of deaths some time in the next decade or so, before technology can create adequate defenses. I hope it doesn’t happen, but sadly, it probably will.
The reality is that the sophistication and power of our defensive knowledge and technologies will grow along with the dangers. Ray Kurzweil, in his book “The Singularity is near,” says that “grey goo” could be countered with “blue goo,” “police” nanobots that combat the “bad” nanobots.
“Blue goo” could be forever present and ready to detect the slightest abnormal molecular activity anywhere in the world and immediately launch protective measures.
There will be many futuristic technologies developed that could also be used to harm humanity, but as we evolve the intelligence to create these new products, the knowledge of how to protect society from new dangers could also be developed.
This writer believes, however, that there is a huge danger in current technologies like nuclear bombs, biotech pathogens, and other horrific products that can be used as a weapon of mass destruction by terrorists. I see these products causing millions of deaths some time in the next decade or so, before technology can create adequate defenses. I hope it doesn’t happen, but sadly, it probably will.
Blue goo, I like that idea, though the paranoid loonies like philip331 might not. They would be constantly claiming that they are being mind controlled by it. Oh hang on, philip330 is claiming this already 
FT, I've enjoyed this thread so far.
Im not being a pessimist on this subject, however more similar to a Darwinian, in my views.
This blue goo, may not react to mankind at all.
However, by and large, bacterias and others germs, tend to be more exploratory, then aggressive, than large animals.
In the Galapagos Islands, for example, there were some species of birds, that had no fear of mankind, new to that region.
The reason was, is that man had not entered into the predatory list, so some of these animals had no reason to fear man.
If the capability to exploit is placed on the other foot and it is vast colonies of nanobots gone wild, can then exploit mankind, then there might be that ability for them to do so.
Im not being a pessimist on this subject, however more similar to a Darwinian, in my views.
This blue goo, may not react to mankind at all.
However, by and large, bacterias and others germs, tend to be more exploratory, then aggressive, than large animals.
In the Galapagos Islands, for example, there were some species of birds, that had no fear of mankind, new to that region.
The reason was, is that man had not entered into the predatory list, so some of these animals had no reason to fear man.
If the capability to exploit is placed on the other foot and it is vast colonies of nanobots gone wild, can then exploit mankind, then there might be that ability for them to do so.
QUOTE (philip347+Apr 24 2007, 11:41 AM)
This blue goo, may not react to mankind at all.
This won't be by accident. The blue goo can only exist if we make an enormous effort to make it. It would be designed to be benign to anything except rogue nanobots.
This won't be by accident. The blue goo can only exist if we make an enormous effort to make it. It would be designed to be benign to anything except rogue nanobots.
What exacly is blue goo?
In his book, “The Singularity is Near”, Kurzweil describes Blue Goo as “police nanobots that combat the bad Grey Goo nanobots.”
One possible paranoid future is where hostile nanobots are developed specifically targeted to kill individuals, or even people with certain DNA sequences. To be safe from this, everyone would have their own little army of blue-goo nanobots to protect them
QUOTE (N O M+May 3 2007, 03:47 AM)
One possible paranoid future is where hostile nanobots are developed specifically targeted to kill individuals, or even people with certain DNA sequences. To be safe from this, everyone would have their own little army of blue-goo nanobots to protect them
Yikes! I hope it doesn’t happen.
But I suppose a scenario like this would certainly be possible.
Yikes! I hope it doesn’t happen.
But I suppose a scenario like this would certainly be possible.
Sorry Futuretech. The discussion of grey-goo is getting right off the topic of a positive nanotech future.
Uses of nanotech are becoming commonplace now. Evidence for this is today's news item Garments treated with metallic nanoparticles prevent colds and flu. OK, it's just using nanopowders in clothing, but it is a start.
The clothes in this article sound very similar to high-tech clothing used in the sci-fi bookThe Many Coloured Land by Julian May.
I'm still a little sceptical about your prediction of nanobots by the 2030s, but we are going in the right direction.
Uses of nanotech are becoming commonplace now. Evidence for this is today's news item Garments treated with metallic nanoparticles prevent colds and flu. OK, it's just using nanopowders in clothing, but it is a start.
The clothes in this article sound very similar to high-tech clothing used in the sci-fi bookThe Many Coloured Land by Julian May.
I'm still a little sceptical about your prediction of nanobots by the 2030s, but we are going in the right direction.
