From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Fri Aug 27 1999 - 20:30:48 MDT
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Kathryn Aegis wrote:
> Clint O'Dell writes:
> I have described nanotechnology and the future of it as described in Eric
> >Drexler's book "Engines of Creation" and most are scared to death of it!
> >One young women I spoke with last week knew that it is just around the
> >corner just from my description of a working concept, and stated she doesn't
> >want to be here when it happens. She knows however it will happen within
> >her life time. I'm afraid many people like her and other people I've
> >mentioned it to will protest.
> >
> >Can anyone give me some ideas on how to counter this fear?
I'm always fond of this observation (from Nanomedicine 8.5.1 Cytometrics):
The human body contains:
~28.5 trillion red blood cells
~ 1.4 trillion platelets
~ 0.77 trillion white cells/lymphocytes
~ 3.4 trillion tissue cells (liver, brain, etc.)
~40 trillion bacterial cells (mostly in the colon)
So you have ~ 40 trillion self-replicating nanomachines (a.k.a.
bacteria) in your body. In fact we couldn't live without them.
What is fascinating to me is that since RBC's have no genetic
program, foreign genetic programs in your body outnumber your
genetic programs at least 10:1!
There are interesting ideas beginning to circulate in the
immunology community that various "modern" afflictions
(asthma, allergies, autoimmune diseases) may be the result
of our "hygenic" environment relative to that of evolutionary
times. Our lack of exposure to mycobacteria in the water
supply or parasites in our food may be creating an imbalance
between the cell-mediated and antibody-mediated [TH1/TH2] "arms"
of the immune system. In one case a physician has even gone
so far as to infect his patients with relatively harmless
parasitic worms.
So, now you propose to your disbelieving friend -- "Given the
problem with our hygenic environment and some of the ailments
it causes, what would you prefer -- to be infected with with
more worms or other parasites which have programs that may evolve
into something more dangerous (because after all, we represent
"food" to many of these organisms, and genetic programs *can*
mutate), or would you prefer to have nice little nanobots
that were designed and carefully reviewed and approved by
review boards injected into your body to "manage" these
conditions?" [It should be noted that the conditions may
end up beng managed by various vaccines or very specific drugs
once the interactions are understood, so "nanobots" are not
a strictly necessary solution for these situations (unlike
some others where no vaccine/drug equivalent could exist).]
In general reading Nanomedicine will provide you with a whole
set of things that you could use as lures into nanotechnology.
[Do you want a body that can resist the accidental damage caused
by snipers in drive by shootings? Do you want to be able to
survive heart failure? etc. etc.]
> Some of its
> ramifications are quite 'scary', in that they compel you to move out of a
> comfortable structure of thought into something untested and open-ended.
Reality bites! :-)
> That is one of the reasons it might be good to present general
> transhumanist ideas first, to provide a basis of reference,
> then get into nanotech.
I would start by presenting them with the idea of growing a
Bill Gates mansion first. Most people are going to say
"whats in it for me". If you tell them that they can
remain a human living the lifestyle of a billionaire and
never have to work another day first, then you can begin
to get into "life-extension", then perhaps the transhumanist
and uploading ideas. But I would suggest a big time delay
while the "grok" the ideas what nanotech gives them before
you deal with the upsets caused by the concept of evolving
oneself or eliminating the human race (which is what must
come to mind when you say "transhumanism").
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:55 MST