From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Tue Aug 20 2002 - 21:36:26 MDT
On Tuesday, August 20, 2002, at 10:31 pm, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Harvey Newstrom, commenting on my sci-fi comments
> wrote:
>
>> I think it is fantasy to consider self-replicating nanotech versus
>> Saddam. Saddam will die of old age long before nanotech
>> self-replicating luxury homes are shipping.
>
> Harvey -- you of all people shouldn't be claiming this. You actually
> have the Robiobotics business plan (though I bet you haven't read it).
Just because I don't agree doesn't mean that I haven't read it. Send me
a business plan for making generic Drextech self-replicating nanites,
and then we'll talk.
> Biotech *is* nanotech.
Just saying "biotech*is* nanotech" is a nice advertising slogan. But
don't let it confuse you into thinking that your biotech successes are
even close to Drextech. Enzymes, DNA, and other biotech techniques are
wonderful and specific. They do not imply that full-scale programmable
self-replicating nanites will be here by Christmas.
>> Some people have trouble seperating current reality with future
>> fantasy.
>
> Cough. A lot of the stuff we talk about on this list is "fantasy"
> to *most* humans alive today.
But you are still missing the difference between future reality and
future fantasy. Your business plan is a future reality in minor
biotech. This should not confuse you into thinking that Drextech
nanites will arrive shortly thereafter. There is a difference between
predicting future events that might occur, and expecting those events to
occur in time to solve a current crisis. Replicating nanites are not
going to meet Saddam, period.
> Making fantasy a reality is a question of how clever you are.
> Who would have thought in 1995 that NASA would be funding space
> elevator studies?
Those studies predict 15 years as their best effort. Do you expect
full-scale Drexler-style nanotech before a space elevator arrives?
Quoting this does not support nano-rapture delusions.
>> Sure, self-replicating nanotech might work some day, but it certainly
>> isn't the solution to our problems in this decade.
>
> It depends -- I notice the Berkely folks who have the bacteria
> that produces hydrogen have started a company to commercialize
> its potential. If the government gets really gets behind this
> it could transform the energy playing field in this decade rather
> than the next decade as they currently speculate.
None of this comes even close to being Drextech.
>> Even if there is a sudden breakthrough in nanotech, we will get
>> better weapons, super-shields, biotech, micro-robots and other
>> warfare devices long before we start mass producing self-replicating
>> houses. This is even too silly for science fiction.
>
> I'm sorry you feel that way Harvey. How about this -- a form
> say 4" x 6" x 10' into which you pour salt water and a seed
> culture, let sit in the sun for a few days, adding as needed
> CaCO3 or Si02 (ground up limestone or silica) and out pops
> a beam (or a big "brick") with the strength of abalone shell.
> Is that so impossible to imagine? Sure you need labor to
> put the bricks together but there is no lack of that in
> the Mid-East.
This sounds a lot more reasonable than self-replicating houses. I would
never confuse one scenario with the other.
> Argue your limitations and they are yours.
> -- Richard Bach
There is a big difference between Dynamic Optimism and Blind Faith.
-- Harvey Newstrom
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:18 MST