Most experts including Eric Drexler, Hans Moravec, Ray Kurzweil, and Nanorex Chief Scientist J. Storrs Hall all believe that civilization will not come to an end with anything like Grey Goo.
Drexler says that preventative measures would stop rogue nanobots before they could accomplish much damage.
Of course, Earth could get smashed by an asteroid coming so fast that we could not prepare a defense; terrorists could release pathogens that would develop immunity to any of our defenses.
But if we really want to focus on what’s dangerous, how about the more than 50-million humans who die each year on Earth – many from old-age related sicknesses, some from genocides like Darfur, or from AIDS, accidents, crime, war, and a host of other situations.
Nearly all of these deaths would be eliminated with 2030s technologies; many with 2020s breakthroughs, and some even with stem cell therapies and genetic engineering procedures that could be available as early as the next decade.
Think of it – in ten years a half billion people will be gone forever. They will not laugh, play, work, or contribute to society in any way.
If leaders from every developed nation in the world would come to recognize that an indefinite lifespan will one day become possible for everyone, and all unwanted deaths eliminated, they could rally support from their populations and develop technologies at a faster rate and stop the slaughter.
Comments welcome.
Drexler says that preventative measures would stop rogue nanobots before they could accomplish much damage.
Of course, Earth could get smashed by an asteroid coming so fast that we could not prepare a defense; terrorists could release pathogens that would develop immunity to any of our defenses.
But if we really want to focus on what’s dangerous, how about the more than 50-million humans who die each year on Earth – many from old-age related sicknesses, some from genocides like Darfur, or from AIDS, accidents, crime, war, and a host of other situations.
Nearly all of these deaths would be eliminated with 2030s technologies; many with 2020s breakthroughs, and some even with stem cell therapies and genetic engineering procedures that could be available as early as the next decade.
Think of it – in ten years a half billion people will be gone forever. They will not laugh, play, work, or contribute to society in any way.
If leaders from every developed nation in the world would come to recognize that an indefinite lifespan will one day become possible for everyone, and all unwanted deaths eliminated, they could rally support from their populations and develop technologies at a faster rate and stop the slaughter.
Comments welcome.
The asteroid scenario is one where nanotech will play a large part in solving.
Nanotech will allow us to develop orbital detection arrays to identify potential planet-killers. I bet the array won't be built for such a purpose though. What will get the detection array developed is the potential value of such orbiting objects.
Though nanotech will make it much cheaper to lift things into orbit, it will be much cheaper to use resources already in space. Rogue asteroids and comets become both goldmines and a convenient transport to the outer system.
So, in a compromise between cynicism and optimism, what gets "spun" as planetary defences will actually be a business venture. But ultimately it's a win-win.
Nanotech will allow us to develop orbital detection arrays to identify potential planet-killers. I bet the array won't be built for such a purpose though. What will get the detection array developed is the potential value of such orbiting objects.
Though nanotech will make it much cheaper to lift things into orbit, it will be much cheaper to use resources already in space. Rogue asteroids and comets become both goldmines and a convenient transport to the outer system.
So, in a compromise between cynicism and optimism, what gets "spun" as planetary defences will actually be a business venture. But ultimately it's a win-win.
Am I crazy here for thinking this??? I do not want robots in my body controlled by other people... I will probably kill myself instead of letting this happen and I have taken an oath not to kill myself lol... For realz you ppl are talking about turning humanity into a new race one that thinks vastly more like machiens then humans is that what you really want? Its like you have a magical dragon that grants wishes and your first wish was "turn me into a robot"... Try thinking about what this means for any family you have how will they be effected by nanotechnology in the future? Is this something they will all understand when it happens to them? Or will some of them have this technology forced down the mouth and swallow it without even having a clue as to what really was put there... And as for AI... What the hell right do we humans have for bringing another life into existance without knowing how to raise it? PPL who have children without knowledge of how to raise one are bad enoth... Now your talking about making a child that pretty much the whole of humanity will have no clue what to do with and or fear it omg good bye sane world and hello crazy town...
The current Futuretalk piece, “Merging with Machines inevitable, scientists say” which is posted in the “General Science” section, addresses many of your concerns.
QUOTE (magpies+Jun 17 2007, 03:09 AM)
And as for AI... What the hell right do we humans have for bringing another life into existance without knowing how to raise it? PPL who have children without knowledge of how to raise one are bad enoth... Now your talking about making a child that pretty much the whole of humanity will have no clue what to do with and or fear it omg good bye sane world and hello crazy town...
