From: Chris Hind (chind@juno.com)
Date: Fri Nov 01 1996 - 13:20:25 MST
>Until I get my neutron star computer, I plan to make small worlds.
Hehe
>True. But what I'm looking for is not technology, I want knowledge (and a
>certain amount of wisdom). We cannot predict what is to be learned or
>developed beforehand (otherwise we would know it already), but I bet it
>will be interesting and beautiful!
Agreed!
>(Using an atomic scale monitor is hi-fi overkill, you get a resolution
>smaller than the wavelength of visible light)
You'd never see the jaggies again! :) Hey try touching the text on the
moniter!
>First, I would like to point out the work that has been done with
>custom-designed proteins and artificial enzymes; thats what nanotech is
>about, and the area shows great promise (and uses genengineering to get
>there too). I read about (Science News a few years back) a change in a
>bacterial protein that made it create small (20 atoms) crystals of
>uranium.
WOW! I never heard of that!
>Secondly, I would like to point out that there is a qualitative difference
>between the gears, wires and enzymes and the gene: we have reasonable
>control over the former, but we cannot use the genes to do very complex
>things. The cell is a nightmare of tangled interactions, where proteins
>switch on and off genes producing other proteins that are marked by
>enzymes becoming active making the cell do one thing and then switching on
>another switch making the cell produce morphogens that influence the
>neighbors to change their behavior... we can control a few genes we know
>have rather direct effects (like eye color and trombine production), but
>making cells differentiate and grow into something we want that isn't
>already coded somewhere is extremely nontrivial (i.e. nearly impossible)
>at present. We can make crippled fruit flies, but not a fruit fly that
>likes meat or have butterfly wings.
Does this mean that today I can go get some gene therapy to make by brown
eyes blue? Also, why not use multiple engineered bacterium to put together
the first nanite for us?
>The geep is more interesting, but wasn't it just a chimerical being (cells
>of two types)? Anyway, it is just a combination and its creators didn't
>have any special new properties in mind when it was created - it would be
>something completely different to make (say) a goat with feathers.
Know anywhere I can find pics of the geep?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:49 MST