Yet this is inevitable. Al you have to do is extrapolatethe present pace of progress and AI isn't too far off.
Whether we have the right or not is irrelevant. It wil happen, so we better be ready.
Yet this is inevitable. Al you have to do is extrapolatethe present pace of progress and AI isn't too far off.
Whether we have the right or not is irrelevant. It wil happen, so we better be ready.
Bright future unfolding ahead
The future looks more exciting every month. We often think of the good old days as part of our nostalgic past, but projected technology breakthroughs suggest truly great and exciting days will be in our future.
In the 20th century, we learned a lot about basic science and our world. Now, we are just beginning to exploit this knowledge and we find there is so much more to learn. In the 21st century we will make more technological progress than we have since we invented the wheel; we will begin to truly master our bodies and the environment. The most significant technologies; IT, materials, biotech, nanotech, and space, are the driving forces carrying us into this future.
What role will AI play in humanity’s future? Time will tell.
Comments welcome
The future looks more exciting every month. We often think of the good old days as part of our nostalgic past, but projected technology breakthroughs suggest truly great and exciting days will be in our future.
In the 20th century, we learned a lot about basic science and our world. Now, we are just beginning to exploit this knowledge and we find there is so much more to learn. In the 21st century we will make more technological progress than we have since we invented the wheel; we will begin to truly master our bodies and the environment. The most significant technologies; IT, materials, biotech, nanotech, and space, are the driving forces carrying us into this future.
What role will AI play in humanity’s future? Time will tell.
Comments welcome
Hey Futuretalk,
Haev you read the article Isaac Newton saw end of world in 2060?
2060 is pretty close to your predictions for singularity.
Haev you read the article Isaac Newton saw end of world in 2060?
2060 is pretty close to your predictions for singularity.
People have been predicting the end of the world since… well, ever since we first began to use language to communicate with each other.
Newton made his prediction based on biblical prophesies (see article http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1393 ).
Today, most physicists believe life on Earth will die out when our sun makes its final gasp, which is a long way into the future.
Some theoretical physicists believe our universe will eventually die out. When? Take a 1 and add 200 zeros to it; that’s a long time from today.
However, Michio Kaku and other positive thinkers believe that before this happens, we will develop the knowledge of how to “universe hop.” We will simply move to another universe and keep on trucking.
The world will not end anytime soon, and we will soon be able to make this statement when referring to our lifespan, as we make progress towards achieving an indefinite lifespan – hopefully by mid-century or before.
Newton made his prediction based on biblical prophesies (see article http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1393 ).
Today, most physicists believe life on Earth will die out when our sun makes its final gasp, which is a long way into the future.
Some theoretical physicists believe our universe will eventually die out. When? Take a 1 and add 200 zeros to it; that’s a long time from today.
However, Michio Kaku and other positive thinkers believe that before this happens, we will develop the knowledge of how to “universe hop.” We will simply move to another universe and keep on trucking.
The world will not end anytime soon, and we will soon be able to make this statement when referring to our lifespan, as we make progress towards achieving an indefinite lifespan – hopefully by mid-century or before.
I really hope we get past this insanly boring materialistic world we're living in at the moment. Nanotechnology seems to be a viable way of riding ourself from the worst downsides of capitalism.
However I cannot imagine how the world economy would operate at all when people can build just about anything at home nearly free.
However I cannot imagine how the world economy would operate at all when people can build just about anything at home nearly free.
Fourth generation nanotechnology—molecular manufacturing—will make it possible to make or copy physical objects almost as easily and cheaply as data is produced and copied now. This could, some positive futurists claim, lead to the end of world commerce; possibly some time during the 22nd century.
Comments welcome.
Comments welcome.
Based on my admittedly limited understanding of technologies and human behavior:
6 or 7 years ago, I sat down and thought about biotechnology, nanotechnology, and the eventual merging of the two.
I concluded that humanity as a functional civilization had roughly a 50/50 change of making it 50 years. The rough basis of this is:
1. I see extremely dangerous technology being more and more controllable by small groups and ultimately single individuals. This makes it a near certainty that BAD people will do BAD things with the technologies.
2. The only reasonable defense I see against this is an extremely open worldwide push to master these technologies. This I believe will provide the shear numbers and creativity of knowledgeable people that will be able to counter attacks from # 1 and or any accidents from everyone else.
3. I expect we will fall to the wayside if most of the countries attempt to seriously curtail study into these technologies. This would have minimal effect in keeping the technology from those afore mentioned small groups/individuals but would have a huge effect in the base of knowledgeable and creative folks that would be needed to deal with attacks.
4. If we can push our knowledge we will get to a point where everyone will have their own nano upgraded defense/immune system. Such would act to protect their owner/carrier as well as serving as forward defense and information gathering systems to enable more robust industrial/military responses to broad attacks.
I expected #4 to take approx. 50 or now 43 years. Mind you, I don't think we will or even should get perfect safety, but I do believe that the danger to the species will be effectively over when that is accomplished.
Ward
6 or 7 years ago, I sat down and thought about biotechnology, nanotechnology, and the eventual merging of the two.
I concluded that humanity as a functional civilization had roughly a 50/50 change of making it 50 years. The rough basis of this is:
1. I see extremely dangerous technology being more and more controllable by small groups and ultimately single individuals. This makes it a near certainty that BAD people will do BAD things with the technologies.
2. The only reasonable defense I see against this is an extremely open worldwide push to master these technologies. This I believe will provide the shear numbers and creativity of knowledgeable people that will be able to counter attacks from # 1 and or any accidents from everyone else.
3. I expect we will fall to the wayside if most of the countries attempt to seriously curtail study into these technologies. This would have minimal effect in keeping the technology from those afore mentioned small groups/individuals but would have a huge effect in the base of knowledgeable and creative folks that would be needed to deal with attacks.
4. If we can push our knowledge we will get to a point where everyone will have their own nano upgraded defense/immune system. Such would act to protect their owner/carrier as well as serving as forward defense and information gathering systems to enable more robust industrial/military responses to broad attacks.
I expected #4 to take approx. 50 or now 43 years. Mind you, I don't think we will or even should get perfect safety, but I do believe that the danger to the species will be effectively over when that is accomplished.
Ward
Ward,
I agree that it may not be all honey and roses as we trek into our “magical future” time. In fact, I can see where terrorists have an excellent chance of building weapons of mass destruction from biotech and/or nanotech materials and launching them in Europe and the U.S. possibly killing millions of innocent people within the next twenty years. London, New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago seem the likely targets for these horrific activities.
However, I do not see this slowing down development of molecular nanotech, quantum computing, or strong AI systems. If anything, seeing the awesome destructive power of our new technologies could even strengthen public resolve to develop these systems for the greater good of humanity.
Should two or three million die in WMD terrorist attacks, this would not even cause a dent in civilization’s march forward. When you think about it, today, more than 50 million people die each year; most from age related sicknesses and diseases of which nearly all would be saved with 2030s technologies; many with 2020s breakthroughs, and even some would survive with next decade’s stem cell therapies and genetic engineering marvels that promise to grow new tissues and organs to replace aging and worn body parts.
I do not see anything that will drastically slow human progress in accomplishing projections by positive futurists over the next fifty years. I think it’s a go, and many of us alive today can expect to become part of this miracle time. Color me optimistic, but that’s my take.
Futuretalk
I agree that it may not be all honey and roses as we trek into our “magical future” time. In fact, I can see where terrorists have an excellent chance of building weapons of mass destruction from biotech and/or nanotech materials and launching them in Europe and the U.S. possibly killing millions of innocent people within the next twenty years. London, New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago seem the likely targets for these horrific activities.
However, I do not see this slowing down development of molecular nanotech, quantum computing, or strong AI systems. If anything, seeing the awesome destructive power of our new technologies could even strengthen public resolve to develop these systems for the greater good of humanity.
Should two or three million die in WMD terrorist attacks, this would not even cause a dent in civilization’s march forward. When you think about it, today, more than 50 million people die each year; most from age related sicknesses and diseases of which nearly all would be saved with 2030s technologies; many with 2020s breakthroughs, and even some would survive with next decade’s stem cell therapies and genetic engineering marvels that promise to grow new tissues and organs to replace aging and worn body parts.
I do not see anything that will drastically slow human progress in accomplishing projections by positive futurists over the next fifty years. I think it’s a go, and many of us alive today can expect to become part of this miracle time. Color me optimistic, but that’s my take.
Futuretalk
There is a great positive possibility for Nanotech in the future...as there is a great propensity for it's misuse by humanity. We need to look at both ends and admit that we don't know what in the world someone will use it for. We do not have the luxury of just imagining that it is a wonderful walk in the park as it is potentially the most dangerous creation of man ever...and on top of that we are just imitating nature though perhaps in a less open manner.
Blue goo could potentially TURN INTO Gray goo. If it gets out of our control in it's self replication by replacing a few atoms or strings of molecules we have no clue what it would become. The only way to make sure it becomes inert is to design it will fully thought out destructive possibilities and then engineer it to be incapable of anything else. Even then extensive monitoring with another goo of one sort or another in a kind of self regulating net would probably be needed. Simulating nature at it's finest really.
Yes the technologies could be used for great things but why do we need to force humanity to do those things that we think best for it? War must be stopped you say, violent impulses controlled by smart dust. Where is the humanity in not allowing someone to conquer their own impulses? Wouldn't we be losing our humanity by letting a designed drug make us inhuman?
There are hundred of capabilities that will bring about wonderful things. We will one day be able to live for extended amounts of time...but it always raises questions. Will those in power forgo their power to the younger generations? Will we be able to set aside thinking that WE are the only ones who hold the Truth with a capital T and that those younger than us are still children to be taken care of?
The problem for the future isn't the nanotechnology but the fact that we as scientists cannot make the rest of humanity catch up with where we are in our human ethic. We have made hundreds of laws that benefit us...and the human heart is still racing to catch up.
Blue goo could potentially TURN INTO Gray goo. If it gets out of our control in it's self replication by replacing a few atoms or strings of molecules we have no clue what it would become. The only way to make sure it becomes inert is to design it will fully thought out destructive possibilities and then engineer it to be incapable of anything else. Even then extensive monitoring with another goo of one sort or another in a kind of self regulating net would probably be needed. Simulating nature at it's finest really.
Yes the technologies could be used for great things but why do we need to force humanity to do those things that we think best for it? War must be stopped you say, violent impulses controlled by smart dust. Where is the humanity in not allowing someone to conquer their own impulses? Wouldn't we be losing our humanity by letting a designed drug make us inhuman?
There are hundred of capabilities that will bring about wonderful things. We will one day be able to live for extended amounts of time...but it always raises questions. Will those in power forgo their power to the younger generations? Will we be able to set aside thinking that WE are the only ones who hold the Truth with a capital T and that those younger than us are still children to be taken care of?
The problem for the future isn't the nanotechnology but the fact that we as scientists cannot make the rest of humanity catch up with where we are in our human ethic. We have made hundreds of laws that benefit us...and the human heart is still racing to catch up.
Hey, glass half-full people enjoy better health and live longer. Think positive and a piece of that "magical future" could be yours to enjoy!
I did appear rather gloom and doom.
I've considerable hope and believe that if we get through the next 50 years we will be entering a golden age. There will still be plenty of adjustments but for anyone who is even remotely adaptable the future from there one should be outstanding.
Ward
I've considerable hope and believe that if we get through the next 50 years we will be entering a golden age. There will still be plenty of adjustments but for anyone who is even remotely adaptable the future from there one should be outstanding.
Ward
The only fatal issues I see that might prevent humanity from reaching mid-century would be (1) an asteroid, traveling faster than our tracking systems can track, would smash into our planet killing all life; or (2) we would be eradicated by a super-advanced alien race that believes an ape-like species worshipping an imaginary sky god would contaminate their galaxy.
I do not see us destroying ourselves. Even if today’s wars, terrorist attacks, and world crime began using WMDs, I believe that civilization would survive and advancing AI, quantum computing and molecular nanotech would come to our rescue.
I think we will experience our “magical future” in the last half of this century and begin solving problems like warp speed space travel, developing wormholes to shoot information instantly to anywhere in the universe breaking the faster-than-light speed barrier, and sending nanobots back and forward through time to create amazing new levels of intelligence.
Comments welcome.
I do not see us destroying ourselves. Even if today’s wars, terrorist attacks, and world crime began using WMDs, I believe that civilization would survive and advancing AI, quantum computing and molecular nanotech would come to our rescue.
I think we will experience our “magical future” in the last half of this century and begin solving problems like warp speed space travel, developing wormholes to shoot information instantly to anywhere in the universe breaking the faster-than-light speed barrier, and sending nanobots back and forward through time to create amazing new levels of intelligence.
Comments welcome.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.